Google and Publishing: Some Metrics
May 7, 2009
The Guardian reported some metrics about Google and publishing. You will find the summary of a Googler’s speech at a publishing conference here. The article is “Google: We Give Publishers £3.3bn”. Highlights from the news story include:
- A quote attributed to Googler Matt Brittin, “We want to help publishers make money online”
- Google sends a billion clicks to publishers each month
- Google wants to “work with publishers to improve their digital revenues and help close the gap between print and online advertising returns”.
For me, the most interesting comment in the article was this passage:
He [Matt Brittin, Googler] said publishers should look to use technology to help their digital publications move at a greater pace and keep up with consumer demand, but that while it could help, Google could not offer all the necessary solutions.
The challenge that I see is that publishers think about technology in terms of putting color pictures in newspapers and slashing costs. Technology as the term is used by Googlers may a more sophisticated approach.
I don’t think the audience was able to see a path through the swamp. I wonder if any of those Google billions were jingling in the pockets of the attendees?
Stephen Arnold, June 7, 2009
CMS Experts and Vendors May Be Floundering
May 6, 2009
I had a very unsettling conversation with a young man who recently set up his own content management consulting firm. I met him when I arrived to register for the Boye 09 conference in Philadelphia. I won’t reveal his name or his consulting firm. I do want to highlight three comments he made when we spoke yesterday afternoon and offer a comment about the implications for CMS. When I read “There Was Much Noise about the Closure of Tripod, Sites.Google, Geocities”, I realized the changing of the guard was as much about the failure of CMS as about new ways to tame the bull of electronic information, particularly in an organization.
My three questions:
First, the individual said that he had worked for an integration company that had been hit with the financial downturn. The integrator had little choice. Reduce staff or shut its doors forever. The company provided a range of technical and management services to publishing companies wanting to better manage their content. With the rumors of cut backs at some of the US based information consulting companies along with the reduction in force at Capgemini in India I wrote about here, this news was not surprising. It did indicate that technology advisors are not indispensible. Everyone, it seems, is dispensable, sort of like Kleenex. I am not a people person, but even I could sense that the individual with whom I was speaking was shocked at the change in his employer’s fortunes.
The question that raced through my mind this morning was, “Why should people who work for small service firms be surprised when the top brass has to reduce costs quickly?” I find it difficult to escape the economic news. Perhaps those in service companies in technology fields perceive themselves as insulated from the difficulties the auto industry faces, for instance?
Second, the individual told me that he decided to become a consultant and explore new opportunities. I think this is an excellent strategy. My concern this morning arose from my realization that this young person did not have the benefit of doing hard time at one of the blue chip consulting companies. Second and third tier consulting companies use bright people, but if those people don’t learn the basics of building a client base, marketing expertise, and pricing to win jobs while making a profit, the risk of failure goes up. Even those used to the safety of the Bain or Boston Consulting safety net can and do fail when setting off on their own without a logo that people recognize on their business card.
My mind asked this question, “Why type of training or educational experiences are needed to get a bright young person into a consulting business with adequate knowledge to deal with the rigors of this profession?” I attended a Booz, Allen “charm school”, but I was fortunate. I think this young man needs that type of experience.
Third, a young person entering consulting has to have skills that cause people to part with their money. As I thought about this person’s description of his background, I thought it sounded good. After all, most organizations have big content problems.
This morning, however, I realized that the young man was using Harvard MBA speak to explain his expertise. The notion of “best practices”, “project management,” and “strategy” are ones that are quite difficult to deliver in a successful, profitable way to skeptical clients.
Now what’s this have to do with content management?
I think that as information gains more prominence as a strategic asset, CMS systems and consultants are getting into increasingly hot water. A software package that organizes organizational writing is useful, but it is not a system that creates information that is a strategic asset.
Judging from the comments in this sessions, many CMS experts and attendees are trying to keep their heads above water. CMS costs are rising. Information is increasingly difficult to manage. The top guns in an organization want information to pay dividends. CMS is on the firing line with no bullet proof vest or much in the way of ammunition to defend themselves against irate users and cost watching financial officers. Open source solutions like Drupal may be one path to explore, but I think the boundaries between information value and CMS may swamp this sector and some of the leading players.
