Google Strategy Questioned
May 9, 2012
Blogger Dustin Curtis presents his take on Google’s business strategy in “Google’s Coherent Bouquet.” Riffing off of Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin’s line, “We’ve let a thousand flowers bloom; now we want to put together a coherent bouquet,” Curtis questions whether such flower arranging is within the company’s abilities. At issue is the importance of social media and, naturally, the threat of competition from Facebook that continually dogs the search giant. The write up asserts:
“Google has about 150 legacy core products which have slowly evolved into great tools over the past decade, but which were designed and built with the complete absence of consideration for any social interaction. Google+ is an attempt to shoe-horn Google’s legacy products into things that are compatible with a new set of social interaction paradigms.
“My point here is that ‘social’ is a point of view from which to design products and not a ‘layer’ that can be easily draped over existing, non-social products.”
Hmmm. Interesting logic. Curtis insists that a shift like the one Google needs is not going to happen without the impetus of “new and unexpected outside ideas.” Is the self-described “villain” blogger correct? Is Google too set in its ways to achieve social success?
Cynthia Murrell, May 9, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Yahoo and Governance: Semel to Scott Thompson
May 4, 2012
Short honk: I don’t much, if any, attention to Yahoo. My last big analysis of Yahoo was shortly after its then Chief Technology Officer tried to explain to a financial services client of mine that Yahoo was ahead of Google in search. Crazy assertion from a crazy outfit. In my report, I included an image of Terry Semel as the captain of the Titanic. Got a laugh. Yahoo got zero positives from me. (By the way is that Wikipedia profile of Mr. Semel accurate? Check it out between conference calls and SMS texting.)
Navigate to “Scott Thompson Resume Scandal Is Not an Inadvertent Mistake—He Also Claimed Comp Sci Degree as CTO of PayPay.” I want to comment on the spelling of résumé but who cares? That’s my attitude to the coverage of an executive fudging a biography. Furthermore, in my analysis Yahoo is the type of outfit which lives in a world of illusion, silos, and confusion.
The fact that a senior executive would take the time to do a little digging is absolutely no surprise to me. I hear the phrase “I’m too busy” from people whom I know are not too busy. Some of these people ask me for work and then tell me, “We have a spring vacation.” I heard this phrase from a company president who is guiding a company which is losing millions of dollars each quarter. Right. Vacation. Spring break.
I think we have plenty of solid evidence of a core governance problem at Yahoo, but the same issue exists in many US organizations. Whether it is the confusion about the actions of US government employees or the unfortunate Google Street View incident, governance is not a core competency in many US organizations. Enron, Lehman Brothers, Tyco—remember these executive edifices?
Furthermore I don’t think governance can be fixed quickly, if at all.
When an individual professional does not do the basics like checking key facts, the egregious mistakes will continue and most likely increase.
Governance problems are not black swans.
Governance problems are a direct outcome of people who do not focus, gather information, analyze, and reflect.
Rushing to meetings, asking for others to collect information, and staring at mobile devices—these are flashing signals of trouble at Yahoo and elsewhere.
Fiddling with a biography is either effective public relations, impactful marketing, or the shortest distance between a person and the top of Maslow’s hierarchy. For me, Yahoo and fake credentials are no big deal.
Baloney is the business of many businesses.
Desperation marketing is the new normal marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2012
Sponsored by no one but me.
Google Trims Its Sails
April 21, 2012
I live in rural Kentucky on a pond filled with mine runoff. I know zero about sailing on the open seas. However, I do know that the phrase “trim the sail” means a series of steps taken to deal with what the Dockside wearing crowd calls “heavy weather.”
Sailing ships with canvas sails can be tough to handle when the wind blows with gusto. The idea is that the sails should be rolled up in order to minimize the likelihood that a sailing vessel will turn over. The Ahabs call this capsizing. Old geese in Kentucky call this loosing control.
The USS Google, the largest and most unsinkable search system based on advertising, is taking prudent measures to streamline itself. I would describe the actions as “trimming its sails.” The reason? My hunch is that the MBA-speak word would be “efficiency.” My word would be “control.”
“Spring Cleaning: Google Shuts Down Patent Search Homepage, One Pass, Google Related & More” informed me that Google is presenting a lower profile to the economic winds. The write up reports:
Ever since Larry Page took over as Google’s CEO, the company has shut down more and more of its products that were only being used by a limited number of users. Today, the company announced another round of “spring cleaning.”
