Mr. Wolff asserts:

I don’t know anyone in the ad-Web business who isn’t engaged in a relentless, demoralizing, no-exit operation to realign costs with falling per-user revenues, or who isn’t manically inflating traffic to compensate for ever-lower per-user value.

I quite like the word “humper”. It adds some interesting connotations to the person engaged in selling advertising. What does “humper” call to your mind? Keep your thoughts to yourself; otherwise, an online advertiser may insert an advertisement into your once-private life.

The killer sentence in the write up, in my opinion, was this one:

The growth of its user base and its ever-expanding  page views means an almost infinite inventory to sell. But the expanding supply, together with an equivocal demand, means ever-lowering costs. The math is sickeningly inevitable. Absent an earth-shaking idea, Facebook will look forward to slowing or declining growth in a tapped-out market, and ever-falling ad rates, both on the Web and (especially) in mobile. Facebook isn’t Google; it’s Yahoo or AOL.

I put the juicy bit in bold. I enjoyed the poignant reference to the value of a New York Times online subscriber, but let’s think a moment about the reality of Facebook.

First, the social trend does not have much impact on me. But for some, Facebook is a must-have application or service. However, Facebook is oozing forward. The company is likely to undergo changes. My view is that the changes will be slow, so the demise of the Facebook blob will take some time.

Second, the problem online advertising faces is in some ways similar to the problem traditional advertising faces. Audiences phase change without warning. The truisms which allowed my account representative from Ketchum McLeod & Grove don’t work too well in today’s wonky business climate. In the absence of proven methods for making sales, there is a desperation marketing phenomenon which I find interesting. Nothing much works, and I don’t think Facebook will crack the code. However, there are enough PT Barnum opportunities to keep the business afloat for a while.

Third, the present financial climate jeopardizes Facebook and a number of other businesses. I am far more concerned about the social consequences of cutting the financial lifelines to those who depend on government largesse to survive. One can advertise and market like the Dickens. If potential customers don’t buy, there is a larger problem.

I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t care what happens to Facebook or any of the Web outfits. I am reluctant to cry “wolff”.

Stephen E Arnold, May 24, 2012

Sponsored by Polyspot

Stephen E Arnold, May 18, 2012

Sponsored by HighGainBlog, where “real” journalists don’t both to seek inspiration.

Funnelback was grew from technology developed by CSIRO, Australia’s premier scientific research agency. The company was established in 2005, and was bought by UK content management outfit Squiz in 2009. They offer Enterprise and Website Search, both of which include customizable features. Both local and SaaS deployment options are available.

Regarding their Enterprise Search product, Funnelback’s Web site promises a comprehensive product:

“Funnelback Enterprise makes information available via a single web interface in a timely, consistent and convenient manner, leading to faster, more informed decision-making. Funnelback Enterprise can search across a myriad of corporate content repositories including websites, intranets, shared drives, document management systems, email systems, SharePoint and databases.”

Curious about the name? Their About page shares this:

“The name Funnelback is a play on the name of two spiders; the funnel-web and the redback, both native to Australia. The name was also chosen because of Funnelback’s ability to rapidly ‘funnel’ relevant information ‘back’ to the user.” [links added]

Quirky, clever, and memorable. And quintessentially Austrailian, just like Funnelback.

Cynthia Murrell, May 17, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

The story “Can a New Analyst Firm Take Down Gartner?” Wow. Quite an amazing write up. Sprawled across three pages, the story is written by a person about whom I know quite a lot after reading the “real” news in Computerworld; for example:

• The author of the story is Rob Enderle who is a big wheel and apparently the brains behind the Enderle Group.
• Mr. Enderle worked at Forrester (an azure chip outfit explaining what’s what in all things related to anything that compute), Giga Information Group (ditto the Forrester services), and a profession who has “worked for” IBM. He worked on audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security.
• Mr. Enderle is a TV talent type for CNBC, Fox (a Murdoch “real” journalism outfit), Bloomberg, and NPR.
• Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner, the brains behind the Gartner we know and love today as a publicly traded azure chip consulting firm.
• Mr. Enderle “helped found” the Giga Information Group.
• Mr. Enderle knows that “line management…doesn’t listen to Gartner and, for that matter, often doesn’t listen to IT either.”

There are other biographical nuggets in the write up too. Mr. Enderle “knows” Gideon Gartner. Be still my heart!

The main point is that an outfit involved in social CRM could—hypothetically and mostly without factual basis—just might be able to “take down Gartner.”

