Search of Some Type Delivers For-Fee Content
January 30, 2009
The story Dutch Treat: Pay for Some Content, Pirate the Rest here reveals that publicly accessible search engines work pretty well for the Dutch. The author, Jart Armin, set out to report on the “piracy” rate in the Netherlands. The figure in his article was couched this way:
The Institute for Information Law in the Netherlands reports that the average downloader buys more DVDs, music, and games than people who never download. Illegal downloaders represent 45 percent of consumers who purchase content legally, the institute recently reported. The Institute estimates some 4.7 million Dutch Internet users 15 years and older downloaded hacked and pirated DVDs, games, and music in the last 12 months.
I interpreted the data differently. It’s obvious that the finding systems used by almost half of the Dutch deliver content that is protected by copyright or for sale. Search systems are obviously making it easy for about half of the Dutch Web users to find and obtain these materials. What’s the fix? Legislate Google (the new Microsoft)? Crack down on Ixquick.com (a metasearch engine I like)? Maybe the Dutch should take more stringent steps? Prison for some? Public service for others? Big fines? Filtering? A digital dyke instead of earth and stone dykes?
My hunch is that the demographic shift of which I have written will undermine the efforts to prevent “piracy”. “Kids,” as my boos at the root beer stand where I worked used to say. “Darn, kids.” Who are some of the piracy perpetrators? Some are the children of the Dutch outfits Wolters Kluwer and Elsevier. Others are kids of government employees. Some are student who will grow up to be executives in the Dutch government. At least we know that 45 percent of the Dutch Web users can find content. Encouraging? Discouraging? Ask the parents, I suppose.
Stephen Arnold, January 30, 2009
Mysteries of Online 2: Business Process Logic
January 30, 2009
I have been jotting notes to myself as I put the finishing touches on Google: The Digital Gutenberg, my forthcoming monograph about Google and integrated information manufacturing system. One of the notecards, which I am converting to this narrative Web log reminder, had the phrase “business processes built on faulty logic” circled in red.
I don’t know where or who used this phrase, but I found it suggestive this cold morning. The plunging temperatures have frozen the acid runoff stream and my pond. This addled goose, therefore, must sit in his nest contemplating the mysteries of online. Too keep my web feet frost bite free, some observations.
Business Processes: Formed by Chance, Trial and Error, and What Clients Demand
I remember an interview I conducted with a guru from Thomson, the French electronics firm, in the late 1970s. I had to jog my memory, but I looked at my 1979 copy of the “Managing Innovation” study, which my boss William P. Sommers sold to an innovation-challenged Fortune 50 company. I was one intellectual ditch digger on that project. The French PhD who answered my questions about innovation said something to the effect: “Who knows. We just do what’s been done around the lab here for years.” Whatever works, I suppose.
Search, content management and business intelligence–all in one modern package. Image source; http://www.pr.gov.br/batebyte/edicoes/2003/bb137/imagens/torto2.gif
Tradition
The notion of tradition and business processes is deeply rooted in most of the organizations with which I am familiar. In the older companies, the methods are captured customized machines like the “Joe Herman machine” to make nails in the Keystone nail mill. Today MBAs use Excel to whip up financial methods. (We know how well that works.) Tangible machine or intangible method, once these constructs are in place, change becomes difficult.
Use What You Got
Using what “you got” is a phrase that I heard in the steel mill when I was 17, and I heard it last week in a meeting with an entrepreneur building a services Web site for professionals. “Use what you got” means the learnings, instincts, and tools available here and now. When creativity flashes, a business method is developed. If the method works even sort of works, the company is good to go.
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
Google Apps Flaws
January 29, 2009
Take a look at The Business of Software’s article “Don’t Ever use Google Apps for Anything Important” here. You will need to judge for yourself if the incidents described are in line with your experience and expectations. The author summarizes how Googlers (more of the world’s smartest people) seem to leave some details at loose ends. The author encountered careless and indifferent behavior. But for me the key point in the write up was:
I tried calling the main office, but their phone tree was clearly set up to avoid letting you talk to anyone.
I hear this “no one will talk to me” often. Google seems to be one of the companies with no interest in talking with the unwashed. I know that Googlers are chatty Kathies on their mobiles. Googlers email incessantly, preferring very short messages. And Googlers will talk to outsiders who have a mystical connection with a college pal or a friend of a friend.
