Gartner Breaks New Marketing Turf
April 11, 2011
Gartner has a thriving practice in everything to do with digital information. The publicly traded company seems to be sending a message that I hear as “we’re desperate”. Maybe I am wrong but spam from IDG (another researchy-type outfit) that has the subject “Gartner Insight, 3 Top Papers + Win an iPad 2” does not evoke the wood paneled methods of McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, or Bain (yep, the Bain with the now apocryphal kumbaya sessions at a Holiday Inn on Route 128). As wacky as the blue chip consulting firms are, I find email with the words “insight,” “top papers”, and “win and iPad” quite piercing cries for attention.
First, there are not “3 top papers” on offer. The count seems closer to four, but at my age my eyesight is failing. See for yourself whether I got the number four correct:
The other signals that reached me via spam email was the big button that said “Register Now.”
The angle, of course, is leads and input into how Gartner can improve. I also found this enjoinder fascinating:
I will definitely forward the spam message to my one friend, a 70 year old with a beat up truck and a limp.
One positive note: Gartner and IDG got a free mention in a free blog which contains information for which one does not have to register, enjoin a friend, or miscount to access. Of course, the quality of information in Beyond Search is miserable, but we don’t even spam. Heck, we don’t follow up on proposals, return phone calls, or attend conferences where “pay to play” is the new business model.
Objectivity is what one thinks it is, right? And what about search? No white papers about enterprise search? No quadrant? Sigh.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2011
Freebie but no drawing to win an iPad. How is that drawing conducted by the way?
More Crazy Stats: iPhone, Android, Whatever
April 11, 2011
Do teens buy mobile devices? Nah, most of the teens in Harrod’s Creek fire up the wood stove and use smoke signals. However, elsewhere teens and tweens are into mobile devices. Some schools in which reading, math, and cursive are part of the instructional program ban these gizmos. You know that works really well.
I read “One-Third Of Teens Plan To Buy An iPhone Soon.” The write up is almost as wacky in its data as the IDC forecast that Windows Mobile 7 will kick everyone’s tail in the mobile phone market pretty soon now. Er, there are some issues with supply chain, updates, and apps but IDC is never, ever, absolutely for always right in making predictions that sell reports.
Any way, the story about teens reveals that an Apple towel waver ran a survey and—guess what—the interview sample revealed that one third of those surveyed want an Apple iPhone. You can read some of the stats from the survey and draw your own conclusion. Here’s the statement I found interesting:
There is some small glimmer of hope for Spotify, Rhapsody, and other subscription services — 37% of teens said they’d consider paying $15 a month for a music subscription.
Okay, teens don’t have jobs. So who is paying? Check out this March 2010 report, which may be bogus as well, to get some color on what may be behind the survey conducted by a financial services professional.
My recollection is that when I had teens, I paid. So we have an interesting sample and an assertion that teens pay. No, teens consume. Adults pay. Minor point considering the sample, the questions, and the source. But, heck, I live in rural Kentucky. Who pays is important. Now the big omission is how one finds music. Isn’t search important? Is the survey blind to the Ping and Apple search challenges?
Search is not on the radar. Again. Not good.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2011
Content Not One Dimensional
April 11, 2011
In the digital age that we live in it is no longer possible to simply advertise your content through a traditional media outlet such as newspaper or radio. In order for your content to be used and your message to be heard you have to utilize many different types of channels. In order to expand digital awareness and offerings many content providers are looking to recycle already existing content in order to create new products. The result of such recycling is a “mash-up” of many different content retrieval systems. This “mash-up” of systems when done correctly can create consistency between the
outlets that utilize the information. This is where XML comes in.
XML stands for extensible markup language and functions somewhat like html but while html can display data, xml is designed to carry data and must have defined user tags that are self-descriptive. While XML doesn’t actually DO anything it is definitely a useful tool for storing and transporting information for widespread use and as a compliment to HTML.