Yowza.

What does the kitty see when it looks in the mirror? A house pet or a wild lion?

The super hero in this story is a company called Ombud, which I assume is shorthand for ombudsman, a full time equivalent who is supposed to be a pair of ears with moist eyes and a warm nature able to solve a customer’s problem. I don’t know any ombudsmen, however. Those characteristics often match up with social workers in my experience.

There were several overt main points in the story about Ombud which I found more like search engine optimization and ego marketing. For instance:

I learned:

Gartner Group was conceived well before social networking, at a time when there not only was no Internet but no PCs. It seemed that it wouldn’t be long before someone would figure out how to blend experts, practitioners and vendors into a service that would be cheaper, more current and more focused on the unique needs of an individual company, thus providing more real value (regardless of price) than the older model.

Er, so what? Ombud is a Web site for a company which offers the same pay to play information which comes from most azure chip and blue chip consulting firms. Check ‘em out yourself at www.ombud.com.

Second, unlike Gartner and I assume any other consulting outfit, Ombud sells “access to RFPs which users create and vendors bid on.” I think the idea is that one can eliminate intermediaries, post a request for work, get bids, and pick a vendor. The organization just goes direct. I know how poorly the traditional procurement process works, but I am sure that a Fortune 50 company will experiment with Ombud. Anything that cuts the burdensome fees imposed by azure chip consultants is a good thing for most chief financial officers.

Third, the senior management of Ombud comes from IBM, which Mr. Enderle helpfully points out he was working on Big Blue’s audits, competitive analysis, marketing, finance, and security projects.

Fourth, Gartner, according to Mr. Enderle, talks to customers. But Gartner—azure chip outfit that it is—not Johnny on the spot. He asserts about Gartner:

Gartner talks to lots of customers. The issue is that this communication seldom happens in a timely manner and does not involve line management, which is often driving a firm’s buying decision. In short, Gartner is often talking to the wrong person in the customer account. A service leveraging LinkedIn could get to the critical decision makers that Gartner is missing and get them more timely feedback.

Hmm. A consulting firm which doesn’t listen? Interesting. Well, that inability to hop to has opened the door to Ombud. Mr. Enderle says:

I do think Ombud is on to something really interesting. If you are looking to find out more about a particular product or service, then you may find an actual user to be more knowledgeable than any analyst. In any case, this is a resource to consider and, at least for now, the only cost is your time-and, while you won’t need to get budget approval to use it, finding the spare time could be almost as daunting a task.

What’s this story “about”?

I think this story strikes me this way (your mileage may vary but I hope not too much):

1. Computerworld wanted a write up about digital Gerson Lehrman Group, a consulting services which is putting the hurt on quite a few low level, azure chip (mid tier), and blue chip firms. GLG is not perfect, but it offers a different business model and a combination of C+ online services and direct access to humans who are supposed to be experts. Computerworld’s running this story shows a drop off in the editorial screening process. Perhaps this was due to vacations, headcount reductions, or “we’re so darned busy” type explanations from poobahs who are “real” journalists. Who knows?
2. The article seems to be hell bent on planting some poison ivy in the Gartner garden. This type of “take down Gartner” approach is silly. Publicly traded firms don’t get taken down by a start up. Publicly traded companies get taken down by missteps and then start ups exploit those opportunities, thrive and grow. The GLG operations and similar types of “cafeteria style access to experts” are the real threat to traditional consulting. Something else is at work, and I think there must have been some interesting interactions between Mr. Enderle and certain consulting firms. Otherwise, why suggest a start up can take down a reasonably successful azure chip outfit. Left on its own Gartner is its own worst enemy, not Ombud.
3. The articles is autobiographical. In fact, the information about Ombud, how it performs its magic, the details about its funding are essentially ignored. The meat is the information about Mr. Enderle’s work experience, his interaction with several azure chip outfits, and his Swiss Army knife value to IBM.

Net net. Sure, check out Ombud. Ignore the crazy buzzwords. Then check out cafeteria style consulting firms. By the time you finish, maybe Gartner Group will acquire Ombud or do the “real” innovator’s trick. Pull a me-too. In the meantime, clip and save this Computerworld write up. It marks a turning point in “real” technology journalism. The story as marketing collateral.

Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

The SEO crowd has a new angle. EzineMark announces that you can now “Buy YouTube Comments to Contribute in the Growth of Your Online Venture.” The write up starts by mentioning how useful YouTube videos can be in a marketing campaign. Naturally, the more comments a company’s video gets, the more exposure the company ultimately receives. So far so good, but such a setup begs for someone to game the system.

