Is Demand Media the Facebook of Content?
June 6, 2010
Update: 10 48 am. Link error fixed. The goose screws up again.
Newspapers have not flowed into market for fresh content. The company that has emerged as the Facebook of content may be Demand Media. Most Web surfers don’t know good content from bad content. Google’s smart software also has a tough time figuring out if a comment from an addled goose like me or a highly paid azure chip consultant is “better.” Hey, those former journalists and PR people are much better than a water fowl. At least that’s what the 20 somethings tell me.
The reality of Demand Media is that the company can sell content and generate traffic. Have you looked at Cracked.com or eHow.com today? To get some insight into the Demand Media juggernaut, you may want to read the Ad Age story “Bradford: Demand Media Will Take Out AOL First, Yahoo Later.” If Ms Bradford makes good on her assertion, AOL’s Googler-in-charge may want to ink that Microsoft deal as quickly as possible and become a venture capitalist. AOL is a weak sister in the ring with Demand Media.
For this addled goose, the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Every marketer will tell you they do not have enough content. We are in phase one of “let’s tell our story.” We will package it and make it easy to sell and easy to buy for advertisers. How do we provide content and integrate it with them? We will provide content for brands. Tide, for example. We’ve integrated their point of view into our experience. We’ve had a Tide stain expert sponsor a section. We want to be the biggest, best destination for brands. Our goal ultimately is, No. 1, be bigger than AOL, and No. 2 to be bigger than Yahoo.
Net net: trouble brewing in content land. Here are the war zones:
- Demand is emerging as the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature on steroids. Not only is it providing content, Demand has figured out how to let others index and expose the content. The Readers’ Guide was a great idea decades ago. Demand has leapfrogged the finding and accessing of popular content. Big implications has this action.
- The people with Web sites are not able to sustain content streams. Sure, anyone can do a blog for a short period of time. But blogs are black holes for content. New info must be produced continuously. Demand is in the custom content business and may emerge as the info juggernaut that newspapers and traditional news services failed to become.
- The Demand Media ecosystem is morphing. The company has technology, big name customers, writers, and digital information. These can be mixed in interesting ways. The competitors may not be able to match what Demand can do with its as-is assets.
Who can match Demand Media? AOL? Long shot. Yahoo? Long shot. Established publishing company? Longer shot. Established commercial database company like LexisNexis? Longest shot of all. Need reasons? Alas, not for free, gentle reader, not for free.
Stephen E Arnold, June 7, 2010
Freebie, of course
Bing Cannot Buy Love
June 6, 2010
Short honk: The two models that cycle through the world of online are paying to access content and paying people to use a service to access content. Neither approach is fool proof. Every digital Kondratieff cycle spits out examples. The most recent pay to use us our service approach was the Microsoft Bing effort. It did not work and you can read Microsoft’s explanation in “A Farewell to Bing Cashback.” Up next: pay to access news. Winner or loser? Mr. Kondratieff, Mr. Kondratieff, any opinions?
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2010
Freebie, a non cyclical phenomenon
Search in Big Communication Trouble
June 6, 2010
We developed a test platform which is a demo. The idea was to create a publicly accessible service that showed off a hybrid blog and static Web site. We pumped in content for 90 days, slapped on Google AdSense, and figured out how to drop in video. We noticed that the demo site’s pay per click was twice that of the Beyond Search blog. Beyond Search is not a demo; it is a marketing blog updated each day. We use it to flog our services and capture some ideas that are too modest for one of our monographs for for fee columns in Information Today, KMWorld, Information World Review, or the Smart Business Network’s dozen regional business magazines. I am coming to believe that search is difficult to talk about, describe, and research because of what I call “communication trouble.”
No one defines terms about search and content processing. Lots of chatter. No one knows what the heck the person is trying to explain. Discussions of search swing from glittering generalities to mind-numbing explanations of mathematical recipes. In the middle, a maelstrom of confusion. The English language is having a tough time supporting the scaffolding of conversation about finding and using digital information. We need more than a glitzy interface, a laundry list of results, or a single answer generated without context from a mobile device.
What’s up?
Easy. Search – specifically enterprise search – is in big trouble. Here’s a Google Trends chart showing the Google search traffic for the phrase “enterprise search” and “business intelligence”. Don’t see the blue line? There isn’t one. The traffic for enterprise search is modest. If you want to sell something, you may want to use the phrase “business intelligence.”
