Maybe it's the snow or maybe it's the radio including 'Men at Work - Down Under' into a Christmas play list (?) but I'm feeling very festive today. So I thought I'd take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy holiday and thank you for following the Artesian blog this year.
Really looking forward to greeting what should be a very exciting year and watching developments including real time web, paid content and search strategy spill over into 2010.
So enjoy the break, be festive and merry, and most importantly - report back for readership duty in January!
We're really pleased to be going into Christmas with the news that next year will see Artesian deliver leading recycling and resource management provider SITA with web based market intelligence (see press release).
It's been a really exciting time working with SITA and the project has shown just how valuable a source the web really can be for insight. When you consider all the information that needs filtering in the process (local papers, journals, blogs) mixed with all the topics that are of real relevance to SITA, it just goes to show how much more valuable the web can be when it is organised to suit the needs of the consumer.
It's going to be an exciting challenge as we continue to work with SITA and we're very much looking forward to 2010. With so much happening in the online community it'll be great to discover how new opportunities can benefit the search for business intelligence.
As if the events of this year needed any sort of conclusion the shocking announcement that Killing in the name had beaten the X Factor to Christmas number one was most certainly that. 2009 has seen the web really rise to dominance and the fact a Christmas number one can be decided by an unknown man, fed up and venting his anger on Facebook just goes to show just how much power the web really holds.
They used to talk about web 2.0 being a way for people to interact and discuss events but it's gone way beyond that at this stage. The social world is controlling events now and not only that, it's breaking news rather than reacting to it.
Brittany Murphy's death last night was another example. Similar to the Michael Jackson murmurs earlier in the year no major news site was reporting it whilst Twitter and Facebook feeds filled with rumour and noise about the incident. Of course, many didn't believe the speculation until a trusted name (Sky news) confirmed it but the point remains, news is being discovered by consumers now, the line has shifted.
Companies will be taking note of the extreme power behind the Rage Against the Machine campaign. The speed, the connections, and the apparent ease of victory will surely be something no one can ignore going into 2010.
Following on a bit from yesterday I suppose, I saw a great story this morning about a producer who uploaded a short film on Youtube, created with the meagre budget of $300 only to get offered a $30 million contract to direct the Hollywood version.
It's ironic, during a time when people are so angered by Simon Cowell's 'fake music' money train - which is really just a genuine chance for un-found talent to get a chance on stage - they choose to buy a dated and offensive track to blast out over the airwaves all over Christmas, that the web is being praised for creating that very same model, giving individals the chance to have a voice in the World.
Would anyone have ever spotted that producer had it not been for the stage Youtube provided him with? Probably not, but as it is, the platform will evidently lead to worldwide fame. Knocking down barriers to entry has always been a challenge but the Internet has made it remarkably easy. The point here is, the time has gone where you should dismiss a story or a person, simply based upon the source of their arrival. Everyone has a fair crack of the whip now, and that can only be a good thing.
Here's a (hopefully) interesting scenario... If a major headline broke out in a small town and you had the choice of a house hold national paper reporting the piece, or a blogger from someone near the area, which source would you trust the most? A national of course has the professional journalists, the expensive equipment and the experience of reporting news to the viewer but the blogger could well be an eye witness, or far more knowledgeable on the subject than a reporter flown in last minute.
Something the web has done is allow voices to spring up without restriction and while there still seems to be a desire for reliable names online there is also a revolution (most notably with the likes of Twitter and Facebook) rising with new methods of sharing stories.
Previously an eye witness might have got a twenty second piece to camera, guided by the questions being posed. But now, they are free to Tweet, blog and share their views on events which can give a far deeper, more meaningful sense to a news piece. The online news industry must be aware of this. Right now they sit on a perch of built up trust but over time, will anyone actually care where they get their insight from?
Google will be encouraged that Chrome has jumped above Apple's Safari browser in popularity. It certainly goes to show that advertising still works (perhaps with just a hint of irony in the midst of the current News Corp battle).
They're probably not so in awed however, by the fact that that still only amounts to 4.4% of the market. Google isn't one to do things in small numbers so I'm sure they'll be seeking much more market growth from the recent campaign.
I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone who has made the change to Chrome recently, and why they decided to take the leap. Does it really make a big difference to your browsing habits?
It's no coincidence that the day after Google launched a huge advertising campaign to get people using Chrome, a senior figure at Mozilla has urged people to switch their search to Bing. The problem with fighting battles on many fronts is that everyone wants a pop at you and Google need to be careful not to make too many enemies and find themselves surrounded.
The privacy issue has become a big problem. Eric Schmidt's suggestion that "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" probably wasn't particularly helpful in front of a pack of web users who are already anxious after recent Facebook changes.
The simple fact is, if Google's real time web is to work, they need as much information as possible to add to the mix but I'm not sure they're going about extracting it the right way. There seems to be a very sneaky approach around the issue (changing settings on Facebook to block search engines was very well hidden and had very limited publicity).
