Dead Trees Form an Ad Forest of Seedlings
March 11, 2009
Nicholas Carlson’s “27 Huge Publishers Join to Replace the Banner” caught my eye. The story explains that well known publishing outfits are cooperating to generate revenue. For me the most interesting comment in the write up was:
27 publishers with a reach of about 109 million unique visitors per month — that’s 66% of the total U.S. Internet audience — have agreed to try one of three new online ad formats…
I think this is a good idea, just a bit late to the party. The flaw in the effort is traffic. Publishers’ Web sites get traffic from other places. I no longer navigate to a specific site like Forbes.com. The site is too annoying. I look at headlines and then decide whether I am willing to put up with the wacky intrusions that that publication thinks will catch my attention.
Mr. Carlson’s article goes into great detail about the way my eyeballs traverse a Web site, which makes the fatal assumption that I go to a publisher’s Web site to see what’s on offer. You may find the diagrams useful. I did.
I think the publishers may want to revisit their traffic assumptions. Some Web search engine vendors might want those ad revenues to be invested in the Web search engines’ ad systems. Ads that stumble over a technical hurdle might cost the site some traffic. The assumptions collapse. Traffic, not the publishers’ brand, is the secret to making ads do more than a trickle of revenue when a flood is needed–and quickly. I wonder if this group will figure out a way to do mobile and Twitter ads next?
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Arnold to Return to Information World Review
March 11, 2009
In the late 1990s, I wrote a series of columns for Information World Review, a print and online publication, published in the United Kingdom. I grew tired with the monthly grind. In a couple of months, I will again submit a column to IWR. I will not recycle either the information in this Web log nor the persona of the addled goose. This is a free Web log of recycled information. The columns will contain original research. I may conclude each column with a comment, but my goal will be to highlight technology or developments of interest to those interested in electronic information and online. I do not write many articles about Microsoft’s online activities, and I may dive into the Redmond doings in the months to come. I am also interested in the new social publishing products like the novels written for mobile phones by some sharp eyed, accurate typing Tokyo residents. Just a note to myself that I have to write a KMWorld column each month and now one for Information World Review. With the vast sums these publishing companies pay me, I think I will buy Tess a new raw hide chew stick. She’s my white rescued boxer. Stone deaf. Her dog hearing aid will have to wait until I strike gold in Harrod’s Creek.
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Search May Not Mean Search
March 11, 2009
Last week, I had a disturbing conversation with a very confident 30 something. After more than a year of planning, I learned that the company had decided to deploy a key word search system from a big name vendor. I asked, “What do the employees need? Keyword retrieval? Reports? Alerts?”
The answer was, “We have that information from informal discussions. Keyword search.”
I thanked the person for lunch and walked away shaking my head. Businesses are struggling for revenue, and employees in the organizations I have visited since October 2008 strike me as wanting to make their companies successful. Employees are savvy and know that if their employer goes down the drain finding another job might not be easy.
For some, there will be increased competition. Darwinianism is an abstract concept until a person can’t find work.
The 30 something had a job. An important job. The information technology unit at this services firms had search systems but employees did not use them. The IT budget was getting scrutiny, so the manager and tech staff decided it was time to get a “new” search system.
The problem was that I had in 2003 and 2004 conducted interviews with a number of senior managers at this organization. I even knew the president of one of the operating units socially. Although my lunch took place in 2009, I realized that the IT department was going to make the same errors it had with its previous search procurements. Every two or three years, the company licensed another system. After a honeymoon of six months, the results were predictable in my opinion. Grousing and declining usage.
Vendors have a tough time breaking the cycle. Some search companies pitch a “simple solution” that is like a One a Day vitamin. Others deliver a toolkit that is far to complicated for the IT team to get working and scarce budget dollars cannot be pumped into what amounts a customized search system.
If this scenario resonates, you may want to navigate to LLrX and read the article, “Knowledge Discovery Resources 2009: An Internet MiniGuide Annotated Link Compilation” here. The listing was compiled by the prolific Marcus P. Zillman, Internet expert. What I liked about the meaty listing was it made clear to me one point: Search does not mean keyword retrieval. The list provided me with a meaty link burger. I discovered a number of useful resources. You will want to download it and do some exploration.
