A Metric Morning for Digital Content Marketers
December 30, 2010
Hard data about the success or failure of online initiatives is tough to locate. I routinely delete news releases from privately-held companies that assert “Record revenues” or “profits double in the last quarter.” If the news is so good, why not provide some facts and figures?
That won’t happen because the numbers are just not that impressive. So data are expressed in art history major metrics. Interesting to some but search baloney to me.
This morning (December 30, 2010) I spotted some allegedly hard numbers. Now I don’t believe that these data are rock solid. Figure plus or minus 25 percent on a good day. Nevertheless, I find the attempt at quantification encouraging.
First, item: “Some iPad Magazines Seeing Steep Sales Declines.” No big surprise to soap and shampoo marketers. “New” and “improved” compete with weird discounts to lure grocery shoppers in Harrod’s Creek. The write up makes clear that some online publications for the trendy iPad gizmo are declining. The juicy part of the write up are the alleged data. Here’s one example:
According to WWD.com, a fashion-oriented news site, reported figures for sales the iPad edition of Wired fell from a stunning 100,000 copies of its debut issue in June to just 22,000 and 23,000 copies in October and November. Other publications reporting numbers to the Audit Bureau of Circulation saw less-dramatic drops, but drops all the same:Vanity Fair held steady at 10,500 iPad editions in August, September, and October then dropped to 8,700 copies in November.Glamour moved 4,300 copies on the iPad in September, but fell steadily to 2,775 in November, and has seen sales drop from a steady 13,000 to 11,000 in November.
My take? Making money online is just as tough with the iPad as it is with more traditional services. What’s easier is that non technology people can get excited about a product or service that is colorful, easy to use, and on the nifty new gadgets. Will these products or services repay their development costs and generate the type of revenue from the good old days of ink on paper publishing? A few will. Most will tank because software is different from making content. Read the original write up for more data.
Second item: “How Much Did Those AOL CDs Cost? A Lot.” The nugget in this post was this metric:
in the early 1990s our target was to spend 10% of lifetime revenue to get a new subscriber. At that time I believe the average subscriber life was about 25 months and revenue was about $350 so we spent about $35 to acquire subscribers. As we were able to lower the cost of disks/trial/etc we were able to ramp up marketing. (Plus, we knew Microsoft was coming and it was never going to be easier or cheaper to get market share.) When we went public in 1992 we had less than 200,000 subscribers; a decade later the number was in the 25 million range. …”
For search vendors, calculating revenue per deal is a dark art. In my experience, AOL style marketing spends are the exception, not the rule. And AOL style metrics? Better to hunt for gold nuggets in Harrod’s Creek.
Third item: “Facebook dominates Hitwise list of Top Searches.” The good part is not the top ranking of “Facebook” as a term. Nope. The tasty morsel is the list for 2010 that does not include Google. In 2009, the Google hit number 6. These fuzzy data drop the GOOG out of the Top 10. Good news. YouTube.com pegged number 3 in 2010 searches behind the Facebook log in and Facebook key word. What’s ahead for Google in this list for 2011? Probably more Facebook clicks. Worth watching even if the Hitwise data give me a headache.
Implications for search marketers? iPad apps may disappoint. Spending for marketing is a big deal. The Google’s pulse jet may be sputtering which might open wider the Facebook Web search opportunity.
Stephen E Arnold, December 30, 2010
Freebie
Win 7 Phone: Mobile Search Handicap for Microsoft?
December 27, 2010
The Windows 7 phone does not seem to be the sales barn burned some hoped it would be. If the sales estimates are on target, one wonder why. The Mobilesplease blog recently had a post about this specific issue titled: “Why Aren’t Windows 7 Phones Selling?” From the onset the article declares that the Windows 7 phone is a nifty gadget and purchasers are happy with it.
“So what’s the problem? Why aren’t these phones selling? To reiterate, there’s nothing wrong with them, but apart from Xbox 360 compatibility there’s really nothing that you haven’t been able to get on an iPhone, Blackberry or Android phone for the last year.”