But here’s the comment which caught my attention, a verbal fog horn perhaps:
As part of this process, Google is also retiring a number of APIs, but most importantly, it is moving to a one-year API deprecation policy across its products (that’s down from three years for some of the company’s APIs).
APIs matter little to the garden variety Google user. APIs do matter to the enterprise, and I think APIs may have a contribution to make to the legal process underway between Google and Oracle.
My view is that most people are blissfully unaware of many Google services. Seven years ago, I counted about 80 Google products and services in The Google Legacy. I no longer keep track of Google products and services because many of them seem anchored in Google’s brute force approach to content processing.
For me, the shift in Google’s approach to APIs will signal that the company may be moving toward a more proprietary approach for developer interaction with Google services. I also think the shut downs and direction changes may give some enterprises additional variables to consider before embracing a “total” Google approach to storage, email, and hosted applications.
A final thought: Perhaps Google knows a major storm is coming. Precautions may be designed to keep the USS Google safe until it reaches a safe harbor.
Stephen E Arnold, April 21, 2012
Sponsored by PolySpot
Is Google Making a Wrong Turn?
April 11, 2012
We came across a poignant view from a person who does not embrace Google‘s pursuit of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. Andrew Badr reminisces in his post, “The Google We Lost.” Was the past really that good? We’re not so sure.
Larry Page’s new focus on what Badr calls “human problems” (social, design, and product) bothers the blogger because he feels it does not play to the company’s strengths. Google has spent the last ten years, he says, almost exclusively hiring engineering talent. The best engineering talent, to be sure, but engineers just the same.
Badr posits that the reason for the focus on more touchy-feely issues springs from a “fear of Facebook” as well as the influence of Apple. He charges:
“Google trying to become more like Apple smacks of a nerd who decides to try to be popular. Even if you succeed, you lose something valuable about yourself. Making a decision based on principles like ‘be true to yourself’ is heuristic and long-term; it would be hard to justify to shareholders. But it sure would feel better. ‘Beat Facebook’ is not an inspiring vision, and Google needs to keep inspiring developers if it wants to keep hiring the best ones. And the world loses something — the company that could have been.”
Grousing employees are common today. Grousing that evokes pity is a different type of complaint.
Cynthia Murrell, April 11, 2012, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google: Listen Up. The IPO Harmed You
April 8, 2012
I love inputs from the bleachers. Well, anyone who is anyone knows that Google’s going public in 2004 was the fatal step, the digital equivalent of Adam’s going for the apple. Point your browser thing at “How The IPO Ruined Google.” The idea is that Google has lost its original focus. The company is chasing the social media sector which means Facebook. The author points out some social media goofs by the GOOG. He writes:
How’d Orkut do? Do you remember it? Didn’t think so. Sidewiki? Failed. Friend Connect? Gone. Google Wave didn’t even get past testing. Now we’ve got Google Plus, which is showing some of the worst engagement numbers of any major social media site.
Google, now under the management whiz Larry Page is focusing, or I think that is what he said in his Update memorandum that big bets are needed. So focus is there, right?
Several observations:
First, I think that advice to big companies is a tricky business. Most big companies find outsiders’ inputs more like background information than course corrections.
Second, Google is going to be a tough outfit to change even when one is the CEO. The start up mentality has been smothered under the hard facts that Apple’s business model is performing better than Google’s business model. Facebook chugs along, apparently untroubled by Googzilla’s desire to feast on the haunches of prime zuck. Google has managed to build a one-trick pony but increasingly has to find inspiration for new ideas elsewhere.
Third, Google is not about search. I remember reading that social is the new Google. So search is a subset of social.
Google is, what, 12, 13 years old. If I consider Backrub, Google is 14, maybe 15 years old. Like Lycos and Yahoo, Internet companies face a number of challenges. Chief among them is management. Technology is important, but making the right decision at the right time is part of the magic.
Perhaps the pundits who make suggestions about what Google should may find magic more useful than inputs?
Stephen E Arnold, April 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Attivio Hires a New Chief Scientist
April 6, 2012
PR Web recently posted “Attivio Promotes John O’Neil to Chief Scientist,” a new release announcing the promotion of John O’Neil to Chief Scientist at Attivio Inc, a software company specializing in enterprise search solutions and unified information access.