I did not send the list to my lunch pal, the 30 something who knows what his users want without bothering with surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observation of users in action. As long as organizations hire information technology professionals who know what “search” means, a list won’t make much difference.
You might have a more open mind. I hope so. Search defined as keyword retrieval is about as relevant today as a bronze surgical instrument in an emergency room in a big city hospital. Access to information in a way that meets the needs of individual users is, in my opinion, what search means.
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Google Software: A Glimpse at the Future of Google Applications
March 11, 2009
In my analyses of Google Patent documents, I documented the number of inventions that have applicability to online advertising. This makes sense. If your $20 billion in annual revenue depended on online advertisers bidding to get in front of potential customers, you would invest in ad R&D as well.
Most of the 40 percent of Google’s inventions have an ad hook. But some of the wizardry operates beneath a digital kimono. Few outside of the GOOG itself get to see the hidden charms that Google’s billions have purchased.
You can glimpse some of the technology by exploring what Google calls its “Agency Toolkit”. You can locate the page here, but I am not sure if you have to be an authorized Google-holic to access the tools. My own goslings wrought the necessary magic for this addled goose. Your goslings may vary in capabilities, of course.
Here’s what Google said about its Agency Toolkit:
We know how busy you are planning, creating and measuring success for your clients. That’s why we’ve created this site: your one-stop shop for Google tools to make your job a little easier. Build effective advertising programs, optimize your performance, and uncover market insights using the resources outlined here. And each of these free tools is easy to use, helping you to efficiently support your clients.
What’s on offer? Quite a few interesting services and functions. I don’t want to spoil your fun when you work through the 18 tools and links for training on the Web page. Let me highlight two:
- A placement tool. Google described it this way: “Find and choose websites, RSS feeds and other placements in the Google content network where you want your clients’ ads to run. Identify placements by URLs, topics, or demographics.”
- An SEO troubleshooter. The Google wordsmiths wrote: “Find and choose websites, RSS feeds and other placements in the Google content network where you want your clients’ ads to run. Identify placements by URLs, topics, or demographics.”
The toolkit is important for three reasons:
First, it is making powerful functions available to non programmers found in advertising agencies. In my opinion, this approach to what once were script based tasks makes Google a potential disruptive force for information contractors
Second, the metaphor “tools” implies that the ad exec or you if you are your own ad agency you can pick and choose the right tool for the task at hand. Unlike the notion of tools used by Microsoft or Oracle, Google wants its tools to be used by “regular” people, not techies who have passed tests to prove they are worthy of the secrets that unlike the usefulness of software.
Third, the tools themselves are pure Google. That is clean with just enough eye candy available for those client presentations. Don’t believe me. Refresh your memory with http://trends.google.com, which is one of the tools in the kit.
Google is one of the leaders in making arcane and technically complex operations easy and, for some, interactive. Whether to tools provide the amount of control a user assumes he or she gets, the perception of control is what is important. Think of tools as an never ending supply of ice cream and snacks for the Mad Ave type Google customer. The process is so much fun, in my opinion, that is is easy to forget that those are real deflated dollars one is spending. Not even a newspaper’s haggard, desperate ad rep can match the Google Ad Toolkit for fun and results.
Stephen Arnold, March 11.009
YAGG: Gmail Down
March 11, 2009
If you are a Gmail user, you don’t need the Beyond Search Web log to point out another Google glitch, what I call a YAGG (yet another Google glitch). You can read the story here. If accurate, the ComputerWorld headline tells the tale: “Gmail Down; Outage Could Last 36 Hours for Some.” If that link is dead by the time you read the addled goose’s write up, you can find tons of fun at this link to Google News‘s own coverage. So what? Not much to add to my earlier comments. The vaunted technical prowess of the Googlers is not that vaunted. Organizations trying to call Google to license its enterprise solutions may well find that Google will put in place humans who will promptly and eagerly field calls and explain why an potential customer should put its information on Google’s cloud systems.