The Windows 7 phone only offers a generic handset, which doesn’t impress buyers. The biggest factor, however, is that Windows just isn’t cool anymore. It’s true they have a niche in the videogame market with the Xbox 360, but their marketing of the Windows 7 phone has been the exact opposite of what they’re doing for the videogame console. Microsoft will find some way to market their phone, though. Windows Mobile has been on the market for years, though that wasn’t much of a success either. Microsoft just needs to figure out how it can become cool in a market controlled by the iPhone and Droid. The article suggests renaming the Windows 7 phone, the XPhone.
Whitney Grace, December 27, 2010
Freebie
Google and Agility
December 26, 2010
Short honk: I read in Apple Insider this article: “22 Months after Announcement, Google Latitude App Comes to Apple’s iPhone”. Well, the title covers it.
My question: “Is this an example of Google’s agility?” or “Is this an example of Apple’s bureaucracy?”
The delay reflects poorly on both of these tech giants.
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2010
Freebie
Comparing Apples to Androids
December 22, 2010
“Google: We’re Activating 300,000 Android Phones Each Day” proclaims . . . well, just like it says. To sum up: “Need help wrapping your head around the significance here? Consider that Apple claims it activates 270,000 iPhones each day, 30,000 less than Google for each 24 hour period, 210,000 less per week, and more than 10.9 million less per year (again assuming the rate of activations doesn’t change for either company).”
Sounds impressive, right?
HotHardware.com seems ready to declare Apple TKO’d. Well, I’d say not quite so fast. First of all, these numbers are about activations, not profits. Who is really making big money here? Apple, hand over fist, in the midst of a tanked economy. Google is hanging their hopes on ad revenue, while Apple dominates with sales of all iOS devices: iPhone, iPads, iPod Touch. To date, no one has made money on Android apps who hasn’t made it first on iPhone apps. In my opinion, the real fight here is not Google vs. Apple, it’s Google vs. Blackberry, with RIM on the mat and down for the count.
Alice Wasielewski, December 22, 2010
Freebie
Arnold Comments about Exalead
December 20, 2010
A couple of times a year, I make a swing through Europe. I visit vendors, get demos, and talk with engineers about the future of search. In Paris on November 30, 2010, I answered questions about my views of Exalead. As you know, Exalead is a unit of Dassault Systems, one of the most sophisticated engineering firms in the world. You can get my view of Exalead by navigating to this link. Here’s an example of the observations I made:
“Exalead delivers applications that fit seamlessly and smoothly into customer workflows,” said Arnold. “When I spoke with Exalead customers I heard only: ‘This system works,’ ‘It’s easy to use,’ ‘It’s stable,’ and ‘I don’t have to chase around.”
In the interview, I point out that Exalead’s engineering makes it possible to embed search and information access in applications. Instead of using key words to unlock the information in a traditional search and retrieval system, Exalead makes the needed information available within existing work flows and applications. Access extends across a full range of content types and devices, including smart phones.
I have tracked Exalead for a number of years, and it continues to distinguish itself in information access by going “Beyond Search.” Here at Beyond Search we use the Exalead platform for our Overflight service.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2010
The Exalead engineering team bought me lunch, a plus in Paris. Too bad about the snow and ice, though.
Xoogler Predicts the Future of Chrome
December 14, 2010
Quite a bomb shell in “Gmail Creator Paul Buchheit: Chrome OS Will Perish or Merge with Android.” I don’t know if the prediction will come true, but the notion of two separate operating systems struck me as very expensive and quite confusing. Mr. Buchheit was Mr. Gmail. He then became Mr. Facebook. Now he is Mr. Banker. Xooglers are adaptable. A Xoogler even runs AOL, and that is a fascinating operation to monitor.
But back to the Android Chrome prediction. In my opinion, the key passage in the write up was not the killer tweet; it was:
Google to date has posited that Android and Chrome OS, its two operating systems, address different markets that will remain distinct despite the growing convergence of the devices they run on (netbooks, tablets, smartphones). Google co-founder Sergey Brin, however, has stated in the past that Google will likely “produce a single OS down the road”. Ironically, the key architect of the Chrome OS project, Matthew Papakipos, left Google over the Summer — for a job at Facebook, Paul Buchheit’s most recent former employer.
What will happen? I have learned that predicting Google’s activities to be a difficult challenge for even the most astute prognosticators. I confine my predictions to big fuzzy observations that are never really right or wrong. Quite a goosely skill I might add.
