BizWeek Says It All

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:12 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (11)

Health: Watch This Space

No. Really. Watch this space.

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:37 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (6)

More on GoogleClick: It Will Be Free, And Partners Worry

(image)
From a source who is in a position to know, news that Google's DoubleClick competitor will be ... free for all to use. Like Analytics. Think about that for a moment. How did Microsoft kill Netscape? Yup, made the browser free. How will Google try to own the entire ad serving biz? Make it free. Why would they do this? Because the most valuable thing in the world of advertising is not the commodity , it's the information the commodity will provide.

Providing a scaled ad serving solution? Free. Knowing the margins of every media and marketing company in the world? Priceless.

And who figured this out? Why, Google's partners, who have been nervous ever since the YouTube acquisition. Think about it. Newscorp was ready to sign a deal with Google for their ad server, sources tell me, but they got nervous about "the fox in the hen house." And then, what happened? Newcorp went and bought SDC, an ad serving technology and inventory optimization company. Sure makes sense now.

Hmmmmm. It just gets more and more innaresting. Note Barry Diller on Google today in an FT interview:

FT: Do you think Google has taken the right approach, has had the right attitude in its negotiations with the content creators?

MR DILLER: I don’t know. They’re an impossible situation.

FT: Why?

MR DILLER: Because they bought a company and paid fair value for it. They paid what they paid.

FT: Did they pay too much?

MR DILLER: I’m just saying, they paid what they paid. It is too early to tell, and they’ve got this wonderful site with a huge amount of traffic, and that traffic primarily is dependent upon things other people own. So, you go to them and you say, Okay, let’s make a deal. And they look at what you’ve just paid for the service itself, and say, Well, you know, we actually deserve some of that. And Google says, Well, no you don’t. So it is a very difficult tug between what is now an every hour mention, Google, in everything it does, and these people who actually own the stuff, so I’m not saying they handled it well or badly. I think it is a very tough negotiation, handled by Henry Kissinger.

My advice to Google? Don't make it free. Make it better, make it cheaper, and let those who use it own the data. Ah, hell, make it free, but let those who use it own the data and guarantee them you won't use it to your advantage. But then....why do it at all?

Hmmm.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:30 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (8)

Revisionist History at IDG

I have a lot of respect for Pat McGovern, he backed me when I was young (at the Industry Standard ) and he let me make mistakes, but we butted heads more than we agreed, and unfortunately, we could not see our way to making that business work.

I had pretty much left it at that till I read this interview on MediaShift. Asked why the Standard died, McGovern claims that management (er, that'd be me) refused to sell and blindly pursued an IPO. For the record, he has this entirely backwards. I tried for all of 2000 to get Mr. McGovern to let us sell the company to a stronger buyer, one who believed in our vision of the Internet Economy. He refused, and pushed us to go public instead. It was this very conflict that led to our differences and, partially, to our demise. I had three very real offers on the table that I took to McGovern, and three times he refused them, telling me that instead, we'd make more taking the company public or, at the very least, telling the potential buyer to double the price. Given that the price was between $250mm and $750mm, such a response was, to my mind, non sensical. But he owned the majority of the shares, and his word was what mattered.

McGovern taught me a lot, and I'd wager he may have learned a thing or two from me as well. But while not many things get me upset, this attempt at revisionist history requires it's own revision. Now, onwards....

• Posted by John Battelle at 5:56 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Searchmob Roundup

Will Social Networks and Vertical Search Combine to Challenge Google?

TripSync: Streamlines Travel Plans

Playing Nice with Google

New Service Creates Custom News Sites

Another Day and Another Video Search Service Announced, This Time from TV Guide

Will Social Networks and Vertical Search Combine to Challenge Google?

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 3:52 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Flickr-like Tube?

BeetTV says so:

Beet.TV has learned that You Tube will introduce new functionality to its platform tonight which will allow users to organize clips around specific categories.

Up to now, clips saved to an account or uploaded to dedicated channel are organized in what often seems a random process -- usually arranged chronologically, but not always.

The new interface will allow users to organize clips according to designated categories.

I can't imagine that such a feature was anything but "long time coming...."