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Delver Scooped Up by Sears Holdings
March 10, 2009
The Chicago Tribune, a dead tree outfit, reported on March 10, 2009, “Sears Holdings Corp. Acquires Delver.com, an Israel-Based Social Search Engine Company”. You can read the story here. There’s a bit of financial tap dancing around the deal. It comes after Google emphasized that it wasn’t interested in grabbing Twitter, one of the hot social search services in the US. What’s Sears’s (the once dominant retail operation) know about social search that Google doesn’t? My hunch is that if Google goes slowly, it might be wise to step back and assess social search if the buyer is not a tech savvy outfit like the GOOG. Who knows? Maybe Sears’s executives know something Google doesn’t? Delver is here. Statsaholic charts comparing Delver and Twitter are here.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
Dead Tree Publishers Try Reforestation
March 10, 2009
PaidContent.org published a round up of several traditional publishers’ plans to generate revenue from digital content. You can read “@FT Digital Media: Newspapers’ Digital Biz Models: Guardian, FT, Bloomberg” here. The article provides snapshots of the angles of attack on the revenue problem. I don’t want to spoil your fun as you work your way through the case histories that have, after years of effort, generated modest life-saving cash. Bloomberg faces several challenges even though it figured out how to get money from the Wall Street crowd. The other two outfits are paddling furiously as ad revenues sink. My take is that the old B school essay about buggy whips is probably a useful read for these publishers.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
Amazon Out Googles Google… Again
March 10, 2009
This is like watching reruns of Batman. Every week (well, maybe not that often), Amazon announces another cloud service or technology breakthrough. On a shoestring, compared to Google’s and Microsoft’s R&D and infrastructure budget, Amazon continues to out maneuver these arch rivals.
The most recent example I saw was this story “How Amazon Builds the World’s Most Scalable Storage” by Robin Harris. The wonderful thing about this type of publicity is that only readers privy to the story secrets of Google, Microsoft, and others know whether the assertion is accurate or a bit of flexible reality. Please, read the story here and make up your own mind.
I am less interested in the technology Amazon used to get an indulgence from the sins of its storage past and more interested in the way in which Google looks a bit slow. Don’t get me wrong. My research suggests that Google has a more sophisticated data storage and data management system than Amazon. I have read enough Google open source technical papers to know that Google has some next generation storage and dataspace technology moving from the lab to user. Technology is not the issue. Public relations and marketing are.
For me the most interesting comment in Mr. Harris’ article was: “Amazon Web Services will dwarf their products business within a decade.” Wow. This means that Amazon’s present revenue and its growth projections will be a small part of a far larger revenue stream. I can relax my mental turnbuckles and read into this bold assertion that Amazon will be the big cumulus in the cloud computing sky.
Say this type of big idea enough times and it is possible a self fulfilling prophecy could take place. Will Google respond? Will Microsoft? I don’t think either company will do much, which concedes the assertion to Amazon. That’s how one might create an impression of technical superiority without providing fungible evidence.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
Link Champ: YouTube.com
March 10, 2009
TechCrunch ran an interesting list of the Web logs which are link magnets. You can find the story “The 50 Media Sites Bloggers Link To The Most” here. The number one site? YouTube.com. My take on this is that the other 49 sites may want to recognize that text is not the top dog in the link world. Good news or bad news? If I were one of the traditional media companies looking at YouTube’s exhaust pipe, I would rethink how I present content before it is too late. One the other hand, it may already be too late and YouTube.com is defining the future of information for the under 24 demographic. Now we need a break through in video search.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
Twitter Bashing Not
March 10, 2009
Network World’s “To Tweet or Not to Tweet, That’s Not an Option” is an interesting write up about Twitter here. Twitter is a micro blogging service much loved by the mobile phone crowd under the age of 24. Most oldsters in heart and mind don’t understand why anyone would want to know that someone is eating breakfast. I suppose an Athenian would express similar surprise after listening to a chunk of Iliad and then having a colleague point out the wonders of the haiku. The article includes a link to a video with tips for social networking. This is another one of those info pellets designed to eliminate the need for a person who in theory knows something to write a sentence or two. For me, the most interesting comment in the semi clever article was:
Even if my explanations so far aren’t enough to persuade you to put some serious effort into “getting” Twitter” just consider that according to a blog entry on Compete.com in February this year Twitter ranks as the third largest social network with 6 million users and 55 million monthly visitors (it is only beaten by Facebook and MySpace, No. 1 and No. 2 respectively).
A good snip for my Twitter file and maybe yours too. Hey, with a url that would be a Tweet.
Stephen Arnold, March 10, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