Whilst Mozilla are of course fighting their own battle, the statement "that a company with so much user data on its servers is led by someone who just doesn't understand privacy is really scary to me and it should be scary to you as well" may not be completely wide of the mark. But the key here is Google have made themselves another enemy, and they seem to be piling up rather rapidly.
There is no doubting that our attention spans are getting shorter. In fact if you're reading this second line then thank you for showing true dedication. I heard an interesting statement last week which claimed all breaking news stories now had a life span of 24 hours. After that, they were sent to the scrap heap and buried.
Even ongoing stories, this speaker claimed, needed fresh impetus every 24 hours - a new angle or a breaking twist. He's not wrong. I think the only story this year that relied on the same headline for over a day was the death of Michael Jackson, and even that was filled with rumour and speculation.
It's amazing how quickly a huge story can become old news. Does anyone know the most up to date findings of investigations into the Air France flight that went down in the Atlantic ocean earlier this year? No, and the reason is because somewhere along the line we stopped paying attention, the press stopped reporting on an issue that was no longer forefront of public minds. But at the time, everyone was talking about it. Twitter was full of heart felt reaction and devastation. Yet now, most might struggle to remember which airport the flight had even taken off from.
The fact is, news has a very short shelf life, so you need to make the most of it whilst it's there. With that said, I won't even mention this post in tomorrow's blog. It's a has been!
A big theme coming from Le Web this week was 'we can do real-time, but why?' Such as the case with many new breakthroughs people take time to figure out the real use, the most relevant use. And I got the sense that the technology was ahead of the human thought process on this one.
A lot of B2C companies were trying to explain why, if you were searching for a cooking recipe for example, you'd want the most up to date instructions. But that is complete nonsense. I couldn't give two tablespoons of sugar (if that wasn't a saying it is now) how old a recipe is, if it makes me look good then the job is done. Similarly people were quick to use the recent Tiger Woods scandal as an example of situation where people want to know fast and furious updates...really? The only reason I can see for this is to look like the big know it all at the pub, as if you're closer to the Tiger camp then anyone else ('Oh, have you heard he did it in the kitchen with a candlestick?)
The real use of the real time web is for business, and those who value breaking news as game changing announcements. Reactions in hours, not days can be a crucial factor in business success or failure and the ability to learn instantly the actions of a close competitor or customer could well make or break a deal.
Whilst I have no qualms about getting constant updates from the Tiger household, as it's interesting if nothing else, it's not exactly putting advanced technology to the most productive of uses is it? Especially when you have the world and his wife tweeting that they've hopped into bed with Tiger as well.
Listened to a great argument from Sean Percival today who claimed that with the speed with which we consume content now, the actual article itself has become irrelevant. What's now more important (even more so with real-time web) is the context surrounding it - the Tweets, the comments and general opinion towards the story.
Titles, even more so now focused on SEO, are becoming more and more descriptive, like they themselves are taking the role of the story.
That can definitely be applied to business. How a management change has come about is not important. It's the fact that it has and the comment around it that's of great interest to a rival tracking that company. The fact, rather than the description of the fact is what people have time for in the ever increasing speed of content consuming.
Apologies for keepingwords short today but havingbeenatthefirstdayof Le WebI'mstrugglingto sentence construct (thatwas an attemptat humour bytheway)... So in mytiredstate I giveyouthejournalist'sbestfriend, bigpictures!
Right, there really is far too much to report today but here goes. First things first, yes that is Marc Benioff posing next to the Artesian stand at Dreamforce in London today and yes the photographer did extremely well to get everyone's head in shot! It's been great attending both Dreamforce events this year and it was absolutely fantastic to meet the man behind salesforce.com.
Secondly, we've also been selected as Microsoft Bizspark's Start up of the day which is brilliant news heading into LeWeb tomorrow. You can see all the info, including the full interview with CEO Andrew Yates here.
Finally, it can't go unnoticed that Google has today launched 'real time data' in search results. I'm really interested to see how incorporating 'tweets' and Facebook updates will affect the search and would like to point out perhaps Google should have waited until after LeWeb to trail this feature (the theme at the event is 'real-time web', and it's being attended by soical networking's finest....prepare to be bombarded Google!)
I'm well and truly in Le web mood now, having debated the idea of packing last night and, just this morning taking a look at the front cover of a French phrase book in the hope that it would instantly start me speaking fluently. Alas, staring at a picture of the Eiffel tower for five minutes doesn't seem to do the trick.
Something I'm really keen to do whilst there is establish a network of fellow bloggers in the field, almost a committee of writers on the subject of online. Of course, you could argue Technorati (amongst others) already provides a platform doing this very thing but I'm looking for something more personal. With so many ways of communicating through the web now I think it's a shame for blogs to simply become 'another link' on such sites.
