Google and Media: iBreakfast Synopsis
April 23, 2009
Editor’s Note: I gave a short talk at the iBreakfast meeting on April 23, 2009. The organizer—Alan Brody—asked me to prepare a short write up for the audience. I did not have much time, so I pulled together some text from my new book, Google: The Digital Gutenberg plus some information I had in my files. Here is the rough draft of the write up I provided Mr. Brody. Keep in mind that I will be making changes to this text and may be changing some of the examples and wording. Constructive criticism is invited.
“Google is best known as a Web search vendor and an online advertising system. Google as a publisher is a new concept. How many of you know about the financial problems facing newspapers?
It may surprise you to know that Google offers a number of revenue generating opportunities to publishers. These can be as simple as the AdSense program. A publisher displays Google-provided advertisements on a publisher’s Web site. When a visitor clicks on an ad, the publisher receives a share of the revenue. A rough rule of thumb is that every 250,000 unique visitor clicks per months translates into about $200,000 in revenue. Over the course of a year, the Web site yields as much or more than $2.0 million in revenue to the Web site owner. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Another opportunity is for a partner to organize video content, take responsibility for selling the ads, and using the Google system to make the content findable. Google also handles the delivery of the content and the monetizing. The partner who uses Google as a back office can negotiate revenue splits with Google. This is a relatively new initiative at Google and disclosed in a Google patent document. (US2008/0275763 “Monetization of Digital Content Contributions”.)
But there’s more to Google than AdSense and ways for innovative content providers to make money. Much more.
I want to run through some public facing content services and provide a somewhat different observation platform for you to look at Google and the opportunities it offers those who see a potential pot of gold in Mountain View.
First, Web logs. There are more than 100 million of these “diary” or “blog” publications. Some are commercial grade; for example, TechMeme. Others are ephemera and rarely updated. Google publishes more than 70 Web logs about itself. Google owns Blogger.com. Google operates a blog search service. Google has made it possible to hook blogs into Google’s Web page service Google Sites, which is a commercial grade online publishing system.
Second, Knols. A Knol is a unit of knowledge. More practically, Knol is an encyclopedia. Articles are contributed by people with knowledge about a subject. The Knol publishing system borrows from the JotSpot engine purchased by Google from Joe Kraus, the founder of the old Excite.com service. Knols can hook into other Google services such as YouTube.com and Google’s applications.
Third, Google Books. Books is the focus of considerable controversy. What I want to point out is that if you navigate to the Books site and click on a magazine cover, Google has created a very useful reference service. You can browse the table of contents for a magazine and see the locations on a map when a story identifies a place.
Finally, directories. Google operates a robust directory service. It has a content intake system which makes it easy for a person to create a company listing, add rich media, and generate a coupon. If you are in the Yellow Pages business, the Google Local service seems to be encroaching. In today’s wireless world, Google Local could become the next Yellow Pages 21st century style. Here’s a representative input form. Clean, simple, easy. Are you listed?
The White House has gone Googley as well. Recovery.gov makes use of Google’s search and other technology to some degree. The White House uses Google Apps to accept questions and comments for the president. Google’s communications tools appear to be playing an important role in the Obama White House.
What’s been happening since the Google initial public offering in 2004 has been a systematic build out of functions. The core of Google is search and advertising. But the company has been adding industrial-strength functions at a rapid clip. The pace has put increasing pressure on the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo, not just in search but in mindshare.
The challenge Google represents to newspapers in particular and to traditional media in general is an old story. When Gutenberg “invented” printing (at least in the eyes of my Euro-centric history teachers), scribes were put out of work. New jobs were created but the dislocation for those skilled with hand copying was severe. Then the Industrial Revolution changed cottage industries because economies of scale relegate handwork to specialists who served the luxury market. Another dislocation. Google is a type of large scale disruptor. Google, however, is not the cause of the disruption. Google is the poster child of larger changes made possible by technology, infrastructure, and user demands.
Here’s a representation of how one created a newspaper from the early 17th century to roughly 1993, when the Web gained traction. Notice that there are nine steps. Time, cost, and inefficiency are evident. Now here’s a depiction of the Google Local or the Google Blogger.com service. Two steps. Disruption is inevitable, and it will be painful for those unable to adapt. For some, yesterday’s jobs and income levels are no longer possible. This is a serious problem, but Google did not cause it. Google, as I said in my 2005 monograph The Google Legacy, is a company skilled at applying technology in clever ways. Google doesn’t invent in the Eureka! myth. Google is more like Thomas Edison, an inspired tinkerer, a person who combines ideas until one clicks. That’s the reason for Google’s beta tests and stream of test products and services.
Google applies its technology to work around the inefficiency of humans. When I worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, then at 245 Park Avenue in the old American Brands Building, I spent my days, nights, and weekends preparing reports. Here’s a figure from Google patent document US: 2007/0198481.