In short, CMS like enterprise search seems to be a troubled software sector.
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
Patricians, Cesspools and Rubber Boots
May 6, 2009
I became interested in ancient technology by accident. I ignored history, particularly ancient history, in college. Too fuzzy. A few years ago on a tour with some friends we were in a ruin somewhere in Turkey. I looked down and saw an exposed clay pipe. I asked the tour guide what the pipe was, and she replied, “The wealthy citizens had running water.” The ruins dated from the 800 BCE period, and I assumed that the folks who lived used the equivalent of outhouses. I was wrong. Someone had figured out how to make pipes and install indoor plumbing.
There were two classes of residents. Some had indoor plumbing and lived the good life. Others had a less good life. Patricians have used plumbing as one way to distinguish themselves from people like me. My ancestors had to use outdoor plumbing.
The image of the cesspool, then, is one that makes clear that there are two classes of people – an upper class and a lower class. When I read about metaphors invoking cesspools, I think about the class distinctions that are evident in the ruins of ancient cities. Those cities were much like the modern one in which I live. Order and disorder collide, and institutions make an attempt to prevent chaos from dominating simple activities like driving to work or shopping.
I thought about this dividing line when I read Jim Spanfeller’s “What Google Can Do to Make the Web Less of a Cesspool” here. The article makes some interesting points, yet I was troubled by assertion that a commercial enterprise can and should assume responsibility for information. A commercial enterprise has finite resources and, by definition, the need to clean up is likely to be a large job. Information is created by many, which leads to the implicit idea that a larger entity should become the janitor. If not Google, who? Well, one candidate is “the government” or perhaps a group of really smart and good people will will act as the government’s agent. Now we are back to the plumbing in the ancient city. As long as the patricians can keep the mess from their premises, life improves.
Mr. Spanfeller wrote:
At Forbes.com, we have estimated that Google makes roughly $60 million a year directing folks to our site. And by the way, 40 percent of those dollars are derived from the search terms of Forbes, Forbes.com or Forbes Magazine—simple navigation. Seems like a very nice chunk of change for simply being there. In the end, in attempting to “do no evil,” Google has done exactly that. I say this not just as someone running a content site but also as an end user. If this inequity of support continues along these lines, we will see a continuing destruction of our journalistic enterprises—enterprises that are one of the core building blocks of our democracy. Last year, while addressing the magazine publishers and editors of the MPA at the Google Campus, Eric Schmidt suggested that the web was a “cesspool” and that it was up to the major journalistic brands to clean it up. Well Eric, in a great many ways, Google has helped to create that cesspool, and as such I would hope that it can be part of the solution.
The idea that free flowing information can be cleaned up is an interesting one. I don’t think the job will be easy. I don’t think patricians from the dead tree world or from the online world are up to the task. We have a new context in which digital information is not a cause, but a consequence of our present way of existing.
The cesspool arguments are tempests in a chamber pot. Once the information flows outside the boundaries of restricted and tightly controlled channels, the information cannot be put back into those old containers. Get your boots on may be a better way to approach the situation.
Large flows of information, cesspools, and a digital mess are the characteristics of this time and place. The combined efforts of Forbes and Google will have little substantive impact. In fact, neither of these companies and not even the governments of Australia and China can contain the information flows, but these nation states keep trying to shut Pandora’s box.
The patricians want the good old days, but those days are gone. What’s interesting is that the newer modes of communication may be permanently outside the span of control of the Google and, it seems to me, existing mechanisms for control of human behavior. The fix is to abandon computers, electricity, and all things digital.
Mr. Spanfeller’s argument and his plea for Google to do its part are like the scholars’ reading of ancient texts: interesting, maybe intellectually satisfying, but markers of an era lost to history. Rubber boots, on the other hand, are practical, work reasonably well, and put the responsibility in the hands of an individual, not in fantasyland. Perhaps I will tweet that boot idea?