I'll be looking to gage opinion on the 'web committee', which I have many ideas for and would love to speak to anyone who has a passion for blogging. Look forward to meeting those attending, be great to share ideas and opinion. Now back to learning French, I need to find the translation for 'Le Web' so I don't end up looking stupid.
CEO of Christmas Inc Christopher Cringle has announced plans to cut costs by exploiting the cloud and taking advantage of social networking according to reports. Rumour began early this morning after Rudolph declared via Tweetdeck that he had ‘become obsolete’ and although Cringle has yet to confirm the speculation, his decision to ‘go green’ by banning handwritten Christmas lists is thought to be a sure sign of things to come.
Having earlier this year penned an agreement with Salesforce.com to track all Christmas customers online ‘Santa Claus’ is no stranger to Customer relationship management and the recent revelation that he only communicates with elves ‘through Facebook’ indicates that plans for a web based Christmas have been in place for some time. Cringle is likely to receive brandy and carrots through PayPal micropayments to Tesco deliveries and e-presents look set to replace the original packaged solution.
A spokesman for Christmas Inc said ‘in this time of deep recession we’re looking to cut outgoings and streamline our business model without putting elf and reindeer jobs in jeopardy. With sleigh tax increasing and health and safety officials looking to impose heavy regulation on fat men going head first down chimneys, we feel we are very much at a crossroads which needs to be addressed.
Cringle is expected to make an official statement at a press conference later today in which Christmas Inc has requested no journalist speculate on the closure of the North Pole Pension scheme.
A thought occurred to me today that, caught up in all this battle for power between Google and News Corp, Google and Facebook, Google and Yahoo (noticing a pattern here), I hadn't checked up on Bing's progress for a while.
Sure enough I took a look at their blog post from yesterday and suddenly realised they are sneaking up on the inside rail of everyone. Google and Yahoo seem to be occupied keeping the lid on top of a giant can of worms, whilst Bing continue to be make some very notable break throughs in search technology.
If you stick with it you can see how Bing are clearly trying to address problems, adapt to demand and offer genuine alternatives to a very dated search model. They must be loving the tiff currently embroiling the search engine rivals, meanwhile sneaking off to the garden shed and getting on with their project without anyone noticing. Google should be wary.
Google have taken the plunge and announced reforms to the way they deal with news articles in search. That is basically an admission that they have been profiting unfairly from online news despite earlier protests that they hadn't.
The pressure was building and perhaps this middle ground proposition of limiting free access to news sites will defuse the tension which must be a cause of concern. The idea in principle, is to give publishers the right to select how many times a consumer can click through to their site without being forced to subscribe.
But there's a problem here and that's the potential danger of forcing potential customers to other publications. For example, if you know you're at your (let's say) five a day limit for a particular paper, you may well choose to view a breaking story with a rival, in order to avoid any sort of payment. With so many competitors reporting the same things you'd have to have a real loyalty to one brand in order to avoid 'payment dodging'.
So I doubt whether this reflex reaction from Google will feed the beast determined to bring change, but it does prove Google are anxious, and proves it's the publishers who are taking control.
It's interesting to note that Yahoo are the only search engine I've come across who have published not only a list of top 10 search queries for 2009, but also a 'top 10 business success related' queries. That's about the closest I've come to finding insight into business search trends from the search giants. The list is as follows:
1. Facebook 2. Twitter 3. Hulu 4. Bing 5. iPhone 6. LinkedIn 7. Dollar Stores 8. Palm Pre 9. Rosetta Stone 10. Kindle
It's no surprise to see social networking sites Facebook and Twitter at the top but let's be honest, this list still doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to analysing business search from the previous year. It's just another sign that if you're a business looking for information online, search engines are not catering for your needs. Oh and just so you know, swine flu and Susan Boyle were this years top breaking stories...sigh.
Their announcement may not have quite the same affect as a News Corp press release, but the decision by the regional publisher to set up 'paywalls' on local newspaper sites should be noted as an equally important landmark.
With advertising revenues falling fast it is perhaps the local newspapers who are literally fighting for their lives. And although at first glance the idea seemed somewhat optimistic, after careful consideration, perhaps they have more scope to trial such a project then the nationals.
I can't remember the last time I saw a local paper on the shelf with a headline such as 'Local gardener grows human sized carrot' and actually picked it up for purchase. But the ace up the sleeve of the locals is that they offer unique news. Unlike national news, which will be reported to death by anyone who is anyone, regional newspapers report stories that others would simply not touch. And that makes them useful.
Therefore, they already have a service of interest and one that people may well be willing to pay for.
Merrill Lynch have estimated in the next five years that the cloud computing market could be worth $95billion...forgive me while I fall backwards off my chair and scream hystercially into the air with joy.
Of course, these are the guys who didn't see any sort of money trouble heading our way a few years back so whilst I wouldn't bet my house on their prediction, I also certainly wouldn't rule it out.