Now, apparently, companies are doing just that. We are advised:

“There is a revelation that social media marketing service providers design various packages of ‘buy YouTube comments’ in a different price brackets. The price of the package varies with the number of comments demanded by the owner of an online venture. You can come across packages with numbers ranging from 100 to 500 comments to choose from. You can avail the package of buying YouTube comments in tune with your requirement and budget.”

This particular, um, article is not really worth combing through, unless you get a chuckle from poorly written English. The very idea of buying YouTube comments, though, is an interesting tactic. How long before it is utterly impossible to differentiate between marketing campaigns and organic content? Are we already there?

Cynthia Murrell, May 10, 2012

Sponsored by PolySpot

I admit it. After the little health event, I have been slow on the trigger. But I kept firing real ammo. Even though I spent more time in the hospital than a Medicaid Integrity Contractor, we pushed closer to 8,000 posts in this blog since January 2008. I even submitted my January, February, March and April 2012 columns on schedule much to the annoyance of the medical wizards in rural Kentucky. I am not sure what I wrote, but, hey, at age 67 and stuffed with medical goodies, I had a tough time remembering what day it was.

Now that I am back at my desktop command center, I am wading through email. I have to say, “I get a great deal of spam.” Those with whom I work either buzz my mobile or send me a text message. The high value content in email forms a smaller and smaller percentage of the total bitage each day.

Imagine my surprise when I get email from public relations “experts” who address me by my first name, enjoin me to attend a Kentucky Derby event, and inform me of ever-so-cute Twitter handles. Right, I am going to follow a person who uses this type of desperation marketing method.

So what did I receive?

Style Icon Luxury Gifting Suite Presented by New Era…Featuring Luxury & Lifestyle Brands: New Era, Wonderful Pistachios, Connor Custom, Jewelers, The Teaologist, Infiniti , Koma Unwind, Amanda Burns Jewelry, Street Moda, Ceela Naturals Skincare, Marena Scientific Shapewear, Sharp Images Salon & Spa, Pureology Luxury Hair Care & Cardaroos. Beverages by Woodford Reserve & Given Liqueur with Signature “POM Juleps” by POM Wonderful **Benefitting: March of Dimes, Dress for Success Louisville, Cure Duchenne, & Blessings in a Backpack*

What does this message mean? And the asterisks. How is this irresponsible verbal barrage relevant to search and content processing?

Who sent this misdirected, “blank”? An outfit called Hired Gun, located in New York City. Yep, that explains it. New York ethos. I am just a hick in Kentucky. A spam magnet.

So I wrote Stacey Wechsler, owner of Hired Gun. I asked her to remove me from her spam list. I said, “Stop writing me.”

What happened?

She fired  back more quickly than the Googler on Top Shot:.

Get over it. You were on a damn media list. Shoddy? Ok. Stacey Wechsler,  Hired Gun Publicity

Yep, and and I thought the expletive was a deft touch. I really appreciate advice and a curse word. Just what a person recuperating from a life threatening illness needs to face the fine health care service in Harrod’s Creek.

Ms. Wechsler’s LinkedIn profile suggests she organized the Sundance Film Festival. Ah, nice gig. What did Robert Redford do? Chop liver? Ms. Wechsler asserts on Twitvid that she is:

A girl who loves sports, music, work & the people in my life.

I was disappointed that she provided so little information about her work for Playboy and her pledge mistress activities at St. John’s University.

Thin content, but I love the ampersand. A useful short cut. I am quite tired of the spam news releases young people send me.

Hey, “real” journalists, I don’t do news. I capture information which interests me. The blog is for me and free. I don’t write “real” journalists and I keep my PR experts at arm’s length.

Do the desperation marketers and PR mavens avoid me? “The Publicist Behind Snooki’s Success” has spammed sickly me right here in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. Obviously to the hired gun shooting wildly is more important than hitting a target. Ms. Wechsler has been guided in the “Fire, Aim, Ready” school of public relations. Dangerous?

Does Ms. Wechsler and her ilk expect me to process the baloney generated by unemployed middle school teachers, self appointed experts, failed webmasters, and “real” journalists who have lost their “real” jobs and are looking for some type of approbation. Don’t I point out that “real” journalists manage to Murdoch themselves?