Google continues to push products and services into different business sectors. These waves can be disruptive and often the cause of surprising reactions. A good example is the Associated Press’s view that Google is the cause of problems in daily newspapers. The AP overlooks Craigslist.org, questionable management practices, the rising cost of traditional printing and distribution. Google is successful; therefore, Google is the cause. Its technology is the root of the present financial evil at the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Detroit News.
What Google represents is a platform. For those who choose to ignore Google, the risk is similar to that of the people under this rock. If the rock moves, the people will have little time to move to safety.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Google Base Tip
April 23, 2009
Google Base is not widely known among the suits who prowl up and down Madison Avenue. For those who are familiar with Google Base, the system is a portent of Googzilla’s data management capabilities. You can explore the system here. Ryan Frank’s “Optimizing Your Google Base Feeds” here provides some some useful information for those who have discovered that Google Base is a tool for Google employment ads, real estate, and other types of structured information. Mr. Frank wrote:
It is also important to note that Google Base uses the information from Base listings for more than just Google OneBox results. This data may also be displayed in Google Product Search (previously Froogle), organic search results, Google Maps, Google Image Search and more. That adds up to a variety of exposure your site could potentially receive from a single Google Base listing.
Interesting, right? Read the rest of his post for some useful information about this Google service.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Media Brands as Cesspools
April 23, 2009
I found Michael Gray’s “Why Big Brand Media Sites Are The Real Cesspool of the Internet” here a good read. I agree with most of Mr. Gray’s points. The idea is that
not only are big brands just as responsible for the pollution of the internet, but Google is an enabler.
Strong stuff, and it makes clear the paradoxical nature of Google. The company needs the media companies and the media companies need Google. Neither side is in a position to assert “game over”. Mr. Gray made a good point when he wrote:
So how bout it Google are you really prepared to deal with duplicate content like you say you are, or are you like Mr. Schmidt going to keep paying it lip service.
Digital information is rife with paradoxes. Mr. Gray has identified a big one.
Stephen Arnold, April 23, 2009
Personalized Network Searching: Google after People Search
April 22, 2009
The hounds of the Internet are chasing Google’s “Search for Me on Google”. I can’t add to that outpouring of insight about technology that is exciting today but dated by Google time standards. I can, however, direct your attention to US 7,523,096, “Methods and Systems for Personalized Network Searching.” You can download this patent from the USPTO. The document was published on April 21, 2009, and was filed on December 3, 2003. You may want to read the background of the invention and scan the claims. The diagrams are standard Google fare, leaving much to the reader who must bring an understanding of other Google subsystems to the analysis. To put the Search on Me discussion into context, here’s the abstract for the granted patent, now almost six years old:
Systems and methods for personalized network searching are described. A search engine implements a method comprising receiving a search query, determining a personalized result by searching a personalized search object using the search query, determining a general result by searching a general search object using the search query, and providing a search result for the search query based at least in part on the personalized result and the general result. The search engine may utilize ratings or annotations associated with the previously identified uniform resource locator to locate and sort results.
This is an important invention attributed to Stephen Lawrence and Greg Badros. Both have made substantive contributions to Google in the past. You may want to examine the current people search and then check out the dossier invention that I have written about elsewhere. There are some interesting enhancements to the core dossier technology in the future. My assertion is that Google moves slowly. When these “innovations” roll out, some are surprised. The GOOG leaves big footprints in my experience. Where’s Pathfinder when one needs him?
Stephen Arnold, April 22, 2009
Web Log Mash Up: SodaHead and Technorati
April 21, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to this story on MSN Money: “SodaHead Joins Forces with Technorati to Enable Content Exchange between Blogging Powerhouses” here. The word “powerhouse” caught my attention. I zipped over to http://trends.google.com and queried “sodahead, technorati, blogger, and wordpress”. The Google chart told me on April 20, 2009:
The lines along the x axis are SodaHead and Technorati. The gold lines is Google’s Blogger.com and the green line is WordPress. I think these data provide interesting context for this statement that appeared in the MSN story:
SodaHead, a leading opinion community focused on discussing today’s hottest topics, announced a strategic partnership with Technorati, the authority on the blogosphere. The powerful alliance gives SodaHead members direct access to Technorati content embedded in SodaHead’s online community. Additionally, Technorati will feature SodaHead’s topical “Polls of the Day” selected by relevancy to Technorati posts.
My thought is that Technorati may be looking for a way to regain momentum. Polls may do it. What’s clear is that buzz in Web log centric companies seems to be falling into the gravitational pull of Blogger.com and WordPress. I expect more changes for Technorati in the months ahead. The idea of mashing up social information (polls) with blog content is interesting, but will it be enough? I once relied on Technorati for search. Now I find myself looking elsewhere for fast cycle information. More real time content available within Technorati with a supple search system would be a definite lure for me.
