Funnelback Implementation for NPS
May 14, 2010
Short honk: If you are tracking the Squiz Funnelback open source search system, you will want to look at the National Prescribing Service Limited implementation. The Funnelback system delivers basic and advanced search for NPS. The search system features basic and advanced functions.
A query for “headache” returns results grouped by audience; for example, Consumers, Health Professionals, and Members. In each category, the system shows the top results with more available by clicking either one of the category tabs or the hyperlink for search results. Interesting implementation of the Funnelback technology.
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2010
Freebie.
SAP Goes for Database and Mobile, Ignores Search
May 14, 2010
One of the outfits I watch is SAP. The company’s IBM-esque technology permeates today’s SAP. I read “SAP Makes Bid for Sybase in Deal Worth $5.8B” and thought, “SAP likes the old-style database a lot and search not so much.” For me the most important fact in the write up was the $6 billion price tag. I am linking to the online Wall Street Journal, so the link will go dead, maybe by the time you read this. Not much I can do.
I also found this statement one to jot down and reference in a year or two:
“We don’t need to cut costs to make it work,” said SAP Co-Chief Executive Bill McDermott during the conference call. “That’s the magic.”
Yes, magic. I don’t believe in magic anymore. SAP seems to believe in magic.
On the plus side, SAP gets the DNA that morphed into Microsoft SQL Server. I have to think about the implications of this because SAP does have customers who are wedded to Redmond. Another up point is that Sybase has focused on mobile. SAP may be able to build on this foundation.
The downside is that Sybase is a bit like Oracle. Well, it is a lot like Oracle, just not as successful in the selling department. SAP is making it clear to me that the NoSQL method is not a priority because there are six billion reasons to embrace Sybase. And what about search? For me, SAP is happy with what it has. I interpret this to mean that SAP sees more money in aging database technology than the informationizing that modern search systems deliver.
This SAP deal may give two big search and content processing vendors some zip. Now what will Autonomy and OpenText buy next? The growth curve demands big deals. Another question, “What will SAP do to bolster its search and content processing systems?” I hope I don’t have to wait 12 months to see how this plays out.
Stephen E Arnold, May 14, 2010
Freebie.
Stephen E Arnold,
Web Search Share and Tea Leaves
May 13, 2010
I read BusinessInsider’s “April Search Numbers Out! Yahoo Gains Share Because Of New Slideshow Tool” and was more confused than before reading the summary of comScore’s league table data. I think that with each passing month, the analyses of what happens to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo is less and less germane to my work.
Two quick examples.
The first item is from this passage: “On a reported basis, Google lost ~70 bps of search share in April vs. March, while Yahoo! was the main beneficiary, up ~80 bps.” I have no idea what this means, and I am not convinced that the metric is significant. Back to Stats 101 for method, margin of error, etc.
The second item is from this passage: “According to the data, total US core search volume increased 5.3% Y/Y in April, a deceleration from 7.6% growth in March. However, adjusting for the impact of user interface changes, we estimate that search volume was up ~3% Y/Y. The April growth level was also below 1Q’s 10.1% Y/Y growth.” My question, “What?”
When I look at the data, I don’t see much more than tea leaves. Over the last three or four years, my perception says, “Google is far ahead. Microsoft has made some modest gains. Yahoo remains a mystery because it is not in the search business. Other search vendors are marginal players.”
Feel free to disagree but these séances with comScore-like data echo the Ouija board trend. Knee shaking cannot move the dial, however.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2010
Unsponsored post.
Social Networks, Testosterone, and Facebook
May 13, 2010
In my Information Today column which will run in the next hard copy issue, I talk about the advantage social networks have in identifying sites members perceive as useful. Examples are Delicious.com (owned by Yahoo) and StumbleUpon.com (once eBay and now back in private hands).
The idea is based in economics. Indexing the entire Web and then keeping up with changes is very expensive. With most queries answered by indexing a subset of the total Web universe, only a handful of organizations can tackle this problem. If I put on my gloom hat, the number of companies indexing as many Web pages as possible is Google. If I put on my happy hat, I can name a couple of other outfits. One implication is that Google may find itself spending lots of money to index content and its search traffic starts to go to Facebook. Yikes. Crisis time in Mountain View?
