Usage Trends for Late 2009
December 25, 2009
I receive an email from ClickZ every week. On December 21, 2009, the email pointed me to the “Most visited Web Site and Most Search Term in 2009?” I assumed that the terms were the sanitized lists that proliferate at year’s end. I did focus on the following table from the Web page with the helpful name 3635954:
Several observations came to my addled goose brain.
First, MySpace.com under the stewardship of ace monetizer Rupert Murdoch seems to have lost the map to King Midas’ treasure room. The site dropped a couple of spots in the midst of a boom in social network usage. Facebook.com, like a field runner with stamina for the long race, moved to the number three spot. MySpace.com, if these data are accurate, may have to rethink its approach or the service will follow in the footsteps of Web sites that had oomph once and then lost when challenged.
Second, the Google is number one. No big surprise to me. What is interesting is that YouTube.com has moved from the tenth spot to number six. When combined, Mr. Google seems to be doing quite well in the traffic department. That’s in sharp contrast to both Microsoft and Yahoo. Despite the hype, Microsoft and Yahoo have not made significant inroads in the all-important Web search sector. It is encouraging that Yahoo Mail holds down the number two spot, but more is going to be needed in 2010.
Finally. Poor eBay.com. Looks like the company continues to flounder. Has Amazon figured out how to hobble eBay or is eBay just a victim of digital arteriosclerosis?
Interesting table at lunch with the goslings today (December 24, 2009). We don’t do holidays. Honk.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 25, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. I have to report this to the Legal Services Corporation. Those legal types don’t take holidays when there are billable hours to be had. Oops. This is a quasi-governmental outfit. Holiday! Sorry. I will report after the 25th of December. Silly goose that I am. I thought humans worked on the 25th of December.
Social Search Degrades Productivity
December 24, 2009
The article “Social Networking Sites a Drag on Productivity” struck me as one of those obvious professional journalist write ups. I did find the data in the article potentially useful. I think most of the social network hype is the shock wave of the present economic crisis. Let’s face it. Social networking for professionals often means a job hunt or a search-and-capture campaign to land a contract for services. In the personal realm, most of the social networking is an extension of normal human interaction. I think I know what that means for an old timer like me: making it to the doctor without driving into a culvert. For the younger set, I think there may be more frisky goals.
For me the key passage in this write up was:
“Close to 12.5% of productivity of human resource in corporate sector is misappropriated each day since a vast majority of them while away their time accessing social networking sites during office hours,” industry body Assocham said in a survey. Almost each day, on an average, a corporate employee spends an hour, glued to various social networking sites such as Orkut, Facebook, Myspace “for romancing or otherwise driving some satisfaction out of it,” the chamber said.
The time spent on Facebook and similar sites may be fun or rewarding in some specific way. I pay someone to be me on Twitter and other social sites. I wonder who I am. I suppose I could look but that would not be particularly productive in my opinion.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 23, 2009
Oyez, oyez, Bureau of Labor Statistics, I was not paid to write this short item. I have to be productive; otherwise, this goose would not eat. In fact, another of those goose eating holidays is approaching. Scary. Post that on Facebook.
It Is Marketing, Not Content?
December 23, 2009
I read with interest “Why Marketing Is Crucial for Publishers.” I have been under the impression that marketing supported sales. Sales produces revenue. Therefore, I thought, marketing has to make money. The publisher makes information too. I wonder what the relationship of marketing to information is. Probably money.
After reading the article, I am not sure. I keep coming back to the marketing – money hook up, but I think another angle lurks behind the words. Read the article. Verify my impression.
One idea that caught my attention was:
To best monetize a site, the ad sales team must harness the audience insight of the marketing team at a detailed level and align ad sales with generating more traffic.
The idea that sales and marketing are going to fall in love and get married strikes me as a Hatfield and McCoy problem. Sales makes sales, earn a commission, and head to the golf course. Marketing does “stuff” that is tough to tie to direct revenue. Sure, marketers can trot out traffic analysis, but the person who lands the sales is the hero. Apple had a brief marriage to a Pepsi marketer, and the company needed to bring the founder back to survive.