Now you may be wondering why you should care about something as small as XML, well, here’s the answer; XML combined with HTML is what makes the mash up of existing content possible. Without well-structured XML protocols it is impossible to transfer information from one platform, such as an eReader to another platform like a cell phone application.
XML makes it possible to transfer PDF’s to your design software such as InDesign and Quark and it is what allows you to utilize your Kindle or Nook to download books in an instant and it’s what makes the information you seek on a Google search engine return the correct queries. XML is a cross directional language that makes it easier for users to access the product and let’s face it…the easier and more accessible a product is, the more money it is going to generate and let’s face it, that’s what you really want to know…isn’t it?
Stephen E Arnold, April 11 2011
Freebie
Blog Power and Search
April 11, 2011
When you have a great headline, you get traffic. What about the facts? Well, maybe those are less important than the ping pong effect of a hot write up within a search and retrieval system. Confused? Well, you are anchored in the old school of SEO or search engine optimization.
Here’s an example of the new way to get traffic even though one’s reputation as a business expert may pick up some NASCAR dents on the way to the finish line.
First, Bloomberg ran a story called “New York Times Fixes Paywall Flaws to Balance Free Versus Paid on the Web” on January 28, 2011. I certainly did not really care. I read the paper version of the newspaper and routinely ignore the online stuff that flows from the old line New York outfits. I live in Kentucky and the day or two old news is pretty much real time for us in Harrod’s Creek.
But, bloggers picked up the story. In the February and March period lots of trendy Web news sites recycled what little information was available. This blog is not a “No Agenda” type outlet, so you can read the hits available at this link and follow the thread of the $40 million nugget.
The loop approached its starting point. Navigate to “Sulzberger: $40 Million Estimate For Paywall Cost Is ‘Vastly Wrong’”. (I like the word “vastly” by the way.) Here’s one passage I found interesting:
Sulzberger also declined to offer any numbers when it comes to subscribers, saying it was too soon but that the company would provide some details eventually. At another point, asked about complaints that the pay plan is too complex, he urged people to be patient. Noting that the company was able to tweak the system between the launch in Canada and the U.S.-global launch 10 days later, Sulzberger said: “We’re going to learn, adapt, make it simpler. But I don’t agree that it’s too complex. It’s new. Let it breathe for a little bit before you make judgment.”
The notion of learning, adapting, and making things simpler sound great.
The point is not what the Times spent or did not spend. The point is not that the New York Times has since it broke its exclusive deal with LexisNexis decades ago has been trying to figure out how to make money without selling hard copies and advertising is also irrelevant.
The message here is that one story with a fact plucked from somewhere can trigger a surge of articles, links, and clicks. Then the point of origin of the “story” jumps in and re-energizes the cycle.
That’s the message for me. SEO cannot perform this type of information physics. Why am I beating up on search engine optimization charlatans? Indexes like Google’s have been corrupted by these outfits. Relevance problems annoy me. At least with crazy information physics activities, the focus is on content no matter how thin, inaccurate, or poorly formed. Honk.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2011
Freebie unlike my print subscription to the New York Times blue plastic bag. The paper, I think, is free. Those plastic bags cost me a leg and a thigh.
How to Create Document Set Type in SharePoint 2010
April 11, 2011
SharePoint has many in’s and out’s, all of which are not explained in the user’s manual. That is why we have the Internet, aggregators, and Beyond Search to help you locate the proper tools to aid you in improving your SharePoint experience. We found the following: “Creating New SharePoint 2010 Document Set Content Type.” It is a useful write-up that explains the method for creating a new SharePoint 2010 Document Set content type and gives a step-by-step guide to the procedure.
“One of the few benefits of using a document set in SharePoint – is the ability to create a set of documents with few initial files in it. In a way, you can have the document set containing an initial package of files which further can be modified.”
While the instructions are written in basic layman’s terms for the most novice user, the illustrations prove to be a different story. While they are helpful in explaining the document set content type process, they’re hard to read. This is resolved by clicking on the image and it’s worth the effort.
Additional information is available from Surfray.