In my research for my Google monographs, Google wizards focus on smart software. The fellow who wrote the Business of Software article could see smart software as no replacement for common courtesy. What’s your experience getting a Googler to talk to you?
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
Mysteries of Online 1: Cannibalization
January 29, 2009
Big news. Visits to newspapers’ Web sites rose in the last few months. You can read read the Associated Press story here. Sorry. I won’t quote from the write up because I don’t need the AP’s dead tree inspired, legal eagles occluding the sun in Harrods Creek. The guts of the AP story is that some dead tree — aka traditional — publishers with Web sites are getting more traffic. More traffic is good, right? More traffic equals more revenue, right? The AP seems blissfully unaware that at the same time click fraud, which is consistently under estimated, is increasing, said TechCrunch here. But there’s a bigger problem with Web centric online services offered by some traditional newspaper publishers.
The good news, bad news dynamic underscores the paradoxical nature of online information. For every upbeat innovation, there may be one or more downbeats. Paraphrasing Jacques Ellul, it takes technology to tame technology. The consequences are more technology and unexpected consequences. One consequence is trouble controlling costs and another is a net shortfall in revenue. The online revenue was supposed to be additive. In fact, the online revenue is lower than forecast and traditional revenues sources continue to slump, often faster with the online service than without it.
That’s the core of the cannibalization issue.
Cannibalism
Cannibalism as I use the term means eating another snail. I am using my first hand knowledge of South Africa’s cannibal snail as my inspiration in this Web log post. The cannibal snail works up an appetite. Looks around for food that is close. If there is nothing tasty, the cannibal snail eats any other cannibal snails even if the other snail is a relatives. Really close relatives.
As applied to online, most people who use this term mean that one product may suck customers, money, and attention from some other product. The cannibal part refers to eating money from one member of the product family to fatten another member.
Here’s how this works. A company publishes a big fat encyclopedia with inclusions (meaty ad inserts). The publisher gets the great idea to break up the big directory into smaller chunks; for example, split out the research firms from the drug distribution companies or maybe the descriptions of the Microsoft products. A price is slapped on these spin outs which can be offered online if the big book is a print only product. I am going to use examples that are about 25 years old because the examples are useful and relevant even in 2009.
A cannibal snail. Newspapers and other print media are slow moving and end up eating their own revenues. Source: http://www.johnrobertmarlow.com/g_africa–cannibal%20snail%20(side).jpg
The cannibalization angle is that most spin out or derived products don’t earn as much money as the daddy product.
Inelasticity: Just Charge a Lot and Forget Spin Outs
Even more surprising, based on my tests with the Pharmaceutical News Index, between 1981 and 1986 is that for certain products, a high price or a low price has little impact on the number of information products sold. I learned you can pump up the price of an information product and some customers will pay for the product regardless of the cost. The surprise came when I left the price unchanged and created child products. Revenue declined. The people who wanted a segment were happy to pay less. The market for the information was not growing. Therefore, I got bitten by one of cannibalism’s fangs. Spinning out child products directly hurt sales of the big daddy product. Cannibalization, in short, left me hungry for revenues.
Aggregation Versus Local News Web Site
A newspaper has a tough time competing with aggregated news outside of a newspaper’s core market. Ric Manning, I, and a number of other Courier Journal professionals created Business Dateline. In the database’s first year of existence, the product generated hefty online revenues and turned a profit, tough to do in the Stone Age of online. The Courier Journal shared that revenue with the 50 or so participating business news organizations. The database did not cannibalize the revenues of any one news partner. We selected only certain stories and packaged them with other stories that had a local angle but addressed a broader business issue; for example, labor management, site selection, marketing tactics, etc. The local angle provided an anchor, but the business message was broader. Local news Web sites don’t blend big picture and microscopic view.
Google Versus Big ISPs: A Battle Brewing
January 29, 2009
“Google Begins Effort to Find Internet Blockers”, a Reuters story here, caught my attention. The GOOG is making servers available so researchers can find chokepoints where “net neutrality” is violated. As a former Bell Labs’s contractor, a Bellcore contractor, and a USWest contractor, I’m not going to jump into this stew. I think that is news item, if accurate, marks a turning point in Googzilla’s trajectory. I am going to stick close to my nest in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky, on this skirmish. The “new” AT&T versus the remnants of the “old” AT&T. Should be interesting.