One passage that I noted was:
Here’s a simple example: The marketer knows his/her site has 20% of their visitors playing online games, where these visitors stay for between 15 and 30 minutes. Are the ad slots on those pages not worth more because the visitor watches the ad for so long? You bet! But the ad sales team can’t take advantage of it. Here’s another: The ad sales team knows it can sell its “health section” at a $20 cpm. What if the marketing team could buy search terms to generate traffic at less than $20? The marketer would reach its goal of more traffic and the ad sales would generate more revenue. From a technology perspective, the tracking of user behaviour already exists from both an ad perspective and a marketer perspective. Combining these two data sets is what will unlock significant value for both parties.
With automated ad systems, why have a sales person? The reason is that certain types of ads require a human to seal the deal. Inefficient and non-Googley for sure. But for most information companies, the notion of relying on semi autonomous agents is like a jigger of cod liver oil followed by a chunk of Limburger cheese. The idea of having a sales person and an AdWords program in order to “generate traffic at less than $20” strikes me as an expensive proposition.
Publishing, online or not, have some other tough math problems to solve. Online won’t do the job. The reality is that online cannot support the chubby overheads that were possible in the good old days of traditional publishing. Talking about getting sales and marketing to spend the rest of their lives together is far fetched in my opinion. One of the functions, maybe both, must be moved to software. Fire the humans. When that happens, the information companies may have a chance to generate sustainable income.
Tough love is needed for tough times. Fantasies of sales and marketing becoming soul mates is an idea that might have taken flight in the 1970s. A different approach is needed for publishers, online or traditional, in these uncertain times. I thought that information companies had to produce compelling, high value content to generate traffic and earn money. Guess I was wrong. I guess a great product and magnetic information are no longer important.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 23, 2009
Oyez, oyez, this is an uncompensated write up. No sales people or marketing pros involved. For that reason, I wish to report this miserable state of affairs to the National Drug Intelligence Center, which I hope is open during the snow storm in DC.
Search Lemma Two
December 23, 2009
Another lemma for the search and content processing crowd:
Search generally delivers data. Search may deliver information. Search never delivers knowledge.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 22, 2009
A freebie. Who’s on first today? Oh, yes, I must report this to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical online information is an excellent way to test this lemma.
VSAT Is Back
December 22, 2009
The Houston Chronicle reported a story that is mostly a news release pick up. I noticed this because it mentions the VSAT broadband technology. If this does not rev your engine, you can get some basic information of the very small aperture terminal technology by reading the Wikipedia entry for “Very Small Aperture Terminal”. You may find the Crystal Communications write up “About VSAT” helpful as well. VSAT is one of those technologies that made certain government agencies drool years ago. An outfit called Equatorial Communications was / is / shall be the cat’s pajamas.
“KVH’s Mini-VSAT Broadband Service Officially Approved by US Government” includes several comments I found interesting:
- “The system enables the highest data rate, widest global coverage, and lowest service cost of any maritime satellite communications service.”
- [The VSAT technology] “brings the economic and operational benefits of VSAT service to large new markets of commercial and leisure vessels.”
- “Our network spreads the signal over a wider bandwidth, thereby reducing interference issues, supporting multiple simultaneous users, allowing us to offer an antenna 75% lighter and 85% smaller by volume, and reducing costs as we use the same transponder for inbound and outbound signals.”
This may be important to certain organizations in the online information business. I won’t connect the dots, but there are some quite interesting Google inventions in the wireless sector.
Stephen E. Anrold, December 22, 2009
A freebie. No one paid me to write about the information in the Houston Chronicle’s recycled news section. The agency monitoring blog posts with regard to the recycling is the Environmental Protection Agency. I herewith report another free post.