It costs a lot when many identify important sites and the lone person or company has to figure everything out for himself or herself. Image source: http://lensaunders.com/habit/img/peerpressuresmall.jpg
The idea is that when members recommend a Web site as useful, the company getting this Web site url can index that site’s content. Over time, a body of indexed content becomes useful. I routinely run specialized queries on Delicious.com and StumbleUpon.com, among others. I don’t run these queries on Google because the results list require too much work to process. One nagging problem is Google’s failure to make it possible to sort results by time. I can get a better “time sense” from other systems.
When I read “The Big Game, Zuckerberg and Overplaying your Hand”, I interpreted these observations in the context of the information cost advantage. The write up makes the point via some interesting rhetorical touches that Facebook is off the reservation. The idea is that Facebook’s managers are seizing opportunities and creating some real problems for themselves and other companies. The round up of urls in the article is worth reviewing, and I will leave that work to you.
First, it is clear that social networks are traffic magnets because users see benefits. In fact, despite Facebook’s actions and the backlash about privacy, the Facebook system keeps on chugging along. In a sense, Facebook is operating like the captain of an ice breaker in the arctic. Rev the engines and blast forward. Hit a penguin? Well, that’s what happens when a big ship meets a penguin. If – note, the “if” – the Facebook user community continues to grow, the behavior of the firm’s management will be encouraged. This means more ice breaker actions. In a sense, this is how Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo either operated or operated in their youth. The motto is, “It is better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.”
The Content Life Preserver
May 13, 2010
I read “How to Save the News.” Interesting. Like the write ups that find ways for Apple to save magazines, the Atlantic story finds goodness on Shoreline Drive. The essay is an upbeat discussion of Google’s role in this noteworthy effort. Please, read the story. Make your own decision. My view is that companies like Apple and Google want to make money. If that goal requires tossing life preservers, administering mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (oh, my goodness), or finding ways to create National Public Radio-like entities—Apple and Google will sign up. Maybe Apple and Google will write checks? My view is that one must be sure to take “reality distortion field detectors” when Apple and Google executives begin to sound altruistic. I like both companies’ products and services. I am, however, not inclined to believe for one New York minute that either company will take any action unless it snaps into their respective visions. I enjoy looking at the toe bags, flashing logo pins, and mouse pads some folks cart away from the pilgrimage to either Apple or Google. Keep in mind that the folks in those ancient temples used a variety of means to extract money from those who wanted to get close to the gods. The methods included beverages, special passages, and night sojourns in chambers available to the privileged. Maybe I am a skeptic? Your mileage may vary. If Apple was “into” magazines and Google “into” news, would either company be working with incumbents? Both companies just “do it”. The approach to traditional media seems somewhat less direct, even cautious, maybe part of a marketing positioning play. How can one discern the boundary between public relations and intent? Tough job in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2010
Freebie.
Quote to Note: Google Upgrade Better than Microsoft Upgrade
May 13, 2010
Short honk: Google is getting frisky. Maybe it is a result of the privacy woes of Facebook? Maybe it is because the Android pushed more phones than Apple in the last 12 weeks? Maybe it is because when Google offers to pay book publishers, book publishers cooperate? Who knows? Here’s the statement I noted from “Upgrade Here,” an “official” Google publication:
This week Microsoft will take its Office 2010 suite out of beta. If you’re considering upgrading Office with Office, we’d encourage you to consider an alternative: upgrading Office with Google Docs. If you choose this path, upgrade means what it’s supposed to mean: effortless, affordable, and delivering a remarkable increase in employee productivity. This is a refreshing alternative to the expensive and laborious upgrades to which IT professionals have become accustomed.
I put in bold face the words I found interesting.
I think the marketing will be quite exciting. I received a snail mail letter from Google today urging me to use AdWords. What’s next? AOL-style CD-ROMs? Will this type of marketing work for Google? Why not use AdWords, cheaper, effective, and effortless, right?
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2010
Freebie.
Twitter Sentiments: A Search Variant?