A great article in Business week goes into detail about how 'a major shift in the way companies obtain software and computing capacity is under way as more companies tap into Web-based applications' and it's hard to disagree.
It makes so much sense to use tools and applications online and the one stumbling block that remains is really fear of the unknown. As Business Week suggests, it's the crossover from old to new that is holding an already spiraling process back, like a dog owner desperately clinging onto the lead of an excitable puppy.
Any large business, or small for that matter, needs to make sure transitions are smooth but once the initial scepticism is past $95billion could seem somewhat pessimistic. The sky for is literally the limit for cloud computing (and yes, that was an absolutely cracking pun).
Apologies if it feels like I'm using today's post as a giant billboard but just wanted to draw attention to the LEWEB 2009 event which is fast approaching. So in true 'this isn't a billboard' style, here's a few links regarding the event and booking your place: LEWEB 2009 Info Booking your place
The tech conference held 1800 participants from 40 countries last year and this year is all set to top that again. Artesian will be there so would be great to connect with anyone else attending the event. Don't forget we're on Twitter and Facebook so tweet and ...book (will that catch on?) away.
Stumbled upon this today, which I think shows there is a strong desire to change the way we search and sort information online.
At Artesian we're constantly examining new ways to make online content as useful as possible and innovative ideas in the field are springing up all the time.
It's a really exciting time to be involved as it really feels like after years of getting to grips with the Internet, people are now finding ways to use it efficiently, rather than just get lost in detail.
I saw an interesting blog post from Danny Sullivan today summarising that there are three reasons why people use search engines. These were:
1) to hunt down breaking news (ie to confirm a rumour they've heard) 2) to research a particular subject (a theme or a company) 3) A loose hunt for information (the example given is 'best summer books')
This sums the search process up pretty well but what it doesn't mention is how often the search engine can provide disappointing results. For example, hunting down relevant breaking news insinuates that you already know that news and you're simply looking to confirm it.
Searching for specific areas of detail on a company or theme can be exceptionally difficult. Example, how do you best find out about management changes (which could include terminology like sackings, appointments, retirements mixed with directors, CEOs, bosses etc) at a company like Mint? You will be swamped with noise.
The only way to ensure you're hitting breaking news is to set pre-defined filters on topics you know you're interested in, example: management changes at Mint and have a semantic system in place that enriches both the search term and the company name to make sure you're not drowned by noise or miss a trick.
This then makes research easy. If you've got a system in place just searching for your specific filters, organising archived material just comes with the territory. You can't get that service from a search engine. So why start the hunt for information there? More to the point, why hunt at all when what you're searching for can just come straight to your doorstep?
The terms 'can of worms' and 'how to shut' will be written in bold marker pen somewhere in a Google board room this morning after Microsoft began negotiations with News corp over paying to index content.
This is very dangerous territory for the search engine as it sets a precedent to all sites that they're in fact aiding the search rather than the search aiding them. If the press can charge for indexing then why can't everyone else?
The ever continuing Cold war between Microsoft and Google has not seen such a direct hit to this point. This isn't Microsoft trying to gain ground on Google. This is Microsoft attempting to infect the very ground Google stands on.
The battle has suddenly become a little bit bigger than 'who wins Rupert Murdock's love'. The battle is now very much being taken to Google, like soldiers trying to break down the castle's defence.
Having just yesterday blogged about the need for a business focused social networking tool I awake this morning to the breaking news that:
'Salesforce.com announced a new product today called Chatter, which it describes as Facebook and Twitter for enterprises.'
...Now, although chief executive Marc Benioff doesn't want people to see 'Chatter' as a social network, the idea is almost to the word what I was debating yesterday. I can see only three explanations for this:
1) I read minds 2) The need was so obvious that everyone was thinking it 3) I'm Marc Benioff
I'm going to side with number two, despite my greater wishes dreaming it was number one.
Seems like exciting stuff though, here's the full article
Stephen Fry, followed by millions on Twitter, has questioned the sites ability to morph into a business application. At a recent conference discussing the social networking site Fry stated 'it is important for all of us to understand its [Twitter’s] nature. It is human shaped, not business shaped.'
On the same day a leading professor from Kent University said social networking will wipe out email in the next ten years. If that's the case, and Fry's statement is correct business will be left with very limited methods of communication! I've said before on this blog that Facebook and Twitter are not designed with business in mind. And if emails are to become obsolete then businesses will be looking for a new way to share information quickly.
I doubt email will fall out of fashion this quickly in corporations but at the same time I continue to be encouraged with the communication tools we're using at Artesian to aid in business media monitoring. Focusing on the web needs of companies could soon be just as crucial as focusing on the web needs of the consumer and we're in a great position to take this forward.
I'm certainly no Stephen Fry, but that seems an exciting proposition.
I'm sorry for continuing on the same theme for a while but we are in the middle of a huge scrap for power at the moment and like a commentator leaning over his desk and yelling things like 'finish him!' I can't help but get caught up in the action.
