skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
Like summarising a scientific test, all sides need to be taken into account when judging the successes of the first 'all online' match coverage of an England game. Results show 500,000 users logged in to watch the match, is that encouraging or disappointing?Well, 500,000 is considerably less than your average viewing figure for a televised England game, but then again the stakes were not that high. In that respect it's hard to base fact on a game with such little significance. Whilst figures may have seemed less, taking the average price of the purchasing price someone, somewhere still made a considerable £4.5 million out of users alone. When you compare the results to Youtube's announcement of one billion users a day it suddenly looks a little weaker. But of course, that's an extremely unfair comparison as Youtube covers such a wide scope of content and if anything it goes to show the interest in online video footage and the potential this market has. Yes, I'm sure there were teething problems (early complaints have included not being able to sit on a sofa), but I think overall this is a very encouraging result for the providers. Although the fan may lose out on atmosphere and comfort, there are signs that this could well be a big money maker in future.
Reuters published an article yesterday declaring that small businesses were not taking to social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, with 86% of the companies surveyed saying they had never used the sites for business purposes full stop. Let's be honest here, why would they? Whilst the high volume of daily users to these sites makes them a target for anyone looking for sales opportunities, the format just doesn't suit the business model.
Of course, networking, sharing and cross department communications are hugely important to any business but Facebook is not designed for business, it's designed for leisure. Trying to work around this model simply doesn't work. Just look at those Twitter feeds that are constantly filled with 'want a cheap loan? Click here'... Who would follow that? Similarly how would talking about what you're having for lunch help gain business? As for driving potential customers, I can't think of one company who I've found on a social networking site. If I'm looking for a service I will look in the usual places, I won't go and 'add a friend' or 'become a fan'. I'm a fan of football teams, not insurance companies. Business needs it's own network, taking key ingredients from these popular social sites and re-working it into a format that works. I believe this is very close. Having the fortune to work with software that is striving to achieve this I have been privy to the advantages of a specifically designed business model. So I really don't think it'll be long before companies leave the pokes and the tweets behind, and get back to doing what they do best, driving sales and communicating business ideas.
A couple of weeks ago I highlighted disappointing gains in market share for Bing after a hefty and expensive campaign to push the search engine forward. Imagine the shock then when this morning I see Bing has actually lost ground on Google, with it's share of US searches falling from 9.48pc in August to 8.96pc last month. The contrast between Microsoft and Google is there for all to see, with Microsoft announcing plans to cut staff and costs whilst Eric Schmidt talks about seeing out the worst of market conditions and striding onwards and upwards.Like a boxer whose been floored several times in a gruelling 12 rounder, you wonder whether Microsoft has enough in the tank to give it one more go. Questions certainly need to be asked. If it really wants to deliver a knock out blow to Google (They really are approaching last chance saloon) they obviously need to look at their approach. Perhaps it is not wise to trade punches with Google head on, it is a fight they will always lose. The underdog can only become triumphant when a weakness; a chink in the armour of the opponent is found. If Bing is to stand any chance at all, now is the time to be tactical and calculating rather than walking straight into further blows.
Amazon's decision to announce the global launch of it's popular e-reader Kindle could be taken one of two ways in Google's quest for an online library of literature. On the one hand it could be seen as a positive - the missing link - The MP3 player of the publishing world which will give consumers the convenience needed to make the idea a success. On the other hand, it could be the alternative option for many publishers who see the Google model as a big threat to their industry. One thing is certain, is that the Kindle will be another game changer for the rapidly diversifying online market. The news that Amazon's latest model of e-reader will look to harness newspapers and magazines means it is fast becoming just another way of accessing web information on the go, making online surfing a secondary activity rather than a primary one. Ultimately, this is just another sign of personalising Internet use. Like the MP3 sorts music, the Kindle is simply an easier way of storing relevant data tailored to your needs. How Google must be praying they can be involved, as make no mistake, this concept has legs and the future potential is staggering.