According to the release, in his new role, O’Neil will be responsible for developing and productizing Attivio’s core capabilities as well as working with the company’s Technology Advisory Board to drive corporate thought leadership.
We learned:
“O’Neil has written and designed software for search, natural language processing and machine learning for more than a decade. After receiving a Ph.D. in linguistics from Harvard University, he worked for LingoMotors where he designed the company’s main commercial product. He also worked at Basis Technology, Inc. where he was the designer and lead developer for the Rosette Linguistics Platform, a language processing and entity extraction suite of products. O’Neil is the author of more than 20 papers in Computer Science and Linguistics and has given talks at numerous professional conferences.”
We find this decision to be interesting. Could the Fast Search roots be in need of technical replenishment?
Jasmine Ashton, April 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Evil, Search, and the Real World
March 27, 2012
I am not into theodicy, and I surmise the author of “Why “Don’t Be Evil” Is Evil, and Why Google Isn’t So Bad” is possibly less fascinated than I. I won’t say “informed” because after my year in the Jesuit strong hold of Duquesne University, I appreciate “evil.” I also am not going into poetry mode and drag in John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and “Paradise Regained.” The Puritan dude had a Googley amanuensis who knocked out a killer poem with the fantastic peach metaphor. But let’s put John Milton, Andrew Marvell, and epistemology aside.
Let’s consider this passage by a writer more capable, in my opinion, than either Milton or Marvell when it comes to explicating evil’s cone of connotation:
I’m not convinced by Honan’s larger argument that Google’s recent actions should earn it our deep distrust. That’s mainly because nothing that Google has done is really so bad when compared to others in the tech industry. I’ve gone on record as hating Search Plus Your World. But I also hate the iOS App Store’s capricious, unfriendly restrictions, the ridiculous way that Apple went after rival advertising networks, the whole stupid business about in-app purchases, and the fact that I have to jump through hoops to use Google Voice on my iPhone. Similarly, I threw a tantrum when Facebook declared its social network to be a roach motel for your social graph—Mark Zuckerberg will let you import your contacts from Gmail, but don’t bother trying to get your contacts out. (And let’s all forget Beacon, shall we?) Meanwhile, how about the time Amazon deleted 1984 from people’s Kindles? And when I search for an iPad case on Amazon, why does Amazon show me a big ad for its Kindle app—how is that a relevant shopping result?
In other words Honan might be right that Google has violated its own definition of evil, but doesn’t it matter that every one of its rivals also routinely violates Google’s definition of evil? Wouldn’t that suggest that it’s the definition of “evil” that needs updating, rather than Google’s own behavior, which seems perfectly in line with that of its rivals? If you’re going to knock Google for its ethics, you’d have a hard time conducting transactions with any tech entity other than Wikipedia and Craigslist. You’d have an especially hard time explaining people’s crazy love for Apple.
The real problem that Honan has with Google isn’t that it has started to do stuff that bothers its users. It’s that Google has started to do stuff that bothers users in a way we aren’t used to—in a way that Don’t Be Evil falsely suggested it was above doing. By never claiming to be above evil, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon are free to act like normal companies whose efforts to optimize their own self-interest don’t arouse much suspicion. We expect Apple to play rough with others; we’d be surprised if it didn’t. But we don’t expect sharp elbows from Google. And now that it’s acting in new ways, we don’t know what to expect at all.
The Honan reference points to a essay called “The Case against Google.” I have put in bold face the words and phrases which interested me in the response to the chap named Honan. I don’t pretend to have the insight nor the perspective of these two commentators and their respective publications. I almost used my personal shorthand and inserted “poobah, failed Web master, or former “real” journalist, but I did not. Gadget analysts and contributors to a start up root system do not fit into my personal controlled vocabulary. I will have to do something about that some day soon, maybe.