Google seems to have reacted to Rupert Murdock's threat of pulling content off their search engines by changing their role in the whole process. Today they're unveiling a tool that allows 'television and online news agencies to create a platform to manage a bureau of citizen journalists.' Put simply, they are moving from searching content to providing content.
That's one pretty gigantic leap to take and a sign that Google aren't afraid to shift the goalposts either. Of course, they are promoting it like the Youtube tool is actually benefiting news corporations, allowing them to manage freelance, user generated material all in one place. But what they're basically doing is placing themselves in a position where Companies have to play to their rules if they want the best content.
In my personal opinion, it's a stroke of genius. In a sense they're almost cutting out the middle man. Rather than Google relying on news sites for search content, news sites will be forced to rely on Google for content to search. Recent witness footage from events like the Iran demonstrations and more localised events like pictures of recent flooding and storm damage shows this sort of material is gaining much more importance when it comes to presenting news, Google is exploiting that rather brilliantly.
Having discussed the British reaction to paying for online content I stumbled upon this article over the weekend, which talks about some really interesting points:
I think one of the most interesting quotes to take from the article, hidden amongst the plotting and the strategy is that there seems to be a general agreement that any future changes will focus on "a situation where the best content wins, not the best SEOed site.“
If this can be achieved, no matter what road it's down, then the Internet can really start filling its potential as a content rich source of useful material. However, there's just a sense that these quotes are largely smoke and mirrors and of course, the main priority is to be number one at all costs. Hopefully though, search can benefit from this attitude, rather than suffer because of it.
A survey has found that 75% of Brits willing to pay for online content would want to pay 10p or less per article. What is alarming is that apparently Jeremy Clarkson tops the list of columnists people would pay for (perhaps we need to have a long hard think about ourselves) but less alarming is that only 5% of those willing to pay would choose to do it using monthly subscriptions.
Micropayments would be the choice of many which is understandable given the freedom and flexibility they would allow. But through time, and once people start to notice the ever increasing bill a browse on the web would provide, I think this could soon become an unpopular choice. What the papers need to do is offer a service, a benefit to customers who are likely to want more for their buck.
For example, perhaps an I phone app that sends the reader a digestible chunk of the paper's daily news or specific sections relevant to the choice of the consumer. Browsing is part and parcel of web use and micropayments do not match this model. An application seems less hassle than a subscription and would still give you enough rope to continue browsing without the worry of spiralling costs.
But seriously, Jeremy Clarkson?! Come on now... And Lorraine Kelly's in at number 7...No wonder we're a country in turmoil.
What this basically means is providing you're browsing on something (the example given is a movie review) that your friend has commented on, you will receive that update inline with the page you're looking at. Now this could be a tremendously powerful tool for gathering opinion. For example, let's say you're reading an article on Gordon Brown's recent spelling blunder. In a split second you can find out exactly what you're connections are thinking about it.
Used in the right way, this could be an invaluable piece of kit for businesses trying to understand customer opinion. But I fear, that if used in the wrong way, this kind of stuff could just suffocate the Internet with endless comment. What need's to be remembered is that the news is priority, not the opinion.
If ever you were looking for conclusive evidence of just exactly where experts think the future of online use lies then look no further than Google's acquisition of Admob (a company only founded in 2006) for the astronomical price of $750million.
Admob is an advertising agency specialising in the mobile industry, clearly a very good place to be at this point in time. To spend that kind of money on such a new company demonstrates without question how important Google envisions mobile use in the future and judging from some other sources in the newspaper industry they're seeing it much the same way too.
We'll have to wait and see how Microsoft responds to this latest strategical advantage. Having already purchased Phonevalley last year, they may be forced to review their position once more.
In what can only be seen as an extremely bold move Rupert Murdock has suggested that his newspaper sites may well be taken out of Google search results. Having already announced earlier in the year that Newscorp would start charging for online content, this announcement is sure to be laughed off by critics who are already calling Murdock's strategy suicide.
The billionaire is certainly cutting cords all at once. He is risking further backlash here by challenging the brand loyalty online users feel towards Google. But Murdock must be well aware of the radical change that's needed to spring life back into the newspaper industry. In a recent interview he referenced the fact that few people under 30 were actually buying newspapers at all.
This move indicates he is keen to generate an entirely new, stand alone model online and whilst the developments will be raising quite a few eyebrows, suggestions that Rupert Murdock is taking his eye off the ball could be somewhat premature. After all, you don't get to where he is without having a bit of tactical nous about you.
Ever get those days where you feel really good about what you do? Today I discovered these statistics relating to the online business intelligence we are providing for a customer.
For the customer in question we are currently tracking 1,100 subjects (companies, regulatory bodies etc) alongside 500 separate business events (stories relating to corporate and market news), whilst removing stories irrelevant to their needs on the process.