May 13, 2010
Quite a suggestive write up from DNA India called “Twitter Sentiments May Soon Replace Public Opinion Polls.” According to the write up, “combing Twitter for data can be as good a way of researching opinions as conducting an actual poll.” Instead of working through a traditional survey process with sampling, instrument drafting, and instrument testing, just tweet. The notion of searching through data sets for a nugget gets replaced with an instant answer. For me the key point in the write up was:
Noah Smith, assistant professor of language technologies and machine learning in the School of Computer Science, said that the findings suggest that analyzing the text found in streams of tweets could become a cheap, rapid means of gauging public opinion on at least some subjects. He, however, warned that tools for extracting public opinion from social media text are still crude and social media remain in their infancy, so the extent to which these methods could replace or supplement traditional polling is still unknown.
What is the make up of a Twitter message sample? Noise. That’s an understatement. Nevertheless, the idea is interesting and shows how “informazation” is becoming a significant method.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2010
Freebie.
Google Gets Guha Patent
May 12, 2010
Short honk: I learned today that Google received a patent for Ramanathan Guha’s 2005 invention “Aggregating Context Data for Programmable Search Engines”, US 7,716,199. Will the other PSE inventions find their way out of the USPTO’s cave of winds? This “aggregation” invention is significant, so the fate of the other Guha inventions may not matter.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2010
Freebie.
Five Myths of Enterprise Search Marketing
May 12, 2010
The telephone and email flow has spiked. We are working to complete Google Beyond Text and people seem to be increasingly anxious (maybe desperate?) to know what can be done to sell search, content processing, indexing, and business intelligence.
Sadly there is no Betty White to generate qualified leads and close deals for most search and content processing vendors. See “From Golden Girl To It Girl: Betty White Has Become Marketing Magic.” This passage got my goose brain rolling forward:
On Saturday night, ‘SNL’ had its best ratings since 2008, with an estimated 11 million people tuning in to see Betty talk about her muffin. But more than the ratings boost was the shear hilarity of the show; for the first time in a long time, ‘SNL’ was at the center of the national conversation this Monday morning. ‘Saturday Night Live’ was good with Betty White. Really good! And that kind of chatter is something you just can’t buy.
The one thing the goose knows is that one-shot or star-centric marketing efforts are not likely to be effective. A few decades ago, I was able to promote newsletters via direct mail. The method was simple. License a list and pay a service bureau to send a four page letter, an envelope, and a subscription card. Mail 10,000 letters and get 200 subscribers at $100 a pop. If a newsletter took off like Plumb Bulletin Board Systems which we sold to Alan Meckler or MLS: Marketing Library Services which we sold to Information Today, the math was good. Just keep mailing and when the subscription list hit 1,000 or more, sell out.
Times have changed. The cost of a direct mail program in 1980 was less than a $1.00 per delivered item. Today, the costs have risen by a factor of five or more. What’s more important is that snail mail (postal delivered envelopes) is ignored. An indifferent recipient or an recipient overwhelmed with worries about money, the kids, or getting the lawn mowed has afflicted radio, television, cable, door knob hangers, fliers under windshield wipers, and almost any other form of marketing I used in 1970.
I had a long call with a search entrepreneur yesterday, and in that conversation, I jotted down five points. None is specific to her business, but the points have a more universal quality in my opinion. Let me highlight each of these “myths”. A “myth” of course is a story accepted as having elements of truth.
First, send news releases with lots of words that assert “best,” “fastest”, “easiest”, or similar superlatives produces sales. I am not sure I have to explain this. The language of the news release has to enhance credibility. If something is the “fastest” or “easiest”, just telling me one time will not convince me. I don’t think it convinces anyone. The problem is the notion of a single news release. Another problem is the idea that baloney sells or produces high value sales leads. Another problem is that news releases disappear into the digital maw and get spit out in RSS feeds. Without substance, I ignore them. PR firms are definitely increasing their reliance on news releases which are silly. So the myth that cooking up a news release makes a sale is false. A news release will get into the RSS stream, but will that sell? Probably a long shot?