Let me hold forth on the four bold faced items in the quoted segment:
First, the notion of determining evil by comparing one company’s actions to another group of companies is interesting. The technology industry warranted an entire book by Jacques Ellul. Although Ellul had a passing familiarity with evil, he tackled the technology industry from the angle that technologists solve problems with technology. As there is more technology, there are more problems to solve. Technology does not seem to be in remediate mode. Thus, for an approach which a learned observer like Ellul was pushing the pedal to metal in the race to Armageddon, I think Ellul is spot on. As a consequence, evil in the context of creating more and more problems which exacerbate a number of life conditions does not make me rest easy. The comparison does not work for me, but it may work just fine for you, gentle reader. Let’s try that argument when your progeny commit an “evil” act and respond, “But I did not kill anyone on the drive home like Trent did. I had less to drink at Amy’s sweet 16 party and anyone else. Don’t be mad at me. Don’t ground me. That’s not fair.”
Second, yep, I agree. Let’s do the health care thing and update the definition of evil. After all, everyone knows that “meaningful use” means electronic medical records, right? Redefining or the use of invented words to connote one thing yet main, in actual practice, quite another. Yes, that works quite well, and I will leave it to you to reflect on some of the marketing concepts which make figuring out what a technology product or service does quite challenging.
Third, the idea that Wikipedia and Craigslist are different from other technology companies is a method of argument that does not convince me. I recall reading that Wikipedia’s method permitted false entries. Someone in Kentucky actually accomplished this rare feat. I am certain the messages about unsubstantiated information in Wikipedia are little more than advisories on a tiny fraction of the information in the crowd sourced encyclopedia. I think it is admirable that some of my colleagues believe that Wikipedia put the loaded gun in Encyclopedia Britannica’s capable hands. I can imagine the verbal support for killing its untenable print product. Craigslist is fascinating as well. There was an spat with eBay, which was little more than a misunderstanding. Chatter about adult information and squelching of metasearch over listing is just that, chatter. No evil, just examples of prudent technology behavior and, therefore, appropriate for use as a way to measure evil of other outfits. I like that. No, I won’t give an example ask you, gentle reader, to imagine such behavior by one of your children or possibly by one of your parents. Unthinkable.
Finally, we come to the notion of “expecting.” Now the world has taught countries that unexpected events are routine. The companies which I admire fire employees who expected to float toward retirement without a pimple on their smooth, wrinkle free foreheads. In a world with unknown interdependencies, the unexpected is the norm. Whether it is bank failures or clueless students signing up for student loans, the unexpected strikes the uninformed. My hunch is that those with technological savvy know more about protecting themselves. Caveat emptor: The motto, in my book, whether I sign up for an exercise club or a free online service.
To wrap up, epistemology, eschatology, and heuristics are well served by a close analysis of the meaning of Google’s actions, the writings of experts, and a search for relevant information on a free Web search system. Information, like human action, wants to be free. Ethics, honor, integrity—redefine them. Well, let the experts redefine them by word and deed.
Stephen E Arnold, March 27, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exogenous Complexity 3: Being Clever
February 24, 2012
I just submitted my March 2012 column to Enterprise Technology Management, published in London by IMI Publishing. In that column I explored the impact of Google’s privacy stance on the firm’s enterprise software business. I am not letting any tiny cat out of a big bag when I suggested that the blow back might be a thorn in Googzilla’s extra large foot.
In this essay, I want to consider exogenous complexity in the context of the consumerization of information technology and, by extension, on information access in an organization. The spark for my thinking was the write up “Google, Safari and Our Final Privacy Wake-Up Call.”
Here’s a clever action. MIT students put a red truck on top of the dome. For more see http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/04/06/mit-hacks.
If you do not have an iPad or an iPhone or an Android device, you will want to stop reading. Consumerization of information technology boils down to employees and contract workers who show up with mobile devices (yes, including laptops) at work. In the brave new world, the nanny instincts of traditional information technology managers are little more than annoying nags from a corporate mom.
The reality is that when consumer devices enter the workplace, three externalality happen in my experience.
First, security is mostly ineffective. Clever folks then exploit vulnerable systems. I think this is why clever people say that the customer is to blame. So clever exploits cluelessness. Clever is exogenous for the non clever. There are some actions an employer can take; for example, confiscating personal devices before the employee enters the work area. This works in certain law enforcement, intelligence, and a handful of other environments; for example, fabrication facilities in electronics or pharmaceuticals. Mobile devices have cameras and can “do” video. “Secret” processes can become un-secret in a nonce. In the free flowing, disorganized craziness of most organizations, personal devices are ignored or overlooked. In short, in a monitored financial trading environment, a professional can send messages outside the firm and the bank’s security and monitoring systems are happily ignorant. The cost of dropping a truly secure box around a work place is expensive and beyond the core competency of most information technology professionals.