To search individually for all of these things combined would take over half a million searches...half a million separate search queries. That's a very long day at the office! And we're doing this everyday, with no search hassle whatsoever.
Apologies if I sound smug but that is an incredibly powerful concept. And seeing as it's Friday I'm going to raise a smile and continue on my path of smugness. Enjoy the weekend!
Google are to launch the 'commerce search' today, a hosted enterprise search product to power online retail stores and e-commerce websites. Another useful tool in the B2C arena I'm sure but what about B2B?
Business search, sales search, media monitoring, all extremely important factors for a company being widely ignored by the search engine giants. Of course, the main focus of the search engine is to gain the biggest market share available, therefore heading after the consumer is far more productive from their point of view.
But business intelligence should not be ignored. There is a big demand for market news and precise results and search engines are proving that they aren't looking to cater for such a need. Delivering results for a consumer is clearly the objective, which should conclude to many that there is life and alternatives after Google.
MSN are set to launch their brand new homepage tonight with Microsoft's corporate vice president Erik Jorgensen boldly announcing that "now is the time to clean up the mess on the Web–people need less clutter and less hassle to find what matters most to them." Of course, he'd be right, but does the new MSN offer this? This is the preview of the new design
One thing is certain, it's a big improvement on the previously cluttered homepage. And it's taken strong influences from other successful models including Facebook and Twitter feeds as well as not being a million miles away from the appearance of rivals Apple. But I'm still not entirely sure where it's improving search.
It's a great base, something I'd happily view every morning but what has it actually done to improve the search experience? Everything still goes through Bing, that's not going to change and the same old generic titles are still filling the page ('money' for example, can mean many different things).
About as close as it gets to making an innovative change is with local search which 'combines media with Bing search and provides access to real-time community news that is grouped by ZIP code.' That sounds an exciting possibility, although unless you can also group stories by subject, clutter is still likely to be an issue.
However, it'll be great to see how this affects the search engine battle, that's for sure. Watch this space.
Search engines are forever working on ways to purify search and give users more relevant results but the rivalry between Bing and Google seems to working in a rather counter productive manner. In the constant battle to recruit companies onto their side Microsoft and Google are in actual fact striking deals to make search results more about strategy than quality.
Two very recent examples: Bing signing a deal with Thomas Cook in a marketing drive offering free holidays to customers in return for Thomas Cook pitching up top of it's travel queries. And not to be out done, Google's convenient sponsored ad from Apple that accompanies typing in 'Windows 7', advising you to switch over to avoid difficulties.
Is this really improving search? Or is this just the user being caught up in a battle of tactics? Of course there has always been money involved in getting to the top of search engines but this fight is setting a dangerous precedent of 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' in an arena that most certainly doesn't need favoritism.
It seems like only a couple of weeks ago all seemed rosy for Amazon's Kindle (...probably because it was only a couple of weeks ago...)but the news that ebooks are now outselling games on Iphone apps must be a worrying trend. Despite the Iphone screen being considerably smaller, the appeal of doing things on the move is pulling down any barriers that may previously have come with usability issues.
It's almost ironic calling it the I phone. I can't remember the last time I saw someone making a call on one. It's now a portal, a point of entry to access everything you can possibly need quickly.
If people are willing to reads books on the Iphone, then the very idea of printed news could be going the way of the dodo. Everyone knew the online shift was going to change the face of the newspaper, but this report could well be a sign that print could be wiped out altogether (The London Lite and The London Paper wouldn't disagree).
I Know I've rambled on about the mobile media trend recently, but this is surprising even amongst the patterns before it. This, to me is a strong indicator that the shift is coming much sooner than expected.
Google are trying to take over the world. It's all but official. Having just yesterday discovered they were entering the online music industry today I discover they are set to offer free sat nav, an announcement that probably had the likes of Tom Tom yelling 'thanks a lot guys!' (perhaps with several more expletives involved). Since when has it become acceptable to destroy an entire industry in one quick press release?
The war path seems relentless with other experiments including 'helping' newspapers, rivaling desktops and attempting to become one, gigantic library. Is this a healthy trend? I've heard many debate whether Tesco should be allowed a bank status this week claiming we are risking a monopoly environment in Britain and you do wonder whether Google being online is helping them avoid all kinds of legislation that others are being forced to fight. Fair enough they're locked in battle over the rights to the world's literature but it's certainly safe to say they would be working around many more loopholes if they were stealing as much ground on dry land.
I shouldn't complain too much I suppose, my blog might get taken offline. After all, Blogger is owned by Google...There's a surprise.
I've noticed some criticism aimed Facebook's way this week after they responded to complaints that their new 're-connect' service had bought up some profiles of the deceased, by adding dedicated memorial pages for users who had passed away. Sceptics have said it was a quick fix to a big mistake and that Facebook were just closing the gate to make sure no more horses embarrassingly bolted.