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
Scholarly Research Shocker
May 5, 2009
Short honk: Don’t read this post if you are offended by strong language. The authors are answering the question “What Is The Best Search Engine For Scientific Journals?” The winner is Google Scholar. The loser. Ebsco. In between some names that are familiar. In my opinion the days of the commercial database are likely with a whimper or a bang.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Ebook Wariness
May 5, 2009
Short honk: Technews World ran an interesting article about books that are not available in digital form. You can find “The E-Book Library’s Conspicuously Absent Volumes” here. Hillel Italie included a number of examples of authors, publishers, and estates wary of jumping into the digital zeros and ones.
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Big Screen Kindle: Back Pack Snap and Crack
May 4, 2009
I have been involved in electronic books for a number of years. The form factors pose several challenges:
First, there is the issue of screen contrast. Although contrast is improving, white on black is more like light gray on dark gray. Great for young eyes. Not so hot for those in their mid 60s.
Second, there is the issue of user interface. The early devices were clunky. Today’s devices are – well – still clunky. But on a long trip, would I tote a bag of dead tree books or a Kindle? I go for the Kindle One because I like the extra capacity the secure digital storage card affords. Still early days on form factors.
Third, durability. In the late 1990s, I interacted with a development shop with a flexible screen. Very interesting. But with repeated flexing, there was some image degradation. Today’s devices require careful handling. My early Sony reader got a screen crack just passing it around. Sony’s support was impossible, so I disassembled the gizmo, kept the screws, and tossed the device.
I am on my second or third Kindle. These devices are not sufficiently study to deal amicably with airport security checks. The “holder” a sort of faux book cover seems to eject the device when a TSA inspector takes a closer look. Am I the only person to travel with one of these devices? TSA is surprised routinely by my having a device which seems to have sharp edges.
As a result, I am curious about a large format Kindle. I agree with MG Siegler in TechCrunch. The article “The Big Screen Kindle Hail Mary to Newspapers Will Fall Incomplete” here. News papers may look at the Kindle as a way to save their business. I think most of the traditional publishing companies will have to pull a rabbit from a hat.
The most interesting comment in my opinion was MG Siegler’s observation about textbooks:
In fact, I’d argue that it’s the much less sexy textbook business that could be the real key to this big Kindle. Textbooks are an absolute rip-off in print form, with many costing over $100 a book. If Amazon was able to offer textbooks on this large Kindle at a discount the same way it offers a discount on regular books on the regular Kindle, that would be worth the price of admission for just about every college student in the country right there. And a Kindle textbook reader makes sense because it would make bookmarking, taking notes and syncing all of those things up to the cloud, a snap.
I think this is a valid point. With regard to student use, I think the durability will be the key. Textbook publishers are as fragile – maybe more fragile – than newspaper publishers. If a student snags a big Kindle with an expensive textbook, how long will the Kindle last in a back pack? My instinct is that the device will have to stand up to harsh treatment. Smash a couple a semester and the student may have to take out another student loan.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Google News in Transition
May 4, 2009
There are some gossip swirls roiling the leaves around the goose pond this afternoon (April 30, 2009). I read in The Wrap here the headline and story “Eric Schmidt on Google’s New Plan for the News”. I scanned the article, and I learned that at a Hollywood party Eric Schmidt was the “most popular guy in the room”. Heady stuff for Sun Microsystems’ former chief technology officer. Dr. Schmidt was popular at Sun for his technical acumen. I am not sure if technical acumen or power is the catnip for the Hollywood glitterati.
The news, according to The Wrap, is that Mr. Schmidt is “aware of the newsprint meltdown.” Here is what The Wrap said:
But Google does have plans for a solution. In about six months, the company will roll out a system that will bring high-quality news content to users without them actively looking for it. Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google’s page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering – based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues – to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they’re looking for it. And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content. The first two news organizations to get this treatment, Schmidt said, will be the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I find this quite interesting, if it is indeed true. My research suggested that the Google was going to allow partners to use the Google platform to generate revenue. You can see where I obtained this idea by reading US2008/0275763.