Torben Ellert April 11, 2011
Google and Its New Management Method: Pundits Throwing Punches
April 10, 2011
I read the modest flurry of quasi-MBA analyses triggered by “Larry Page’s First Blunder”. I liked the word “first” because it implies that Mr. Page and his co-founder have been management “perfect 10s” since 1998. I thought about pointing out that the present range of challenges Google faces is a consequence of earlier blunders.
But I wish to ignore that admittedly trivial point.
The Computerworld article focuses on the idea of linking a Googler’s annual hefty cash bonus to becoming or coding social apps, systems, solutions, etc. I don’t know about you, but I have a number of high powered technologists working on projects. None of these individuals is what I would describe at fraternity or sorority president material.
Last week, at lunch, Dr. Tyra Oldham, one of my colleagues, pointed out that the three nerds and myself constituted a small world of insiders which was pointedly anti-social. In fact, as I recall, she said, “You are in some weird alternate universe where normal people don’t go.” In addition to a PhD in operations, Dr. Oldham holds an MBA degree and is well qualified to comment on management-related behaviors.
Dr. Oldham pointed out to some of the ArnoldIT.com engineering team, “You are not social.” With considerable pride, the engineering team agreed. One asked, “How can one be an excellent engineer by being more social?’ Dr. Oldham shook her head. We think it meant that the three ArnoldIT.com engineers were in need of social remediation. Good luck with that.
That’s an important point to consider: expected behaviors regarding “social.”
I live in rural Kentucky, commune with large boxer dogs, and spend my time in front of my various computing devices. As I look around my office, I count on April 10, 2011, 14 multi-processor machines, an assortment of electronic components and gadgets, the two large dogs, and white boards covered with diagrams. I have a cleared space for my new Sandy Bridge machine which will arrive on Monday. (Hooray.) My office bookcases are stuffed with technical manuals, cables, and “stuff.” If you know where to look, you will see a container of IBM’s weird computer fasteners from the now retired NetFinity 5500. Ah, nostalgia! To me, my little world is plenty social, thank you.
The film “Revenge of the Nerds” does contain elements of truth that age and money cannot alter with alacrity.
Now if Dr. Tyra Oldham were correct, a financial incentive might get my attention for a while, but I think I would drift away from social innovation. Money is not what makes ArnoldIT.com and its Managing Director go. Social is, at this time, not that interesting to me because Facebook and other services have okay systems. Maybe there is something that might catch my attention? However, I have personal projects that are going to get my attention and my time. Weaponized information, for instance, is really quite promising here in Harrod’s Creek. Curious? Well, lots of people are and many are writing checks to understand the system, method, and technology. Social? Not so much for me and some of my team.
Now back to the Computerworld, here’s the passage that may echo through the online grape vine:
Analyzing Analytics
April 10, 2011
Check out Contrast’s valuable “The Future of Analytics Products.” The blog entry begins with a nod to lead contender Google, but quickly moves beyond. The article explores how needs have changed:
Google Analytics [G.A.] and others like it were designed for a time when page views and visitors were all that mattered. . . . Every graph in G.A. defaults to visitors and views. Features like Goals, Events, Conversion rates have been baked on rather than built in, and this leaves the product vulnerable in certain areas. In addition Google Analytics hasn’t coped well with the growth of social networks.
The author follows up with a list of Google Analytics’ weak points. Next is an intriguing list of competitors, arranged by type: event driven analytics, aggregation tools, real time data, and social analytics. Finally, under Analytics Redesigned, the entry looks at some contenders who are valuable for their simplicity and their fresh take on display conventions. Sometimes, the best approach is to start over. Screenshots from the many, many examples are provided. Extremely helpful whether you want to comparison shop or are simply interested in the direction analytics products are heading.
Cynthia Murrell April 10, 2011
Freebie
More Calls for a Google Probe
April 10, 2011
In “Why US antitrust regulators should probe Google search,” The Register reports that the US Department of Justice is might bring suit against Google. At issue: does its deal to acquire ITA Software pose a monopoly risk in the flight search market?