My goodness, I made fun of AtomicPR’s clumsy efforts to explain that MarkLogic had morphed into an enterprise search vendor at an Autonomy or Endeca type level. Oh, please, PR mavens. Doesn’t MarkLogic offer an XML centric data management system?

The hired gun metaphor is less powerful than the AtomicPR metaphor. But I have to admit, having blanks shot near my one good ear has given me a headache. Pop. Pop. Pop. I find the gun metaphor threatening. Worth monitoring with Overflight.

Stephen E Arnold, May 3, 2012

Sponsored by HighGainBlog

I read a recipe for traffic which appears in “Google’s Perfect Quality Score Sauce.” Among the tips are buying more keywords. Positive keywords and negative keywords are in the list of ingredients. But the operative words are “add more keywords.” Yep, spend more, get more.

The write up’s content comes from a Googler named Tanmay, but the important point is that key to traffic is a blend of cordon bleu methods which involve buying AdWords.

Will spending money produce clicks? The answer is, “Yes.” The reason is that without some type of exogenous lift, traffic to Web sites both desktop anchor and mobile on-the-wing are a bit like the income distribution in the US. One percent of the sites get the traffic. The other 99 percent do not.

The fact is creating a crisis of sorts among marketers who are pumping six figures into Web sites which yield a meager 2,000, 10,000, or 20,000 uniques.

Now the proper response to a CFO who questions the inefficiency of a traditional Web site is, “If we make one sale, the Web site pays for itself. And we get leads.”

One hopes the CFO says, “Okay, give me one sheet of paper with the sales the Web site has made in the last 30 days and a list of top 10 leads which have come from your Web efforts.”

Bad news, of course. Metrics are easy to talk about, but they are tough to map to hard dollars.

The good news about the sad state of traffic for most Web sites is that those who sell clicks, eyeballs, traffic, or other clever “evidence” of success is that Google will benefit. This is different from the good old days when a Web site was an event. Today a Web site is a distraction, an expensive distraction.

Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2012

Sponsored by Ikanow, which delivers analytics that answer questions

According to the 2011 Internet Advertising Revenue Report, (IAB) revenues have reached record highs of $31 billion. The article highlights several other growth categories from this year in the categories of mobile (up 149 percent), digital video (up 29 percent), and search revenues (up 27 percent).

Randall Rothenberg, President and CEO, IAB stated:

“This historic moment, with an especially impressive achievement in mobile, is indicative of an increased awareness from advertisers that they need to reach consumers where they are spending their time–in digital media. Pushing past the $30 billion barrier, the interactive advertising industry confirms its central place in media. Across search, display, digital video, digital provides a wealth of opportunity for brands and consumers. With the proliferation of smartphones and tablets, it is likely that the tremendous growth in mobile will continue as these screens become even more crucial to the marketing mix.”

Do these numbers reflect a change in priorities for search giants like Google and Facebook? and if so, is it a positive one?

Jasmine Ashton, April 30, 2012

Sponsored by Ikanow

According to the article, Brin thought that his comments were taken out of context. Also since the previous article was a short summary of a long discussion, his opinions were distorted. In reality, he holds competitors like Apple and Facebook in high regard.

In hopes of clarifying his previous statement that Google has a number of Internet enemies, Brin said:

“Today, the primary threat by far to internet freedom is government filtering of political dissent. This has been far more effective than I ever imagined possible across a number of nations. In addition, other countries such as the US have come close to adopting very similar techniques in order to combat piracy and other vices. I believe these efforts have been misguided and dangerous.”

It’s funny how the free flow of information can sometimes work to our disadvantage by blowing statements out of proportion.

Jasmine Ashton, April 30, 2012

Sponsored by Ikanow

According to the article, 76% of consumers use online reviews to determine which local business they will patronize. Unlike other review sites, Foursquare has a free check in feature that gives your business instant promotion. It also has two added benefits that further distinguish your business:

“First, because it’s integrated with Twitter, it gives you direct access to your customers. Second, by nature of who’s most likely to actually check in, it more specifically gives you access to your most loyal brand advocates. After all, if a customer goes as far as to publicly announce that he or she’s visiting your storefront, it’s pretty safe to assume that they had a positive experience. These are the people you want to leave reviews!”

Foursquare also makes it easy to set up notifications that allow you to see what your customers are saying about your business. Having direct access with your customers allows you to create a dialogue with them that will make them feel appreciated and want to return.

Jasmine Ashton, April 29, 2012

Sponsored by Ikanow