Second, Webinars. I don’t know about you but scheduled Webinars take time. For me to participate in one of these, I need to know that the program is substantive and that I won’t hear people stumble through impenetrable PowerPoint slides. I have done some Webinars for big name outfits, but now I am shifting to a different type of rich media. Some companies charge $10,000 or more to set up a Webinar and deliver an audience. The problem is that some of the audiences for these fees are either not prospects or small. A Webinar, like a news release, is a one shot deal and one shot deals are less and less effective. The myth is that a Webinar is a way to make sales now. Maybe, maybe not.
Third, trade show exhibits. Trade show attendance is down. People want to go to conferences but with the economic climate swinging wildly from day to day, funds to go to conferences are constrained. Conferences have to address a specific problem. Not surprisingly events that are fuzzy are less likely to produce leads. I attended a user conference last week and the exhibitors were quite happy. In fact, one vendor sent me an email saying, “I am buried in follow ups.” The myth that all trade shows yield says is wrong. Some trade shows do; others don’t. Pick wrong and several thousand dollars can fly away in a heartbeat. For big shows, multiply that number by 10.
Fourth, Web sites sell. I don’t know about you, but Web sites are less and less effective as a selling tool. Most Web sites are brochureware unless there is some element of interactivity or stickiness. In the search world, most of the Web sites are not too helpful. Who reads Web pages? I don’t. Who reads white papers? I don’t. Who reads the baloney in the news releases or the broad descriptions of the company’s technology? I don’t. Most effective Web sites are those showcased by the marketing and designers. These are necessary evils, and my hunch is that Web sites will be losing effectiveness like snail mail, just more quickly. The myth is that Web sites pump money to the bottom-line. Hog wash. Web sites are today’s collateral in most cases. A Web site is a necessary evil.
Fifth, social media. I know that big companies have executives who are in charge of social media. Google lacks this type of manager, but apparently the company is going to hire a “social wrangler” or “social trail boss.” Social media, like any other messaging method, requires work. I know for certain that a one shot social media push may be somewhat more economical and possibly more effective than a news release or two. Social media is real and hard work. The myth that it is a slam dunk is wrong.
So with these myths, what works?
I have to be candid. In the search and content processing markets, technology is not going to close deals. The companies whom I hear are making sells are companies able to solve problems. In a conflicted market with great uncertainty, the marketing methods have to be assembled into a meaningful, consistent series of tactics. But tactics are not enough. The basics of defining a problem, targeting specific prospects, and creating awareness are the keys to success.
I wish I could identify some short cuts. I think consistency and professionalism have to be incorporated into on going activities. One shot, one kill may have worked for Buffalo Bill. I am not so sure the idea transfers to closing search deals.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2010
A freebie.
Shocker: Business Intelligence Frustrates Some Users
May 12, 2010
Ah, consider the business intelligence analyst from 1990. Most of these folks received healthy injections of statistics in college and most underwent special treatments in SPSS or other specialized tools to crunch data.
Drag the slide in Sony Vegas to the video segment shot earlier this week. Business intelligence has become dashboards and digested reports. The analysts are still around but building protective walls with their stats books, slide rules, and pocket protectors.
The reason is that middle managers want user friendly business intelligence systems. Even more important, these new and improved business intelligence systems should be delivered without pesky analysts. What MBA wants to be told that she has to wait one day for the analyst/programmer to set up her report.? I can hear the comment, “I need it now. I mean one minute.”
When I read “BI Tools Struggle to Keep Up,” I chuckled. The write up references an azure chip outfit which I routinely find the equivalent of a medieval believer buying a relic from a vendor on a muddy side street near the cathedral. Even better, the article reports that most people need to improve their business intelligence software. No surprise there. Most businesses are desperate to find a way to generate sustainable revenue. Finally, about half of those in the survey find business intelligence systems to difficult to use. No surprise. Most MBAs want to get info, make money, and dodge the food for free line.
The fix? Buy a content processing system that delivers answers. I am not sure how the business intelligence analysts respond to disintermediation or marginalization. Interesting write up and a signal of a new direction in search and content processing. Make everything simple. The data might be inappropriate or wrong, but easy is good for some folks in the survey sample.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2010
A frebie.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