Related: Gary has a list of YouTube like mobile apps...

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:54 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

CUban v. EFF on YouTube

A good roundup of the etech debate over YouTube's use of the DMCA can be found at NewTeeVee:

Cuban used the the evening to shed some light on his position. He thinks Google should be held liable for copyright infringements because YouTube doesn’t establish commercial relations with its users, in effect allowing them to upload videos with fake accounts and without any verification of their identity. This distinguishes the site, in his eyes, from traditional web hosters, who are protected from the misdeeds of their users through the “safe harbor provisions” of the DMCA. Says Cuban: “If you are a web host it should be natural to know who your customers are.”

Von Lohmann disagreed with the notion that there is a clear line between YouTube-like sites and traditional web hosting businesses. He illustrated his point by bringing up other companies that are also offering their services for free. “What about Hotmail? What about free web hosters? What about Six Apart?” he kept asking. “What about Pando? Should they be held liable too?”

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:01 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

GoogleClick

Google does not take third party ad tags. That means that if you want to advertise on Google, you have to run your creative through Google. But a huge portion of the advertising world that Google is now going after - graphical CPM ads - runs through third party ad servers like DoubleClick.

Now, DoubleClick is for sale, the WSJ reports. Actually, I've heard it's been shopped since early last year, but anyway....Microsoft is seen as an interested suitor.

Google can't let this stand. It's a major risk to its business to force advertisers to change behavior - it needs a third party ad serving solution.

So it will, without a doubt, build one. More soon.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:51 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

Reader Hercule DB Writes...

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:15 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

And In Other Reading...

GigaOm on Google and its video problem...

Google's giving bikes out to employees, G B'scoped says. What, the Segway isn't enough?

With respect, I disagree with #6 here. See this post.

Man, I wish I was at etech. I am missing it for the first time in three years. A roundup...

More Google focus on mobile...and mobile ads are hot...

Microsoft has a new search head.... (more)

Oh, via SEL, Timesearch. I love the concept.

More Panama good news.

So Yahoo is feeling generous, unlimited mail storage, TechCrunch reports...

Wow, Best Buy bought my ISP. Huh.

The Microsoft iPhone.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:12 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

Rich Speaks Again

Every so often, Rich gets up and rips one off. His most recent is called "How to beat Google, part 1."

From it:

Our entire industry is scared witless by Google's dominance in search and advertising. Microsoft and Yahoo have been unsuccessful at staunching the bleeding of their search market share. VCs parrot the Google PR FUD machine that you need giant datacenters next to hydroelectric dams to compete. They spout nonsense about how startups should just use Alexa's crawl and put some ajax on top of it. Ye gods.

Grow a spine people! You have a giant growing market with just one dominant competitor, not even any real #2. You're going to do clean-tech energy saving software to shut off lightbulbs in high-rises instead? Pfft. Get a stick and try to knock G's crown off.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:54 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

It's Trench Warfare Now

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo... It's now a war of distribution as much as innovation. Why do I say this? Read on, a release from Google:

LG ELECTRONICS AND GOOGLE TEAM UP TO ENHANCE THE MOBILE EXPERIENCE

LG Handsets to integrate Google Search, Google Maps for mobile, Blogger Mobile and Gmail for mobile

Seoul, Korea, and Orlando, Florida March 28, 2007 - LG Electronics (LG), a leading worldwide provider of advanced wireless handsets and accessories, and Google today announced a global collaboration to pre-install Google's services on millions of LG mobile phones. Mobile users around the world will now be able to easily search for information, find locations, update blogs and manage email while on the move.

"Building on our efforts to set new standards for wireless handsets, we are excited to partner with Google to offer extra value to consumers with enhanced mobile Internet experiences,” said Mr. Paul Bae, Vice President of the Product Planning Team at LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company. "LG's mobile devices, combined with Google, will provide consumers with easy access to their favorite Internet services even without a PC and make it easy for them to stay connected while in motion.”

Say it with me: Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution!

Previously in the distribution wars: Dell, Facebook, AOL, Pack....

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:41 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

COPA Is Struck Down

Remember when the DOJ went on that enormous fishing exercise under the guise of defending/resurrecting COPA, the Child Online Protection Act? Well, a Ed Felten tell us that the Federal judge just killed the act dead. We hope.

