Google’s Radio Ad Failure
February 15, 2009
If you are interested in Google’s failures, you will want to take a quick look at “BIA/Kelsey Commentary: Fratrik on Google’s Departure from Radio.” The is a “free” consultant write up, so keep that in mind where you read the article here. The write up provides a mini analysis of how Google fumbled the ball and withdrew like Jackie Smith, former Dallas Cowboys’ received, famous for dropping a pass that would have won the big one. Google is a digital Jackie Smith when it comes to radio advertising. The most interesting comment in the write up was:
“Radio operators were never comfortable getting in bed with Google,” he said. “Among other things, the Google model asked for information that broadcasters thought was confidential. It also required the purchase of equipment. I heard the pitch when it was first launched, and I couldn’t see how this would be successful.” Why didn’t Google’s entry into the radio advertising market work out? “The initial read three years ago was somewhat positive – they were going to use their core strengths in Internet scalability and transactional efficiencies to attract buyers and sell inventory that local stations were unable to sell. But, even with their model and their reach to many more potential advertisers, they could not sell enough to make it a profitable business line.”
The notion of “comfort” is important. When Googzilla is not comfortable with its potential customers’ comfort with Googzilla, Googzilla says, “Adios.” Kelsey Group write up points out that some broadcasters are embracing digital ad technologies. That’s encouraging to some but not me.
Here’s why.
Traditional broadcasting companies are in the same boat as dead tree publishers. The demographics and the costs of their business model are like a current rushing down the Green River. If you go with the flow, you get carried along. If you try to paddle against the current, you fail, walk, or dock. Googzilla did not just exist; Googzilla wrote off an entire business sector as unable to “get it.” Trouble looms for traditional broadcasters I fear. The Sirius XM financial challenge is a harbinger. Kelsey Group’s article omitted this nuance which surprised me.
Stephen Arnold, February 15, 2009
Google Panoramio
February 13, 2009
I included a description of Panoramio in my Google briefings for some clients in 2008. No one in those sessions had ever heard of the service. You can check it out by navigating to www.panoramio.com. The company bought the company which had integrated photography with Google Earth. The GOOG plopped most of the Panoramio functionality into the Googleplex (my term for Google’s infrastructure). The Panoramio blog announcement is here. Panoramio has been discovered by news hounds in the datasphere. Search Engine Roundtable learned that Panoramio users can post questionable content via the service. The main story is here. The images may offend some, and we addled geese quickly pecked elsewhere. The goslings snorted and checked out Panoramio more thoroughly. Several of the more geeky goslings noted that stalkers and others of questionable repute might find this service “interesting”. If more info flaps across our field of vision, we will pass the links along.
Stephen Arnold, February 13, 2009
blinkx Has a New Home Page — Stop the Presses
February 6, 2009
Blinkx, http://www.blinkx.com, self-touted as the world’s largest video search engine, released a news alert that it has “re-launched” its home page with a couple “new” options: an inform me button that sends you news (this concept isn’t new) and an entertain me button that sends entertaining videos (that’s not a new idea either). They’re also promoting searching for videos visually (what a concept) and using speech tags in video (it’s been done). If companies like blinkx want to be in the spotlight, somewhat more steroid charged news might calm the Beyond Search goslings.
Jessica W. Bratcher, February 6, 2009
FindAnyFilm Search Engine
January 30, 2009
The UK Film Council has launched a search engine that focuses specifically on film. FindAnyFilm.com is free and has 30,000+ entries. It serves data, descriptions, viewing options, and where to buy links with the goals of both education and stopping film piracy. A statement from the council in UK Launches “Google for Films” here called FindAnyFilm.com “a Google for films.”
Was Google paying attention? Beyond Search opines that a competitive service would squeeze FindAnyFilm’s customers. Google does already offer a movie showtimes function and a Google Directory here, but nothing near as specific as FindAnyFilm.com. The only thing Google would have to do is code up the proper search and build an interface page – the kinds of things Google does at breakfast. Knowing Google’s propensity to squeeze little geese, this FindAnyFilm service may find modest traffic. The draw that may hold Google off is the small audience – the number of users in the UK is small compared to the rest of the world; FindAnyFilm definitely targets that market and lists movie prices in pounds, which further narrows its reach.