Google Sends Signals to Telco Poobahs
December 21, 2009
I enjoyed “Verizon Snuffs Google for Microsoft Search.” The Register summarizes Google’s dalliance with Verizon. Then Verizon hugged Microsoft and slipped Bing.com into its mobile browser. Apparently some Verizon customers were annoyed. For me, the most important part of the write up was:
Verizon has unilaterally updated user Storm 2 BlackBerries and other smartphones so that their browser search boxes can only be used with Microsoft Bing. The move is part of the five-year search and advertising deal Verizon signed with Microsoft in January for a rumored $500m.
When I read this, I thought about Microsoft’s other attempts to buy traffic for the Bing.com search system. Like AT&T, Verizon is off balance. Google is no longer the clumsy Web search outfit. Google is a key player in the telephony market worldwide.
In my opinion, AT&T and Verizon have a bit of a problem on their hands. Google does not have to hurry. Furthermore, Google continues to nibble away at different chunks of the communications market. My research suggests that Verizon, like Microsoft, will have to find a better way to compete with Google. Depriving customers of choice and buying traffic are great tactics. Too bad Google is playing a different game with different rules.
Three blind spots for Verizon exist in my opinion:
- Verizon has to accept the reality that Google has better plumbing. That technology edge is going to put Verizon in some weird yoga positions.
- Verizon perceives itself as a giant company. It is giant. It is focused on the US market. Google, on the other hand, has a global vision. Thus, Verizon has a perception problem.
- Google has engineered solutions to some long standing telco bottlenecks. Right now, telcos do not understand Google’s many initiatives. This failure to see the different small communications actions like messaging in Google Calendar as part of a larger fabric. The Google engineers have outflanked and jumped over Verizon.
Telcos face start choices. Ignore Google. Cozy up to Google. Fight Google. None will work. Verizon will make decisions that I perceive as questionable because Google has nipped at Verizon. Like an angry bull in a bullfight in Madrid, the bull does not make good decisions. In the end, the bull becomes a quarter pounder with cheese. Through these cartwheels, Google is messing with the minds of telco executives. Most recent distraction: Nexus. I can hear it now, “Google can’t make handsets and sell them.” Maybe, maybe not. Distraction.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 19, 2009
Disclosure time: Freebie. I hasten to report this fact to the Bankruptcy Courts. Some telcos may end up in those fine institutions.
Google and Bing: The November Horse Race Results
December 21, 2009
Through the complex route of Yahoo, I read Barry Levine’s “Google Is Galloping Way Ahead as Bing Moves Up.” I live in Kentucky, so the horse analogy is interesting. The search market is not a horse race. The search market is an interesting manifestation of information usage.
Guess what you can buy for dinner here. Which search engine logo will be mounted on the wall?
Without substantive change in human behavior, there is little likelihood that Google will lose its lead any time soon. The analogies to horses abound in the Newsfactor story. I like metaphors. I enjoyed “They Shoot Horses Don’t They”, and I like to window shop at the boucheries chevalines.
For me the key point in the write up was:
The competition, said Information Technology Intelligence Corp.’s Laura DiDio, is like “everyone being way behind Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont Stakes,” where the legendary racehorse “looked like he was racing against himself.” In the race for second place, DiDio added, the “momentum goes to Bing.” She noted that Microsoft’s entry into search has gained two percent since May, Yahoo’s has dropped from 20.5 percent, and Google appears to be stabilizing in its way-out-front position. Measured as query volume, Bing had the largest growth of the top search engines in November, with a six percent increase in volume. Yahoo’s dropped two percent, and Google’s edged up one percent. comScore’s stats include partner and cross-channel searches, but not searches for mapping, local directory, or user-generated video sites. The actual number of searches was about 9.5 billion for Google, 2.5 billion for Yahoo, 1.5 billion for Bing, 548 million for Ask, and 401 million for AOL.
The question for me is which of these nags will end up on the grill?
Stephen E. Arnold, December 19, 2009
I wish to disclose a free write up to the USDA, an entity focused on making sure I eat beef, chicken, and the other white meat, not losers of horse races.