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
Sagoon: Good Results Search Engine
January 29, 2009
India is jumping on the search engine bullet train. Sagoon.com is up and running in a beta version. Using its custom spider, the engine taps semantic search and natural language processing. Sagoon gets its results from its own index, Yahoo Boss, and other larger search companies. (Google?) Just like Yahoo! and others, Sagoon.com offers news, web, directory, classifieds, etc. The company is also hard at work on a digital advertising system, though right now it’s making use of Google Sponsored Links. A search showed comparable results with Google, though not identical and not near as numerous: Sagoon, 2,118,192; Google, 8,360,000. It’s info boiled down without Google’s bells and whistles. “Sagoon” derives it name from the Sanskrit word “Shakuna”, which means “auspicious or ushering good results”. That’s got to be good luck, right? It will probably need it, the GOOG already has a presence at http://www.google.co.in/. The goslings at Beyond Search have added this system to our watch list. Updates as we get them.
Jessica W. Bratcher, Jan. 29, 2009
Dead Tree Publishers, Dead
January 29, 2009
PaidContent.org ran David Kaplan’s “General Print Mags Are Dead” here. I had to shorten the article title because it was tough for me to figure out the “@”, the “Wolff”, and the “Best Advice”. On re reading the article, an information trade association called SIIA (the 2009 version of the Information Industry Association) sponsored a panel. On that panel various wizards, mavens, and pundits discussed print magazines. One speaker–Michael Wolff, an author–alleged said, “General print is dead.” Tough for me to disagree with that statement. You can read observations made by other traditional media flag carriers. What surprised me is that it has taken until January 2009 to figure this out. I don’t agree with the notion that magazine publishers should stop “letting Google win.” Exactly what is a magazine publisher going to do. When you fire staff writers and squeeze what one pays stringers (which happened to me today), what are these companies going to do about Google? Build their own Googleplex. Sue Google some more. Strong arm advertisers to buy a full page ad in magazine with several dozen pages? Pout? Leap frog Google technically? I bailed out of traditional publishing in the early 1990s when Bill Ziff began selling the Ziff Communications’ properties. Google is the new digital Gutenberg and has been for many years. Waking up to today’s economic reality is a useful step forward, just a decade too late. I am willing to wager $1.00 that the Washington Post does not believe that Google is a new medium. What do you think? Check out Google Channels before responding, however.
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
Yahoo in the Red in the Fourth Quarter
January 29, 2009
The San Jose Mercury News posted a short item whose headline tells the tale: “Yahoo Swings to Loss in 4Q” here. Sales were down. The company lost in October, November, and December 2008 $303 million. The fourth quarter is often one of the stronger for a commercial enterprise. The company faces mounting technology pressures and Yahoo may not be able to control costs for software and systems. Over the years, various Yahoo gurus have communicated to me is quite superior tones that Yahoo was better than some of its competitors. I did not believe it. Maybe now these gurus will look at Google’s performance, Google’s market share, and Yahoo’s own disarray and take action to address the technology weaknesses of Yahoo. Unless the plumbing is fixed, the company is not going to be able to make the type of progress that its stakeholders expect. Plumbing is important in search and online services. Bad plumbing equal uncontrolled technology costs. MBAs don’t believe it. I am not too concerned about MBAs. I am concerned about pundits who emphasize changes Yahoo should make that are cosmetic. Forget the lipstick. Get the infrastructure repaired.
Stephen Arnold, January 29, 2009
AMI Update
January 28, 2009
I was updating my search files in the wake of the SurfRay situation. My original January 18, 2009, post is here. After the post appeared an AMI professional called me last week saying, “We are in business. I will send you information.” That was January 20, 2009. Today (January 28, 2009) the goose was greeted with an ice storm and a request to write a new post about my questioning Web log post about a company in my files under my file name of Ami Software with links to GoAmi, Albert, and Ami Software. You must read my original post here. I tried to call the firm one time January 16, 2009, but the phone went unanswered, an unusual event I recall the AMI UK representative suggesting to me a day after the post appeared. AMI wants me to set the record in line with the company’s current status. Here are the inputs I received this morning (January 28, 2009), almost 10 days after my request for information on January 18, 2009:
Currently your article ranks No 5 in Google under the search AMI Software, I’m not confident about your comments regarding how things get lost in WordPress, particularly as we are all in the advanced information retrieval business. So far I have taken two calls on this, one from an investor and one from a Journalist at Information World Review. Fortunately I know both these people personally and have been able to manage it but can I, as politely as possible, suggest that given the inaccuracy and very negative suggestive innuendo of your piece that it is in nobody’s interest, not yours or ours, for it to be out there at all. If you’ve made a mistake you need to put it right and quickly, I’m trying to work with you to give that opportunity. Steve, I’d really prefer to resolve this and be in a position to meet up on your next trip to the UK for lunch, you may be interested in some of the things our customers are doing with AMI, However if this matter is not dealt with promptly and properly, I will have to make moves next week to publicly counter your comments and distance ourselves from this. Please call me if you have any questions, I assure you that the spirit of things here is always one of amiable co-operation.