Second, employees blur information which is “for work” with information which is “for friends, lovers, or acquaintances.” The exogenous factor is political. To fix the problem, rules are framed. The more rule applied to a flawed system, the greater the likelihood is that clever people will exploit systems which ignore the rules. Clever actions, therefore, increase. In short, this is a variation of the Facebook phenomena when a posting can reach many people quickly or lie dormant until the data load explodes like long forgotten Fourth of July fire cracker. As people chase the fire, clever folks exploit the fire. Information time bombs are not thought about by most senior managers, but they are on the radar of those involved in a legal matter and in the minds of some disgruntled programmers. The half life of information is less well understood by most professionals than the difference between a uranium based reactor and a thorium based reactor. Work and life information are blended, and in my opinion, the compound is a dangerous one.
Third, vendors focusing on consumerizing information technology spur adoption of devices and practices which cannot be easily controlled. The data-Hoovering processes, therefore, can suck up information which is proprietary, of high value, and potentially damaging to the information owner. Information is not “like sand grains.” Some information is valueless; other information commands a high price. In fact, modern content processing and data analytic systems can take fragments of information and “fuse” them. To most people these amalgams are of little interest. But to someone with specialized knowledge, the fused data are not god nuggets, the fused data are a chunky rosy diamond, maybe a Pink Panther. As a result, an exogenous factor increases the flow of high value data through uncontrolled channels.
A happy quack to Gunaxin. You can see how clever, computer situations, and real life blend in this “pranking” poster. I would have described the wrapping of equipment in plastic “clever.” But I am the fume hood guy, Woodruff High School, 1958 to 1962. Image source: http://humor.gunaxin.com/five-funny-prank-fails/48387
Now, let’s think about being clever. When I was in high school, I was one of a group of 25 students who were placed in an “advanced” program. Part of the program included attending universities for additional course work. I ended up at the University of Illinois at age 15. I went back to regular high school, did some other Fancy Dan learning programs, and eventually graduated. My specialty was tricking students in “regular” chemistry into modifying their experiments to produce interesting results. One of these suggestions resulted in a fume hood catching fire. Another dispersed carbon strands through the school’s ventilation system. I thought I was clever, but eventually Mr. Shepherd, the chemistry teach, found out that I was the “clever” one. I sat in the hall for the balance of the semester. I adapted quickly, got an A, and became semi-famous. I was already sitting in the hall for writing essays filled with double entendres. Sigh. Clever has its burdens. Some clever folks just retreat into a private world. The Internet is ideal for providing an environment in which isolated clever people can find a “friend.” Once a couple of clever folks hook up, the result is lots of clever activity. Most of the clever activity is not appreciated by the non clever. There is the social angle and the understanding angle. In order to explain a clever action, one has to be somewhat clever. The non clever have no clue what has been done, why, when, or how. There is a general annoyance factor associated with any clever action. So, clever usually gets masked or shrouded in something along the lines, “Gee, I am sorry” or “Goodness gracious, I did not think you would be annoyed.” Apologies usually work because the non clever believe the person saying “I’m sorry” really means it. Nah. I never meant it. I did not pay for the fume hood or the air filter replacement. Clever, right?
What happens when folks from the type of academic experience I had go to work in big companies. Well, it is sink or swim. I have been fortunate because my “real” work experiences began at Halliburton Nuclear Services and continued at Booz, Allen & Hamilton when it was a solid blue chip firm, not the azure chip outfit it is today. The fact that I was surrounded by nuclear engineers whose idea of socializing was arguing about Monte Carlo code and nuclear fuel degradation at the local exercise club. At Booz, Allen the environment was not as erudite as the nuclear outfit, but there were lots of bright people who were actually able to conduct a normal conversation. Nevertheless, the Type As made life interesting for one another, senior managers, clients, and family. Ooops. At the Booz, Allen I knew, one’s family was one’s colleagues. Most spouses had no idea about the odd ball world of big time consulting. There were exceptions. Some folks married a secretary or colleague. That way the spouse knew what work was like. Others just married the firm, converting “quality time” into two days with the dependents at a posh resort.
So clever usually causes one to seek out other clever people or find a circle of friends who appreciate the heat generated by aluminum powder in an oxygen rich environment. When a company employs clever people, it is possible to generalize:
Clever people do clever things.