Stephen Arnold, April 21, 2009
Passport Canada: Caught with Its Tech in a Time Warp
April 21, 2009
CTV posted an item from “The Canadian Press” called “Online Form Poses Problem for Passport Canada.” You can read the story here. Passport Canada does what its name says—handles documents related to immigration. Another unit of the Canadian government is the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department. The agency put some blank forms on its Web site. The form – PPTC 132 – is useful for getting a passport without a person who can verify the John Smith is “really” John Smith. The CTV.com story said:
Canadians who are overseas and need a passport require the form, which allows them to make their own declaration under oath.
Passport Canada keeps the form under tight control. Foreign Affairs Department put the form under loose control. Excitement ensues.
Some thoughts:
- Coordination within and among government agencies is not too good, not just in Canada, but in most countries. Parkinson’s Law and political budget walls are two good reasons
- Online remains a mystery in the Internet age
- The notion of a form repository is a tricky one. The US initiative that I bumped into years ago seems to be ineffective
- Removing information once it is “out there” is tough.
Are there lessons in this example? Lots. Easy and quick and cheap fixes. Pick two.
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
World Digital Library: More than Google Books and Europeana
April 20, 2009
On April 21, 2009, the World Digital Library becomes officially available. You can access the site here. The objectives of the WDL are:
- Promote international and intercultural understanding
- Expand the volume and variety of cultural content on the Internet
- Provide resources for educators, scholars, and general audiences
- Build capacity in partner institutions to narrow the digital divide within and between countries.
You can run a key word query or narrow by place, time, topic, or type of item.
According to Australia’s The Age here,
Bringing together priceless material, from ancient Chinese or Persian calligraphy to early Latin American photography, it is the world’s third major digital library, after Google Book Search and the EU’s new project, Europeana. Drawing on content from libraries and archives worldwide, it aims to reduce the rich-poor digital divide, expand “non-Western” content on the web, promote better understanding between cultures and provide a global teaching resource.
What is the future of the many virtual library initiatives? What about the neighborhood library? What about federating the catalogs of Google Books, Europeana, and the World Digital Library. I don’t want to run three separate queries. Do you?
Stephen Arnold, April 20, 2009
Google: Not Just Publishing, Think Hollywood
April 19, 2009
The Toronto Globe and Mail’s Matt Hartley did a good job of explaining that Google is more than a disruptive force in traditional publishing. His “Google Unveils Hollywood Ambitions” here makes the cat that has been out of the bag show up on the radar of newspaper readers. He wrote “Web giant poised to bring full length movies and television programs to YouTube.” He added:
Although a limited number of full-length movies and television shows are already available on YouTube, the addition of premium content from major studios will significantly increase the site’s cache in the eyes of marketers, who have already begun to embrace competing sites such as Hulu.com. As well, although there will be no fee for the full-length videos immediately, Mr. Schmidt did not rule out the possibility of introducing a subscription or micro-payment system to YouTube at some point in the future in an effort to increase the site’s revenue.
So the conclusion I drew from this write up was that Google is a distributor of content.
I think that from the Toronto Globe and Mail’s vantage point, that’s what Google is—a throwback to the glory days of the big studios and the distribution systems those studios controlled. Hollywood makes movies. Google makes money on distribution.
Very tidy. Very narrow.
My research suggests that Google has capabilities that go well beyond the traditional Hollywood distribution model. Let me give one example which I describe in detail in my new monograph Google: The Digital Gutenberg. You can read the table of contents here. If you are more comfortable with Google as a search vendor, don’t click the link.
The GOOG has a matchmaking method, which it disclosed in one of the patent documents some folks insist are irrelevant to Google’s real business. I am not so sure. The method allows the Google to make it easy for a person looking for a creative type to locate one. Once found, the two can do a deal to create or deliver the service. Since the system exists within Google, the technology—if it is ever deployed—makes the Google into a producer. My reading of the claims opened my eyes to Googzilla wearing a Sam Goldwyn mask.
Sam Goldwyn about the time of the anti trust matter in the early 20th century
The Google has useful information about YouTube.com uploaders who attract a large following. The Google has useful information about individuals and organizations who create effective Google content. The Google has a great deal of information that creates the potential for disruption in a business that has been unchanged for many years.
Stephen Arnold, April 19, 2009
Google: Book Monopoly Asserted
April 19, 2009
Short honk: After writing my new monograph Google: The Digital Gutenberg here, I don’t have much energy for rehashes of Google’s deal to scan, process, and distribute books. Boing Boing has a good summary of a legal eagle’s opinion that Google has a monopoly in books. Do you think? Read the obvious here.
Stephen Arnold, April 19. 2009
Newspaper Ad Revenues Head South
April 18, 2009
If you are an investor in print publications, navigate away from this short item. If you want a glimpse of the future of the dead tree crowd, read on. The article is irrelevant in my opinion. The headline nails the story: “US Newspaper Ads to Decline 22% in 2009”. You can snag the data here. What’s the impact? Easy. More staff reductions and more newspapers closing. Layoffs generate more professional writers cranking out Web logs. More newspaper closing create opportunities for coming up with news ways to deliver information people want and need. Big opportunities in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, April 18, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