The other message I received on January 27, 2009, was: this. The italics show text from my Web write up.
I wanted to update you and correct elements of the profile you have published recently on your Beyond Search site about AMI Software. I am taking the opportunity to write to you privately in the first instance and hope that we can agree an accurate update and move forwards.
From your recent entry:
“I have been updating my files. I was looking for search vendors who had dealings with the UK Ministry of Defence. That organization had some email trouble, and I was curious from which vendor the MoD was licensing software. My files contained a reference to Ami Software, a company based in France when I last looked at the system in 2007.”
If I read it correctly the indication is that the UK Ministry of Defence has been having trouble with their e-mail and, somewhere, AMI may be associated with that. This is ludicrous. I will check but to my knowledge we have never claimed to work specifically with the UK Ministry of Defence. As I’m sure you’ll appreciate each European country has its own Ministry of Defence amongst which we definitely do have very long standing customers, not however the UK Ministry of Defence.
“The release includes “knowledge modelling [sic]”
If the [sic] relates to the phrase “Knowledge Modelling” then this is simply the way an increasing number of our customers refer to the subject. If it is with regards to the spelling “modelling” can I point out that this spelling is in fact perfectly ok? I believe in the US you prefer “modeling”.
“In France the company does business as Albert France SA. In the UK, it is Albert UK. In North America, the company works with Propelion Internet Solutions Inc”
The registered company is GoAlbert SA trading as AMI Software. All commercially activities are conducted under the name AMI Software. The company’s core technology is called the Automatic Meaning Interpreter™ (AMI) and AMI is how our customers refer to us.
“Functions are accessed via htpp services” (http)
“and Mike Alderton as UK sales manager.” I am the General Manager; our Sales Manager is Theresa Farrell. (I’m not someone particularly concerned about titles, but just in terms of accuracy..)
“What’s peculiar is that information about the company seems to have tapered off by October 2008, and I can’t determine if the search and content processing company is still open for business. With the problems at such companies as Lycos and SurfRay on my mind, I am curious. If anyone has information about the status of this company, please, use the comments section of the Web log to post the information”
This statement could harm the company and its investors and I’d like to update you.
Just to summarise in brief….
In 2008 AMI has achieved a record year of revenue growth and new customer signings; in effect in the last year the company has almost doubled in size and is profitable at a better than market average % rate. We have very high levels of customer satisfaction and indeed, if you’d find it useful, I’d be more than pleased to arrange for you to speak directly with our customers.
We are one of the few companies in our sector that is currently recruiting for new hires in Sales and Engineering. In the UK we have recently moved to larger offices and I would be very happy to welcome you here in Cambridge (UK) or Paris or Montpellier at anytime.
I’d like to call you to make sure you’re happy with this update and, if useful, send you some further information about us and our products.
I am a bit fuzzy on the company name. I don’t have nitty gritty detail about the current version’s most recent features. If I get some substantive data, I will post a summary.
If anyone can post an update about the urls and names, let me know. I have added this company to my active watch.
Alas, I have no plans to visit the UK any time soon. News releases and phones numbers that point to a line answered by a human are somewhat useful to me. Fast response to my queries is helpful. The addled goose waddles in a purposeful manner.
You know what I know. Sounds like the firm is doing well. Check out the company’s software offerings.
With search vendors repositioning and shifting to new business models, I will have lots of questions. Now I am curious about Attensity’s open source initiative. That’s my current topic.
Stephen Arnold, January 28, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
.jpg){kind=link}