What’s this mean in search and information access? You probably already know that clever people often have a healthy sense of self worth. There is also arrogance, a most charming quality among other clever people. The non-clever find the arrogance “thing” less appealing.
Let’s talk about information access.
Let’s assume that a clever person wants to know where a particular group of users navigate via a mobile device or a traditional browser. Clever folks know about persistent cookies, workarounds for default privacy settings, spoofing built in browser functions, or installation of rogue code which resets certain user selected settings on a heartbeat or restart. Now those in my advanced class would get a kick out these types of actions. Clever people appreciate the work of clever people. When the work leaves the “non advanced” in a clueless state, the fun curve does the hockey stick schtick. So clever enthuses those who are clever. The unclever are, by definition, clueless and not impressed. For really nifty clever actions, the unclever get annoyed, maybe mad. I was threatened by one student when the Friday afternoon fume hood event took place. Fortunately my debate coach intervened. Hey, I was winning and a broken nose would have imperiled my chances at the tournament on Saturday.
Now more exogenous complexity. Those who are clever often ignore unintended consequences. I could have been expelled, but I figured my getting into big trouble would have created problems with far reaching implications. I won a State Championship in the year of the fume hood. I won some silly scholarship. I published a story in the St Louis Post Dispatch called “Burger Boat Drive In.” I had a poem in a national anthology. So, I concluded that a little sport in regular chemistry class would not have any significant impact. I was correct.
However, when clever people do clever things in a larger arena, then the assumptions have to be recalibrated. Clever people may not look beyond their cube or outside their computer’s display. That’s when the exogenous complexity thing kicks in.
So Google’s clever folks allegedly did some work arounds. But the work around allowed Microsoft to launch an attack on Google. Then the media picked up on the work around and the Microsoft push back. The event allowed me to raise the question, “So workers bring their own consumerized device to work. What’s being tracked? Do you know? Answer: Nope.” What’s Google do? Apologize. Hey, this worked for me with the fume hood event, but on a global stage when organizations are pretty much lost in space when it comes to control of information, effective security, and managing crazed 20 somethings—wow.
In short, the datasphere encourages and rewards exogenous behavior by clever people. Those who are unclever take actions which sets off a flood of actions which benefit the clever.
Clever. Good sometimes. Other times. Not so good. But it is better to be clever than unclever. Exogenous factors reward the clever and brutalize the unclever.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Advice Inspired by Google
February 22, 2012
Gogaom has some advice for startups in “What I Learned from Teaming up with Google.” Writer Igor Faletski developed some pointers during his time at Google’s Mobilizing Mobile initiative. They are pretty basic yet good to keep in mind– worthy of checking out. The article summarizes the suggestions:
While it’s hard to imagine that your startup has much in common with a giant like Google, these four strategies should resonate with any sized-business. Think big and paint the picture before anyone else can see it. Have the resolve to focus where attention is needed. And most importantly, never lose sight of what makes you meaningful to your customers.
Faletski seems enamored with Google’s GoMo program, designed to help businesses with their mobile presence. It’s worth examining, but being Google’s pal may not be the best place to concentrate a young company’s hopes. Some of their initiatives haven’t worked out for the best, to say the least.
Cynthia Murrell, February 22, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
About.com: Digital Fail?
February 22, 2012
At a time when most things digital are booming, one company trying to build a digital strategy is failing magnificently.
The New York Times announced that About.com has suffered a 67% drop in profits and that revenues are falling as well. The New York Times acquired the site in 2005 when About.com was one of the hottest sites on the Internet and has recently been trying to create a digital strategy based on high-quality content. However, according to a recent article, “The New York Time’s About.com: From All-Star to Albatross,” the change is quite visible. We learn:
… it’s unclear if About is still viable as a brand. While the company launched a marketing campaign in 2010 to differentiate it from other ‘how-to’ sites, there’s little evidence the message resonated with users. While readers may seek out individual About “guides,” the 80% search traffic figure reflects how About remains a detour not a destination for the vast majority of visitors.
The company attributes the change to Google’s decision to downgrade the company’s pages in its search results. Plausible, but I also feel the need to note that nothing digital seems to work at this outfit. Fascinating. Perhaps the company should look internally for the issue.
Andrea Hayden, February 22, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