Observations about Android and Chrome are in order:
- Two of anything offers more choice, but it also means that in a Math Club environment one will have a higher score and, therefore, be more relevant. In short, two generates a list. The winner is the item with the most “votes”. No subjectivity involved. Google is not into subjective search results.
- Developers who pick the wrong horse are losers. Now I know the theory that Google code works like a champ on anything Google. Well, yes and no. Chrome is a cloud thing and Android is more of a gizmo thing at this time. I sure wouldn’t want to be the developer who backed the wrong horse. Maybe that unified, locked down Apple approach has some charm.
- Users are not likely to know an Android from a Chrome. The whole Google-is-into-hardware baffles me as well. Apple may end up looking pretty good. Even though the iPad and the iPhone are two different gizmos which means hassles for developers, the look and feel of the iPad and the iPhone is pretty similar. Users probably want consistency and sizzle more than detailed information about the operating system.
In short, Google threw out two “innovations.” Google now has to find a way to deal with the opportunities and downside of moving forward in a way that generates substantive revenue. Meanwhile, little old Apple just keeps cranking out gizmos people want and can use without knowing much, if anything, about the plumbing. User experience maybe?
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2010
Freebie
Google and Search without Search
December 12, 2010
I read “Marissa Mayer’s Next Big Thing: Contextual Discovery—Google Results without Search”. The key point in the article, in my opinion, was this passage:
“The idea is to push information to people.”
Years ago I wrote an article about push technology. I explained the benefits of search and described the efforts of PointCast and Backweb. My recollection is that I wrote the article in 1997 or 1998. The ERIC citation is here. I won an award for that article, but no one cared. No problem for me because I am not an academic and certainly at age 66, I am not interested in applying for a job in the Ivory Tower. I prefer the goose pond in Harrod’s Creek, thank you.
The phrase “contextual discovery” is short hand for the content system knowing who is logged in, what actions the user has taken in the past, and what the user is doing now. The “now” part comes from geographically aware software and some Julia Child-type numerical recipes. These “inputs” formulate a search query or point to content that others in a closely knit statistical neighborhood have recently accessed. Add salt and queue up search results. The user glances at his mobile device screen and, presto, relevant content appears.
Search without search.
Several observations:
- Pushing content is not going to be the next big thing in my opinion. The next big thing is having your Facebook environment provide you with the context for the information you want. No matter what fancy math is applied to search without search, I think the social experience in information retrieval is becoming more, not less, important. Of course, Google lacks a viable social search service, so it is understandable that the company wants 1995 technology to be the next big thing. Er, it still is 1995 technology. Even the word “push” dates from that era. It is almost 2011 and 15-year-old methods won’t hit home runs. Doubles, maybe?
- Google has tried several times to find a winner. In 2010, I suffered through Buzz, Wave, and the baffling Google TV service. I just don’t see Google having the same magic touch that it had prior to 2006, a point in time when Google began to shift from “text search” Google to “wild and crazy” Google. Push or contextual search is a great feature, but it is not going to set the 20-somethings’ hearts a-flutter.
- Google is fresh from some painful rejections. Math Club members are still struggling to gain social acceptance. The big turn down may be the Groupon.com brush off. I can tell you this: If I were Groupon, I would have grabbed that $6 billion and figured out something else to do that interested me. The rejection is all the more stunning because Google apparently was serious and so was Groupon. Maybe the deal will come back to life with another few billion added to the original offer. But the damage is done. Not only don’t major TV content people want to fall in love with Google, now a person-intensive, coupon sales company is not interested.
So what’s the next big thing? In my opinion, it is rejection. Google has to get its mojo back. Push may help, but more is needed than buying a digital rights outfit and quietly spending dough for content. Lots more.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2010
Freebie
Street View and As a Ground Hog Event
December 6, 2010
The cute little ground hog pops up and events repeat themselves. Google, a cute creature indeed, is caught in a ground hog event. We refer to Street View and its ability to pop up, recycle, pop up and recycle the same sequence of activities. Is it us or the ground hog effect?