But although this is a particularly sensitive subject which, understandably caused upset to those involved, you can't criticise Facebook for the response. Yes, it was clearly a mistake, something that hadn't been considered in enough detail but fixing a problem quickly and turning it into something positive should be commended rather than slated.
That's what makes the Internet such a powerful tool especially with the web 2.0 era allowing easy interaction between provider and consumer. An error is an error but working on a solution and producing an answer is exactly what online communication is all about. Only with an understanding and working relationship between parties can the real solutions be discovered.
Monitoring the media often highlights lots of interesting patterns and trends. Recently, following the Q3 results season, there has been a trend involving what some people noted as 'throwing in the towel'. Examples include Standard Life deciding to sell up to Barclays and Myspace announcing they are to start integrating applications into Facebook and MSN, all but admitting they have failed in their bid to compete with the social media giants.
If it really is 'throwing in the towel' season it was certainly eye catching to read about the strategy of retailers approaching the Christmas holidays. The last year has been horrendous for many high street stores and despite the CBI announcing that sales grew 'modestly' over the year to October many must surely now be hanging by a thread. However, with consumers expected to head online for cheaper gifts this year you definitely can't accuse high street vendors throwing in the towel. In fact, it appears they are coming out fighting.
41% of stores polled in a recent survey said they were ditching traditional discounts and special offers and focusing on customer service as a way of drawing in buyers. That is a bold and deliberate strategy set up to compete with the cheaper lure of the Internet. It's risky, seeing as this Christmas will be tough for many caught in the midst of recession, but it's a sign of intent, a right hook thrown at online competitors. Is it simply a last throw of the dice? Quarter 4 results are likely to hold the answer.
The figures just keep on highlighting the growth of Facebook. 1 in 4 page views in the US are now accounted to the site. That is staggering. There is no question of it's social popularity but that doesn't mean businesses have to keep on trying to squeeze their strategies into it, like trying to pull on a pair of trousers that clearly don't fit.
In the UK, a poll has shown that social networking is costing businesses £1.38bn every year. Whilst leading business experts continue to plug the positive effects of exploiting the social sites, the overall image of a business integrating with the tools strikes me as similar to a middle aged dad trying to look cool by dressing up all rock and roll and heading off to a concert with his kids. No matter how they try and monetize, the model just isn't designed for it.
But the art of socializing and communicating doesn't have to produce negative results. We all know the value of keeping in the loop. However, businesses need to develop their own way of sharing dialogue and encouraging discussion. Every day I become more convinced we've found the solution here at Artesian. I know that probably sounds incredibly biased but having a devoted social element specifically for business is something which I find very exciting. Why squeeze into a pair of trousers that don't fit when you can get them tailored perfectly to your size?
Accessing the Internet from a mobile phone is becoming so popular that experts are warning of a network overload. This must be a concerning issue when you consider how many companies are set to rival O2 with either the I phone model or a competitor brand.
But this jump in mobile use is staggering and whilst the problem will need to be resolved sooner rather than later the underlying message from this story is very clear. I was actually made to feel extremely inept last week by a friend in the pub who seemed hugely disappointed that I was unable to answer a question quickly due to lack of I phone.
That pretty much sums up the general feeling these days. If the Internet is not in your pocket, you're not plugged in, you're past it and you're not to be trusted as a source of knowledge. It is now so important to be 'on the ball' (as the battle for live search proves) and online mobile access is a trend that won't be slowing down anytime soon.
It was interesting to see the differing fortunes of Amazon and Ebay this week. Whilst Ebay blamed a troubled market for a slump in their profit forecast Amazon were busy announcing big successes in the last few months and already planning ahead to a bumper Christmas period.
To me, this sums up why yesterday's blogged about decision to include Twitter and Facebook updates in Google/Bing search results is coming at completely the wrong time. Though the recession has seen many big names go to the wall, it has also shored up the reputation of many trusted brands. People are more cautious with money, and therefore more cautious about who they are giving it to.
With Ebay, you're putting your faith in the fellow user, with Amazon you're putting your faith in the company. It's extremely simple; at a time of insecurity people want brands that offer security. That's the reason for the contrast in fortunes and that's the reason why finding the best sources, not the most sources to handle queries is more important to an online user. That is why the integration of Tweets into search engine results will ultimately fail.
Things appeared to be going somewhat quiet on the Twitter front so I'm sure they'll be happy to find themselves caught in the middle of a tug of war between Google and Microsoft, if for no other reason than to pass the time.
No sooner had Microsoft announced it would be including 'tweets' into the Bing search results, Google...pretty much did exactly the same thing. Forgive me if I'm missing something but how in anyway is this a good thing? The powers that be argue it will allow people to recieve answers from Tweeters involving direct questions like 'what's the weather like in Italy?' and 'how's it hanging in Mexico?'... Check the weather forecast!