Now look at “business intelligence” compared to the specialist term “taxonomy”. Wow. Taxonomy is a hot concept. Maybe one of the real experts in taxonomies, controlled term lists, and ontologies will create a Web log to cover this subject. Most of the information I have seen about taxonomies is a bit like a wind up toy. There’s interest but the expertise is certainly not reflected in the information floating around the Web.
Google Will Publish Results of Its Google Data Audit
June 6, 2010
Short honk: I read “Google to Publish Results of Wi Fi Data Audit”. Not to be a really silly goose, but some questions flitted through my second class intellect. First, did the US government conduct oversight of the BP deep water oil drilling safety systems or did BP perform this oversight itself? Second, did Arthur Andersen’s internal audit committee perform a review of the work done for the Enron account? Third, did Tyco’s internal audit team review the activities of the firm’s senior manager? Maybe the idea of an audit has changed since I went to college in 1962. Just asking.
Stephen E Arnold, June 6, 2010
Freebie
Google Follows the Autobahn Lane Instructions
June 5, 2010
Short honk: I was delighted to read in the Financial Times and a number of other articles that Google allegedly will “hand over intercepted data” to German authorities. A government’s rules are like the white lines of the autobahn. The “data” are those presumed to have been captured from open Wi Fi transmissions due to an unfortunate error. The Fast Company story “Google Hands Over “Rogue Data” to Euro Authorities, Apologizes Again” said:
Germany is the only country considering a criminal investigation, but Google pledged to hand documents over to France and Spain as well.
Fascinating that a single event could trigger a Facebook-like outcry. In high school, I recall a person in my remedial class in math saying, “It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.” Observing the white lines on the information autobahn in Germany makes sense in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2010
Freebie
Endeca and Collaboration
June 5, 2010
Joining the PTC PartnerAdvantage Programme to provide a direct integration between PTC Windchill and the Endeca Information Access Platform, provides customers with an integrated view across different information sources in their enterprise.
Sys-Con Media recently reported on this new move in their article “Endeca Joins PTC PartnerAdvantage™ Programme to Provide Information Visibility and Analytics across Enterprise Systems”. The addition of Endeca to the PTC PartnerAdvantage Program provides Windchill users with a new solution for combining product lifecycle management, enterprise resource planning, and supply chain data into a single information visibility solution. This new and useful path can support the many daily decisions required as part of their work.
Integrated search can produce muddy results. It is important to deliver the clearest visibility into the information to produce marketable data and survive.
Melody K. Smith, June 3, 2010
Attivio Releases AIE 2.1
June 5, 2010
Short honk: We received a news item from PR Newswire about Attivio’s release of AIE 2.1. The release asserted: “Attivio’s Active Intelligence Engine uncovers all the information needed, no matter the source or format, to help users identify trends and opportunities. It joins pertinent data and unstructured information to detect challenges and threats before they become issues. New to AIE, Attivio has incorporated key features including SQL support (via a JDBC driver), key phrase detection, content spotlighting, entity-level sentiment analysis and integrated connector support for active security.” The categorical affirmative is in bold face. “All” is an interesting word in content processing. I know it’s just marketing lingo but “all”. What about those coded text messages from bootleg devices inside certain regulated business facilities? Well, maybe not that “all”?
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2010
No one paid me to reference the thrills of a universal affirmative. Forget what a “categorical affirmative” is. Click here.
Google and Microsoft, the School Yard Spat Continues
June 4, 2010
This squabble between Google and Microsoft is about money. Search, applications, and specific markets are dependent upon the big focus. Both firms are publicly traded and both firms have enough money to pay the bills. The problem is future money, which both outfits covet. Money defines the 2010 business landscape. Even the oil spill is a money problem. Forget the pelicans, right? Florida is worried about tourism. Louisiana is worried about the seafood jobs. Savannah, maybe worried that a lawn party will be permeated with the odor of petroleum factors?
Google threw mud on Microsoft’s white bucks when it made clear that personal computers running Microsoft software were not welcome at Google. The reason was that Microsoft products were not secure. Okay. Tough to disagree with that because Patch Tuesday is now a standard indigestion day for people like me. You can get the background on the blackballing of Mr. Ballmer’s crown jewels in “Google Bans Use Of Microsoft Windows Company-Wide.” Whether Google has taken this step may or may not be true. Doesn’t matter.