Maybe the GOOG will do several things simultaneous a method with which the company is quite familiar.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
Encarta: The Price Curve of Death
May 4, 2009
I found Randall Stross’s “Encyclopedic Knowledge, Then vs. Now” in the New York Times here interesting. The article provides a useful supplement to my comments about online pricing in my “Mysteries of Online” series here. What struck me as I read the essay was the need for what I call “the curve of death”. The idea is that researchers probe the “market”, determine a price range, and then over the life of the product adjust the prices to covert the idea into a gusher of cash. As Mr. Stross pointed out, Encarta was unable to make headway, first, against the $129 Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia and, second, against the Wikipedia. The numbers he provided, when converted to a simple line chart, provide a textbook example of what I call the “curve of death”. In today’s online marketplace, one “can’t make up the investment on volume when the price is forced ever lower.” Here’s what the curve looked like when I toyed with Mr. Stross’s data:
Once the curve starts to nosedive, in this particular instance, Microsoft killed the product a quarter century after Encarta started through its lifecycle. What I concluded was that once a product fails to generate traction, further price cuts do not mean the product will become successful. I recall a lecture by an ivory tower type who explained economies of scale and the wisdom of cutting prices as the manufacturer moved “up the experience curve”. Didn’t seem to work for Encarta. My experience suggests that the ongoing cost of information products is a killer. Automation offers one way out of the box. Shifting production to volunteers may be another. The traditional approach and the traditional wisdom, in the case of Encarta, did not work even with the marketing muscle of Microsoft behind the product. Persistence is often an excellent characteristic. I wonder if the curve suggested an earlier exit from the Encarta business?
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Merck Elsevier Confused about Information
May 3, 2009
At a Derby party yesterday, a number of still working journalists asked me about the “integrity” of a Web log. The idea was that working for a big publishing company conferred some seal of approval. There are Web log writers who purport to bring a standard of excellence to Web logs. My view is that any information regardless of publisher or medium has to be viewed with a “trust but verify” mind set. Sure. That requires work on the part of the reader, but in today’s world, trickery is not just easy, an indifferent reader makes discovery unlikely. At the party, I explained that the Web log you are reading is a marketing effort. I don’t charge. I have a policy of recycling information that is either old or not in my for fee work. I write columns for money and those get more of my attention than a Web log post commenting about a wacky explanation abut enterprise search by a business intelligence professional or a SharePoint certified professional.
What I lacked yesterday was a recent, concrete example of big companies getting cute with information. I now have a good example. I don’t know if it is true, and I don’t have an easy way to determine if Merck and Elsevier were confused or dabbling in disinformation. You can read the item and draw your own conclusion.
The story “Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal” in the Bioethics.net Web log here reported:
The Scientist has reported that, yes, it’s true, Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a Web site, according to The Scientist. What’s wrong with this is so obvious it doesn’t have to be argued for.
A big publishing company took money from a big drug company. Now what about the integrity of a Web log? My thought it that one cannot trust information from any source. Reader beware.
Stephen Arnold, May 5, 2009
Google and Book Scanning: 2004 Invention Discovered
May 3, 2009
Short honk: I enjoyed the “revelation” that National Public Radio (a “public” broadcasting entity that runs ads) discovered the secret of Google’s book scanning “machine” via an article in another publication. You can read the story here. The article points out that Google has a patent for this invention. There’s an image from the patent that shows one of Google’s helpful diagrams. A couple of points that merit a comment: First, the patent application was filed in September 2004. Assume that the Googlers Messrs. Lefevere and Saric started work on the project nine to 12 months before the application was filed. Google’s “machine” has been grinding away for six, maybe seven years. Hardly news unless one was ignoring the significant technical challenges Google had to overcome to make it possible for a small crew and part time workers to process documents in a wide range of form factors. Second, the reference patent US7508978 “Detection of Grooves in Scanned Images” is one component of a mosaic of inventions germane to the book scanning project. In short, there’s more to the Google scanning “machine” than one invention designed to correct for curvature of the source. You can explore a subset of Google’s patent documents here. Note that this set covers only 1998 to December 31, 2008, and is not a replacement for searching the USPTO collection.
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