Google takes another hit with revelations of Google Street View cars again gathering private information through WiFi networks. “Google Privacy Breach: Damage to Brand ‘Substantial‘” reports that unlike the spring 2009 data gathering, this UK privacy breach was significant enough to warrant investigation, although the British Information Commissioner’s Office did not subject Google to a fine. According to the article, though, the main punishment for this offense will not be found in legal penalties:
“Jack Adams, SEO consultant at Greenlight told Web User that although Google seems to have been ‘let off lightly’, he believes the breach could have a major impact on the brand’s reputation: ‘There can’t be any denying that some extent of damage has been done to users’ confidence in the brand and its squeaky-clean image, built around the company’s “don’t be evil” motto.’”
In addition, the FCC is investigating similar accusations. Does this add to what seems to be Google’s recent losing streak with Buzz, Wave, Google TV, etc.? After all, there are objections to Street View itself with nearly a quarter of a million Germans opting out of having their homes shown. Put all this together, and I’m not sure that reputation damage is the main point to take away from Street View’s private data gathering fiasco. We are beginning to think the bigger issue is an emerging pattern of poor judgment calls. Solving problems in math does not require social savvy. Perhaps services like Street View do?
Alice Wasielewski, December 6, 2010
First XML, Then the iPad: Another Life Preserver for Publishers
December 6, 2010
Publishers love XML. Well, not the coding of XML. Publishers love the versatility and slicing – dicing functions of XML. Now the publishers have another life preserver as traditional cost structures and marketing methods come under increased pressure.
“Why the iPad Newspaper is Doomed” is broken down into a long list of all the reasons why Rupert Murdoch’s latest news venture is destined to be an epic fail. Gawker, publisher working to reinvent itself, asserts:
“Rupert Murdoch is putting $30 million and 100 journalists behind an iPad newspaper called “The Daily. He even has support from Apple CEO Steve Jobs. But no one really believes this thing will last.”
The reasons are that the morning news will be compiled the evening before, the scope is too broad, Murdoch has not had success online before, huge amounts of subscriptions will have to be sold, links will be non-existent, costs are too expensive to maintain, the cost-free news competition s too tough, and the staff is all traditional news not tech.
Yet, the post does also have a short list of reasons for optimism, which are: Steve Jobs, huge iPad sales, Murdoch’s unexpected success with Fox News, and the success of some other iPad publications. It’s the Fox News angle that interests me most. Rupert Murdoch, love him or hate him, has been known to sniff out an opportunity and keep putting his extensive resources behind it until it pans out. This iPad newspaper seems like a long shot, but sometimes Murdoch knows something we don’t. The story, as real journalists say, is still being written.
Alice Wasielewski, December 6, 2010
Android: A Success with Some Weaknesses
November 23, 2010
“Android Fail? 25% Worldwide Market Share Says “Not So Much” is one of those write ups that puzzle me. The author references another blog on the ZDNet service, sort of disagrees, but focuses on poobahing from the Harvard Business Review. I think the HBR has a great reputation, but have you check the US economy lately. Harvard has contributed some “greed is good” types who seem to have muffed Business 1.0 and are on the path to degradation for Business 2.0.
The idea is that Google has a 25 percent market share for its open source mobile operating system Android. That is a big chunk of a market. No argument. Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
Sure, open sourcing Android has and will result in some collateral damage. And Google is going to have to begin exerting some control over upgrade cycles with carriers to reduce fragmentation, which I frankly think is a far bigger problem than Baidu remaining dominant in Chinese search (this is nothing new). However, millions and millions of handsets, emerging tablets and similar devices, and now Google TV, all running Android, mean that Google shouldn’t be losing too much sleep over the Motorola Citrus.
My thought is that once the horse is out of the barn and galloping down Open Source Lane, getting the horse back in the barn may be difficult, if not impossible. Mobile advertising will be a big deal, and the fact that Baidu and Microsoft have wiggled on phones as search providers is interesting. More interesting to me is that Google has blown off China, and some of the telcos may use Android and leave some of the other Googley services buried deep in obscure menus.
But back to the Harvard reference. Maybe these Harvard Business Review assertions are correct. Google will learn tout de suite how Oracle will deal with the Java open source issue. Google may win, leaving Oracle an also ran. Google has some analysts in check, but I think fragmentation, China, and the telcos are going to be another cluster of challenges no matter how much money Google has.
Stephen E Arnold, November 23, 2010
Freebie
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