RatBook: UK Bad Guy Goodies
December 19, 2009
Short honk: It is not often that I come across a new information service that intrigues me. I have done a tiny bit of work in the UK. I don’t know too much about people who participate in crimes, but the Rat Book makes it easy to get some information. If you want to know about criminals in the UK, navigate to the RatBook.com.
The firm told me:
Our website exposes convicted criminals across the UK, currently containing over 14,000 criminal profiles (updated daily), consisting of Paedophiles, Perverts, Rapists, Murderers, Abusers, Terrorists, and other Violent Criminals. Criminals can be searched based on their location, and the crimes they have committed, all through our easy to use Rat Map.
My query for “Russian” generated and interesting list of hits. Some of the content was dated, which is not unusual for information generated by a government entity and made available to a non-governmental service. Might be useful.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 19, 2009
Oyez, oyez, a freebie. I am now reporting this fact to the Court of International Trade. My hunch is that some of the bad people may move to and fro.
Digital Magazines and Hope
December 18, 2009
Anyone remember the Dyke Britton or the Graham Blue Streak? These were American automobile manufacturers, and they did not survive. The automobile industry and the magazine business on the surface seem to be very different. First, the automobile replaced the horse. The magazine did not replace anything. The automobile moved people. The magazine moves intangibles stuff like pictures, ideas and cartoons. The automobile created a massive social upheaval that is responsible for fast food and Tata’s cheap vehicle. The magazine created advertising.
Those autos are gone. Lots of magazines are gone. What is happening in automobiles may be happening in magazines. One difference is that I don’t think government subsidies and bail outs will be forthcoming. An information manufacturing era may be coming to an end.
Now the magazine crowd wants to move from the intangible world of content into the Frankenstein environment of digital information and a physical reading device. Don’t get me wrong. I think the magazine crowd has to find a way to survive. Charging me $15 for a Macintosh magazine from Future Publishing is probably not a recipe for mass market success.
I know the magazine crowd in the US wants to cook up an iTunes for magazines. The idea is that a person who reads “quality” content will gladly pay for certain articles. Well, maybe? When I read “Mag+, a Concept Video on the Future of Digital Magazines”, I asked myself, “Can folks who can’t make their core business work be able to jump outside their core competency?”
I look at quite a few digital magazines. Some like Zmags are quite interesting. Others rely on hardware that is ill-suited for the arts and craft approach to information that seems to be popular today. Even the Harvard Business Review magazine is going to try and be more “with it.” Get out the party hats!
Several thoughts:
- Traditional magazines have an editorial slant; today I can get information on topics of interest to me without my having to do much work
- Traditional magazines have been trying to be design conscious; today I prefer information
- Traditional magazines delivered an audience to advertisers; today I prefer information targeted to my specific needs.
In summary, magazines—regardless of format and media—are out of step with what I do to get information. The concept of a “magazine”, therefore, is going to have to be stretched in a different way. In my opinion, that concept will not have the elastic properties necessary to accommodate the odd shapes of consumers’ information needs. What happens when an elastic sheet is subjected to frequent stretching, it weakens and then gives way.
There you have it.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 18, 2009
I have to report that this is a free write up. No one paid me, but I think I have to reveal this fact to the Internal Revenue Service, an agency stretched thin due to various exogenous factors.
New York Times Gets Excited about Traffic Analysis
December 18, 2009
Navigate to “A Day in the Life of NYTimes.com.” You will learn that the New York Times has discovered that traffic to its Web site in mind 2009 is heavier at certain times of the day. There are other insights from the New York Times’s Laboratory. A couple of questions flashed through my mind.
First, what percentage of this traffic is in some way due to Google searches?
Second, why doesn’t the New York Times command the Web presence of the entertainment site TMZ.com, which is cited in the article as a big deal?
Third, how many New York Times executives are mesmerized by the videos showing traffic patterns?
Be still my goosely heart!
Disclosure: no one paid me to point out that these mesmerizing maps did not mesmerize this addled goose. I have to report this to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This information constitutes an emergency.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