John Battelle wrote an interesting blog yesterday about how social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are taking search power away from Google by making it more personal. The argument suggested that online users like to aid their decision making with a human voice, or in other words, an opinion they can trust. Whilst these sites do provide a greater network of friends you can call upon for advice, I'm not entirely convinced it's the human side that people are necessarily looking for. In my opinion, what an online user seeks is the correct insight, a definite, reliable answer to whatever question they are asking. Currently, the best way of doing this is to rely on Google's opinion. Very few people leave the first page of search results returned by Google. This is because the first page offers a security; Google rates the first page of results enough to have made it their top 10, and for most that's good enough. It's establishing those personalized, trusted sources that I think is important to an online explorer. This is why the BBC news service is so popular. The BBC is an iconic public service and breaking news is much more likely to be genuine than if it appeared on a random blog page. So whilst social networking is certainly changing the way people interact with news and opinion, ultimately it's the source that provides the confidence to make decisions, not the human.
This may just be my crazy cogs churning early on a Monday morning but last week I blogged about Online advertising spend taking over television for the first time ever. And this week sees the convenient announcement that the World cup qualifier between England and Ukraine will be the first of it's kind to broadcast exclusively online...hmmmmIs this a sign of things to come? For years, key football match ups have been a high source of advertising funds for the likes of ITV and Channel 5, this shift is not likely to be a coincidence. Perhaps more interestingly, anyone wishing to view the match will have to pay the hosting web site £4.99 for the pleasure. Could this be further evidence that Rupert Murdock has well and truly set the ball rolling in regards to chargeable online content?Although early consumer reaction does not appear positive, it will certainly be worthwhile tracking how successful the model is, because this will be a landmark case. Spectators are used to live matches on television provided by their TV license fee. If they can get used to this transition expect the trend to continue, and rapidly.
Whilst reading Alex Hawkinson's latest blog post I had my attention drawn to an argument I've discussed on here before; whether or not bad reviews can actually be helpful and productive? The example, taken from a recent CNN article, was that of Alpaca Direct, who were looking to maximise sales by allowing customers to leave reviews of products on their site. Of course some reviews were in fact negative but strangely enough this seemed to increase sales, with the products in question selling at a rate of 23% more. Now whilst this is an extreme case, it does highlight a valid point (at least I hope it does!) This particular company had decided to take negative feed back into account and were benefiting from it. Gathering insight from all parties gave the site a balance, establishing a trust with consumers and crucially improving the product in the process. Although easy to sit back and take the plaudits, just listening to the positive aspects of your service is extremely naive and extremely counter productive. Monitoring how the media reflects your company and how the consumer perceives your company is surely a crucial factor in deciding future strategy. As Gordon Brown is finding, if people don't like you, it's very easy to get lost in a world of criticism. The trouble is he's ignoring it, which ultimately seems certain to be at his cost. In the case of Alpaca Direct, the more target intelligence the better.
I don't know what market intelligence the designers of Google Wave used, if any at all, but from everything I've read about the product I'm desperately struggling to see the benefits. If it's successful (which it's sure to be now I've jumped in at the deep end) then I will not only eat my hat, but will proceed to feast on my entire wardrobe. Let's look at two of the new features:- Online, real time communication, allowing viewers to see what someone else is typing and speed up conversation.- A playback allowing anyone to rewind the wave to see who said what and when. Why on earth would anybody feel they can benefit from these features? The designers argue that real time conversation allows people to interrupt before you've finished your sentence... Who enjoys it when that happens in real life? It's possibly one of the most annoying things a person can do!And just why would you want everyone to see what's already been said? Sometimes a dialogue is between two people who may wish to discuss something before someone else is present, who would appreciate a saved conversation allowing newcomers to track back and basically spy?Another advantage they are trying to sell is the simplicity of uploading photos and videos. That should scare Facebook who only allow you to...simply upload photos and videos. Again if I'm proved wrong then I shall in fact be full of clothes but seriously who did the research on this project? Were they living on the moon?