Jessica Bratcher, January 30, 2009
Video Sites and Search
January 27, 2009
ZDNet posts interesting statistical data, a bit like the old Predicasts’ File 16 data on Dialog minus the type charges. On January 23, 2009, Alex Moskalyuk summarized the comScore video site traffic data. You can view his original post here. I took a look at the data and did some quick fiddling around. I was interested in how much additional traffic one of the video sites listed would have to generate to pull even with YouTube.com in the month reported in the table. Here’s my rework:
| Property | Viewers, 000 | Share | Traffic Needed |
| Total Internet | 146,064 | 100.00% | — |
| Google Sites | 97,928 | 67.045% | — |
| Fox Interactive Media | 58,115 | 39.787% | 39,813 |
| Yahoo! Sites | 39,956 | 27.355% | 57,972 |
| Microsoft Sites | 34,979 | 23.948% | 62,949 |
| Viacom Digital | 27,109 | 18.560% | 70,819 |
| Hulu | 22,456 | 15.374% | 75,472 |
| AOL LLC | 22,442 | 15.364% | 75,486 |
| Turner Network | 20,735 | 14.196% | 77,193 |
| Disney Online | 13,028 | 8.919% | 84,900 |
| Time Warner – Excl. AOL | 12,564 | 8.602% | 85,364 |
| Source: comScore | |||
What’s interesting is that Hulu.com, to pick one video site that gets a lot of hype as a YouTube.com competitor needs to attract 75,486,000 more visitors to match YouTube.com’s traffic. What surprised me what the strong showing of Fox Interactive Media. Fox needs only 39,813,000 more visitors to reach parity with YouTube.com. I don’t watch video but it seems that Google’s 67 percent market share in video may not be as solid as its 70 percent share in Web search. The gap in video is narrower at least for Fox.
Stephen Arnold, January 27, 2009
Google and Video Playing Technology
January 26, 2009
I don’t pay much attention to online video. The trophy generation and the short attention span types do. Google tried its hand at its own video player and then shifted to Flash. If you care about video, you may want to check out Google’s invention disclosed in US20090024923. The abstract for this said:
Embedded Video Player Abstract A system, method and various user interfaces provide an embedded web-based video player for navigating video playlists and playing video content. A Web site publisher can create and store a video player with customized parameters (e.g., player type, appearance, advertising options, etc.) and can associate the player with a playlist of selected videos. The stored video player is associated with a player ID in a player database and can be embedded in a Web site using an embed code referencing the player ID. A user interface for the embedded player provides controls for controlling video playback and for controlling the selection of a video from the playlist.
Why is Google noodling a player? Two reasons. Why help out Adobe? Get more control over the experience in the browser or composite application. Google wants control to have some response to this type of situation. The video push is a real deal. Google has a cluster of video inventions, which signals to me an initiative.
Stephen Arnold, January 26, 2009
Video Search: No Google Killers in Sight
January 25, 2009
ZDNet reproduced a snippet of the comScore data about video searches. You can see the original ZDNet post here. The comScore Web site is here where you can purchase the full data set.
| Property | Viewers, 000 | Prcnt | Google Delta |
| Total Internet | 146,064 | ||
| Google Sites | 97,928 | 67.045% | — |
| Fox Interactive Media | 58,115 | 39.787% | 39,813 |
| Yahoo! Sites | 39,956 | 27.355% | 57,972 |
| Microsoft Sites | 34,979 | 23.948% | 62,949 |
| Viacom Digital | 27,109 | 18.560% | 70,819 |
| Hulu | 22,456 | 15.374% | 75,472 |
| AOL LLC | 22,442 | 15.364% | 75,486 |
| Turner Network | 20,735 | 14.196% | 77,193 |
| Disney Online | 13,028 | 8.919% | 84,900 |
| Time Warner – Excl. AOL | 12,564 | 8.602% | 85,364 |
What I did was calculate what percent of the total Internet video search traffic each service had in December 2008. Google accounted for about 68 percent of the traffic. The Hulu.com service which someone told me was a Google killer this week has, if my calculations and the comScore data are accurate, about 16 percent of the video search traffic. Next I calculated what I call the Google delta; that is, how much traffic a site must generate to draw even with Google. Hulu.com, for example, needs to generate an additional 75 million queries.
So what? Added to Google’s Web search share, I don’t think any of these services in the short term is poised to blast past the GOOG.
Stephen Arnold, January 25, 2009
Google Dethroned: Okay, Right after the Next Financial Report
January 23, 2009
Sarah Lacy who has a sketch of a stylish woman as a logo wrote “Google Dethroned?” here. Notice that the Beyond Search Web log has an image of a pest-infested goose as a logo. You can probably figure out that Beyond Search’s analyses are somewhat different from Sarah Lacy’s.