Google already returns far too much junk in search, the last thing it needs to include is everything the world has to say ever! Whilst the concept of getting advice from Tweeters is fine in principle we all know this isn't how it'll work. Unless you type in 'how can I boost my followers in one simple step using some really annoying spam site?' you are likely to be bitterly disapointed with your results.
In the race to improve search, surely this is one huge step backwards. The term used to be 'trying to take a sip from the fire hose'. It'll soon be a case of 'trying to take a sip from Niagara falls in the middle fo a great big thunder storm.'
I read an article this morning with the headline 'Business intelligence programmes not delivering' which, written in an incredibly negative style, made it sound like companies were becoming increasingly disillusioned with BI implementations. Here's a passage from the article:
"One in four companies said that they had spent more than a million pounds on business intelligence implementations..."
At first glance, this may seem negative but read it again...If One in four had spent over 1 million, that means three in four had not...It's amazing what you can do with figures!
Slightly more worryingly however, the article does highlight that 62% of the 200 IT directors asked admitted receiving a "barrage of complaints" from business users. Whilst that still leaves 76 out of 200 who are supposedly happy with their service the piece does suggest that a communication break down between departments is the major reason behind this. With this, I agree.
Communication is absolutely vital in the process and an issue I know we take very seriously here at Artesian. We are responding to constant feedback from our users, ever improving, ever developing. The problem, as in any business is switching off and assuming things are finished. Especially in this market, things will always keep moving and I would put a big wager on those receiving complaints are those who are happy to stick rather than twist.
With that said, I would suggest the issue highlighted is not the service, or the idea of business intelligence as a concept, but rather a breakdown of communication in large corporations. This greater problem isn't specific to just this arena, and in fact, I'd actually argue that BI implementation is part of the solution.
Last month saw the first football game screened exclusively on the Internet, now sees the turn of a streamed music concert in the shape of U2's gig in Vancouver. The band have announced the performance will be screened live on Youtube with viewers able to Twitter one another and donate to Bono's charity whilst watching. Further more, the show will be surrounded by advertisements, although what sort is yet to be confirmed.
Television networks must be quaking in their boots if the trend continues. Although mixed reviews came from the live England game online, bearing in mind it was a first, and trialed in a fairly insignificant match up, many experts heralded it as a great success.
It all makes one big mockery out of those Internet providers calling for a review of how data is distributed on the web. In the tiered system they're after, bandwidth-heavy data like videos will travel slower... Like anyone is going to let that happen. The phrase 'swimming against the tide' comes to mind.
I really like the concept of a site I came across today, vark.com. The simple premise is, you ask a question and vark.com searches your social networks to find the person most suited to answer it. It's not only set up to cash in on the social media craze but it's also very simply designed and easy to use.
Only trouble is it doesn't seem to know the answer to anything. Of course, it's once again aimed at consumers rather than business so any corporate research goes completely out the window (I asked the question 'Can you tell me JP Morgan Q3 results?' and the thing looked like it was about to run to the nearest corner, curl up and cry).
I then tried to ask it some simpler questions - 'where can I find fancy dress in London?' and 'What's the traffic like on the M4?' and it told me my question was too short...surely that makes it easier to answer! So I tried 'is there anything in relation to the road between London and Wales that would stop my car going at the speed I so wished it to?' and I still got nothing.
Still, the idea's great, and if enough people sign up I can see it being a very useful tool, the problem is it's a business concept dressed up in a consumer model...Yet again.
As a blog that prides itself on market intelligence and monitoring the media I should probably focus on the announcement that quarter 3 market spend is up on search engine advertising... But I can't help but be distracted today by two absolutely great stories that I've stumbled upon.
Firstly, the fugitive that gave away the game by showing off his lavish spending and location on his Facebook status... as well as adding a former US justice official as his friend... What an incredibly intelligent thing to do (see article)
And secondly the new search engine that is causing quite a lot of controversy; 'Mystery Google'. No one seems to know who's behind it, Google are refusing to comment and there appears to be absolutely no sense whatsoever to any search entered...Fantastic! I'll post the link here but proceed with caution, some of the results are unsurprisingly rude. I get the feeling, this may well not be the future of search. (see Mystery Google)
Al Gore is now the last man standing between the complete separation of the Apple/Google board. Following Eric Schmidt's decision to leave the Apple table earlier this year Arthur Levinson has now jumped the other way leaving former US vice President Gore the last link between the two giants. So what exactly does this mean?
Well in the the short term it means Levinson values his position at Apple more than he does Google, which basically suggests he's backing Apple in the big race for the cloud. But in the long term this separation is really Google taken off the lead and being given the freedom it wants to compete in the field.
Google is now in direct competition with both Apple and Microsoft and with the parties completely divided there'll be no room for niceties. Until now, the big question has always been 'PC or MAC?' but make no mistake about it, these board room changes signal the start of an era where the big two all of a sudden become the big three. Yes, of course Google are already giants in their own right, but branching out of search and competing with 'cloud computing' will take them to a whole new level.