The American Antitrust Institute looks to the future when it questions Google’s reach in multiple markets. If the flight search market, why not many, many others?
Says the Institute’s Robert Lande:
” ‘Our big fear is that as Google gobbles up these related markets, including the travel search market, that will sound the death knell for Microsoft,’ he tells The Register. ‘What happens in a world with one search engine?’ “
In the EU, they have been looking in to similar issues, particularly into Google’s Universal Search. Foundem, a vertical search company in the UK, has complained that Google’s prominently plugging its own services in the search results harms competitors. Um, yeah.
We’ll be keeping an eye on both these cases.
Cynthia Murrell, April 10, 2011
Freebie
Microsoft Favored to Win Smartphone War, Really?
April 10, 2011
I am an optimist. I see blue sky behind gray clouds. I see flowers beneath the snow.
Here in Kentucky, we figured it was wishful thinking to include the University of Kentucky Wildcats in the final four on the March Madness brackets. We were all very surprised when this ideal became a reality. However, we believe this is just poor statistical reasoning: “IDC Beancounters Predict Microsoft to Win Smartphone War.” Wow. Microsoft cannot update its smartphone software. I don’t know one person who owns a Microsoft smartphone.
By 2015, the IDC states that Android will be the top smartphone competitor, followed closely by Microsoft. Apple will be booted down to third place. Android will continue to dominate, however, with half the market and the other divided between Blackberry and Apple based off current market predictions. According to the write up:
The report said that smartphone vendors will ship a total of more than 450 million smartphones this year, up from 303.4 million in 2010. IDC predicts that the smartphone market will grow four times faster than the overall handset market.
Other predictions include the Symbian market will transfer to Microsoft after its recent merger with Nokia and Hewlett Packard’s WebOS will never gain much of a foothold. Don’t rely heavily on IDC’s predictions. Back in 2006, the beancounters never accounted for the rise of the iPhone or Android. The University of Kentucky’s win was a sweet surprise, but based off current market trends unless Microsoft creates the next big phone, Android runs out of batteries, or Apple just fails, this won’t happen. And I am an optimist, not a consulting firm trying to pump up revenues, get headlines, and compete with other mid tier consulting firms for clients.
Even more intereseting is that Gartner, a rival to IDC, issued a report that said the same thing. You can check out the Gartner predictions at http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1622614.
Coincidence or a Microsoft PR push? We will never offer an opinion on the cheesecloth separating independent consulting firrms and clients with a real need to flash cash.
Whitney Grace, April 10, 2011
Freebie
Disappearing US Government Public Information
April 9, 2011
The goose is not going to honk too much about the shuttering of US government Web sites. Most of them get few hits. I know you think that millions of mouse potatoes rush to such thrillers as the US Department of Agriculture’s numerous Web sites or thousands of fact hungry MBAs explore the treasure trove of Department of Commerce content. The reality is that usage is not setting the world on fire.
An outfit called the Sunlight Foundation reported that a bunch of US government Web sites were going dark. The list appeared in “Budget Technopocalypse Deepens: Transparency Sites Will Go Dark In A Few Months.” How do you like that word “technopocalypse”? Felicitous, right?
Anyway, the alleged goners are:
- Apps.gov – Better hurry. Bring your credit card.
- Data.gov—Some interesting but often incomplete data sets
- IT Dashboard – Some spending information. Fascinating for the non economists
- Paymentaccuracy.gov – Love the charts
- USASpending.gov – Keep in mind the $1.6 trillion deficit and you are good to go.
No further comments from the goose.
Low traffic is the norm for most governmental Web sites. One happy exception for the US government is the IRS Web site at tax time. Traffic drops off after April 15th each year.
Coincident with the removal of sunshine data, the US government will notify me of changes in the terror alert level via Facebook and Twitter. Seems a fair trade I suppose.
Stephen E Arnold, April 9, 2011
Freebie
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