Before I read her interesting article, I looked at the news about Google’s financial results here. The CNNMoney.com headline is more explicit here: “Google Sales Jump 18%”. I am no Ivy League sophisticate. I swim in mine run off in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, for goodness sakes. The addled goose figured out that Google cranked over $5 billion in revenue and operating income of about 33 percent. As I read this summary, I thought about the GOOG’s having somewhere between 70 and 75 percent share of the Web search market. I also keep hearing about Google. There is a certain media fascination with what is generally perceived as a Web search and advertising company. That is a false impression in my opinion. Quack.
Ms. Lacy’s view, if I understand her as she intended, Google has been on top and is now in the process of falling to the rocks below the top of the hill. She identifies some signs of Google losing its Web supremacy. I can’t reproduce her list without spoiling your fun. I will mention one example: Hulu. The idea is that YouTube.com is facing tough competition from Hulu. Hulu’s video search is better. For me, the most interesting comment in her write up was:
The last three times I’ve looked for a video clip, I’ve spent half an hour scouring Google and YouTube only to get a flood of inaccurate results. Each time, I’ve tried Hulu as a last result, and found the clips within minutes. Hulu has better fields, parameters and user interface for searching videos than Google, which still appears to search for video the way it would for text. Hulu won its own game (content) and shockingly in video beat Google at its own game (search).
I have been involved in search for a long time. Could Ms. Lacy’s failure be related to her query itself? My hunch is that formulating the appropriate query may have more to do with finding what’s needed than the search system. I find the vendors’ video search systems less useful their than text search systems. However, when I watch the Beyond Search goslings looking for video using an Apple TV and a Mac Mini, I don’t recall any problems in findability for young goslings. I think my Beyond Search goslings have video search whipped. Maybe it’s age? Maybe it’s search query formulation? Maybe it’s what the user is seeking. Monday I asked about Johnny Cash and within seconds I was asked, “Do you want Hurt? Something from his days on the road with Elvis?” I made a chance comment and the YouTube system reacted faster than my addled goose brain. The results were spot on.
I do want to state that I don’t think any company can remain “on top” forever. Check out GM. There’s a good example of how long a former giant can exist even though it is irrelevant to me.
I think the flaw in Ms. Lacy’s and her informant’s argument is the assumption that Google is a Web company.
Wrongo. (That’s goose talk for really off base.)
Google has more in common with the pre break up AT&T than Netscape. Mavens who keep thinking of Google as a search and advertising outfit are in for a really big surprise. You can get more color on this surprise in my forthcoming Google: The Digital Gutenberg (Infonortics, Spring 2009). In the meantime, take arguments like those articulated in “Google Dethroned” as received wisdom that may not be 100 percent in line with reality.
Stephen Arnold, January 23, 2009
YouTube: Squeezing More Money
January 21, 2009
Peter Kafka’s “Google Tries Squeezing More Money Out of YouTube” here is a good example of looking at YouTube.com through glasses provided by Google. The story explains that Google wants to “get serious” and make YouTube.com more than a money pit. The story runs down the various Google actions and points out that a “$99 box set” offer that is an ad variant “looks like a pretty good deal, actually”. You get some links and then the paragraph that I found most interesting:
You can argue that the company needs to do that because its core business is slowing or because the economy is pummeling the company just as it is everyone else. But expect to see many more tweaks like this in the future: Perhaps we’ll hear more about them tomorrow afternoon, when the company announces its fourth-quarter results.
There’s only one thing missing in this story. A run down of the monetization options that Google has been working on for more than a year. What are these options? Well, the money making tricks for YouTube.com and some other Google services are somewhat more far reaching than those referenced in this write up. To get the details, you can plough through Google’s open source documents or you can snag a copy of my new Google study in a couple of months.
YouTube.com is no money pit if some of Google’s revenue generating methods kick in before the economy slumps even more than the mighty Google can withstand.
Stephen Arnold, January 21, 2009
Sinequa: Embedded Search Deal with SGT
January 14, 2009
Sinequa, the French information access company, signed a deal with SGT to embed Sinequa’s search system into VEDA. According to the news story in IT Backbones Computing News here:
SGT’s VEDA software suite offers workflow automation and media content management. The VEDA Search & Retrieve function supports creation of new content and allows users to find and reuse existing content. Users can retrieve media in natural language, using their own words and expressions. VEDA Search & Retrieve leverages Sinequa’s patented technology that combines semantic, linguistic, statistic and structured analyses, to provide the most relevant answers and to automatically generate related concepts including people, geographic locations, and related ideas.
The enterprise search sector is a good news and bad news generator. On one hand, some companies are reporting significant new business. Coveo, for example, alerted me to its strong December 2008. Others, like Surf Ray, appear to be facing some managerial and financial challenges. Sinequa appears to looking for opportunities that create revenues from embedded software deals.
Stephen Arnold, January 14, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