Microsoft responded by pushing Google and sticking out its tongue. PC World’s “Microsoft: No Matter What Google Says, Windows Is Secure.” So there. Here’s the passage I found interesting in the PC World story:
“When it comes to security, even hackers admit we’re [Microsoft] doing a better job making our products more secure than anyone else,” said Microsoft spokesman Brandon LeBlanc in a post Tuesday afternoon to the company’s Windows blog . “And it’s not just the hackers; third party influentials and industry leaders like Cisco tell us regularly that our [security] focus and investment continues to surpass others.” LeBlanc added. LeBlanc also ticked off half a dozen examples of Microsoft’s efforts to make Windows more secure, ranging from “we ship our software and security updates to our customers as soon as possible” to ” Windows 7 uses Address Space Layout Randomization [ASLR] as well by randomizing data in memory.”
Where does search fit into this school yard spat? Well, it is not a factor. In fact, neither company seems prepared to go for the kill shot. Google can ride the security pony really hard, and so far, Google is making Math Club jibes at recess. Microsoft also seems reluctant to choke Google in a rear naked choke. Google, which Microsoft may have forgotten, seems to have some issues with its StreetView Wi-Fi activities.
Both companies are making my life more interesting because of their executives’ public debate. Both companies are monopolies and both companies pretty much one trick ponies when it comes to making money. Both companies are not able to respond to outfits like Facebook and Apple as well as other monopolists decorating the US business landscape. Both outfits are vulnerable.
So, school yard spat. Fun to watch. I am not taking sides. If a fight breaks out, maybe there will be even more excitement.
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2010
Freebie
SAP and Oracle Chase Real Time
June 4, 2010
At the SLA Conference in New Orleans in a couple of weeks, I am talking about real time information processing. That paper will focus on a taxonomy of real time. Most folks use the phrase “real time” without placing it in context. Like much of the blather about finding information that is germane to a specific need, 20 somethings, azure chip consultants, and the formerly employed grad on to a buzzword. Thank goodness I am 65 and happy paddling quietly in the goose pond here in Harrod’s Creek.
I read “SAP, Oracle and Real Real Time Apps.” You should reach article, consider its argument, and make up your own mind about real, real time. For me, the killer passage was:
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I’ve been asking myself these last few weeks why a database vendor hasn’t come up with something along the lines of what SAP now says it will deliver. In-memory and column-oriented technologies have been around for years, and vendors like Sybase and Vertica have been talking about 10X to 100X data compression for nearly as long. Did it really take an application vendor to think outside the box of the database market as we know it? Has it really been beyond outfits as talented and well-funded as IBM and Teradata to tackle these problems? Or have the database vendors been protecting the status quote and certain revenue streams? It seems even Oracle’s OLTP- and OLAP-capable Exadata doesn’t aspire to replace the data warehouse layer as we know it.
I think this is on the same page with my thinking or maybe in the same chapter.
My view on SAP and Oracle is that neither company defines real time in a way that makes me feel comfortable. I get agitated when I hear the word “real” used to describe anything related to digital information. I don’t want to get into eschatology, but there’s a limit to my tolerance for “real”.
What’s real about big traditional database and IBM-inspired systems is that getting updates is tough. Even more problematic is the difference between processing data related to events or activities and information activities. Large systems have a tough time handling real time because latency is a fact. The bigger and clunkier the system, the more latency. Gmail went south for some users last week, and the users identified the flaw due to latency. What really happened is probably unknown to most Googlers except for the team that tracked down the problem and resolved it. But the level of service restored probably has latency, just brief enough latency to allow the user to perceive that the system was working in what the user perceived as real time.
Silobreaker to Roll Out Report Feature
June 4, 2010
Short honk: We learned from a reader in Europe, that Silobreaker plans to roll out a report feature in the fall of 2010. Silobreaker delivers high value information in an easy-to-digest format. If you are not familiar with the company, navigate to http://www.silobreaker.com/. You can use the free service and upgrade to the industrial-strength version once you get a feel for the depth of the service. Silobreaker supports one or multi dimension queries. When you become a paying customer, you can configure a custom report on a topic of interest to you. You can specify daily, weekly, or monthly updates.
Stephen E Arnold, June 4, 2010
Freebie although I have been assured a fish treat the next time I track down a Silobreaker executive. Promises, promises. I would settle for an answer to my email queries.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