This is the end of a long legal process that started with the passage of COPA in 1999. The ACLU, along with various authors and publishers, immediately filed suit challenging COPA, and Judge Reed struck down the law. The case was appealed up to the Supreme Court, which generally supported Judge Reed’s ruling but remanded the case back to him for further proceedings because enough time had passed that the technological facts might have changed. Judge Reed held another trial last fall, at which I testified. Now he has ruled, again, that COPA is unconstitutional.

• Posted by John Battelle at 1:36 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (5)

Note On the New West Summit, Special Discount

My pal Jonathan Weber emailed me with a special code for any Searchblog readers who might want to register for the conference I referenced here. Use code SPK0607 for $150 off!

• Posted by John Battelle at 2:54 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Searchmob Roundup

Playing Nice with Google

New Service Creates Custom New Sites

Another Day and Another Video Search Service Announced, This Time from TV Guide

Will Social Networks and Vertical Search Combine to Challenge Google?

Real Estate Search Stats: March 2007 Trulia Trends Report

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 11:07 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Do You Trust The Govt. To Not Abuse Patriot Act? Really?

(image)
I've covered how uncomfortable I am with the Patriot Act since the dawn of this blog in 2003, but this post from Mary really drove it home. It covers a Washington Post story that details how, in just two years, the FBI issued more than 140,000 - yes that's 140 THOUSAND - "national security letters," in essence, requests for detailed information on the Database of Intentions that have no requirement of probable cause or judicial review.

Last Friday the Post ran a story from an anonymous but verified source. Read this story. From it:

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.

The piece concludes:

...At some point -- a point we passed long ago -- the secrecy itself becomes a threat to our democracy. In the wake of the recent revelations, I believe more strongly than ever that the secrecy surrounding the government's use of the national security letters power is unwarranted and dangerous. I hope that Congress will at last recognize the same thing.

I completely agree.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:47 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (12)

RIP, InfoWorld

It's set to become a web site only soon, Matt tells us. InfoWorld has been around for three decades, but IT ad spending is clearly moving online, and it's hard to justify a weekly trade covering a space that lives online.

When I was running the Standard, InfoWorld was a sister publication, and a good one at that. I really hope the publication thrives online, but its owner, IDG, will have to take painful measures to make it relevant in a world where coverage is owned by online pubs and blogs already deep in the flow. The transition to online only means losing 70-80 percent of operating costs. Good luck, guys.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:39 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Ozzie's Working On It

Microsoft's Ray Ozzie gave a speech last month that is worth pondering. In it he said that there is "a sea change going on in the industry" and "one of the things I've been working on is driving a services vision throughout the company."

So what's he working on? LiveSide has some thoughts:

While Ray Ozzie has been keeping details of his Software as a Service platform quiet, some small bits of information are emerging from other members on his team. Two of his direct reports, David Treadwell and Amitabh Srivastava are both listed as working on developing the next generation Live services platform known as Windows Live Core:

"This start-up effort will define the vision and create the implementation for cloud-based platform services that will allow the creation of compelling applications that make deep use of network-based information."

Other members of the Windows Live Core team that we've tracked down include David Cutler, who led the development of Windows, Abolade Gbadegesin, former architect of networking in Windows Vista and Elissa Murphy, Principal PM for Windows Live Core. This team has "joined Ray Ozzie to focus on next generation cloud services; to build an highly efficient computing fabric for Microsoft data centers and a services platform for agile development of high-quality cloud services."

I am encouraged by the idea that Ray is out there trying to boil the Microsoft ocean. More fuel, Bill!

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:31 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

The Blogosphere - Academic Cornucopia?

Well, Gary has found a conference and related papers that start to build a body of academic work around this here place. I must say, I'd sure like to be in Colorado about now, thinking about the implications of the blog world.

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:51 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Searchmob Roundup

Will Social Networks and Vertical Search Combine to Challenge Google?

Real Estate Search Stats: March 2007 Trulia Trends

50K+ Full Text & Image "Historic" Articles About College Hoops, Free via NewspaperArchive.com

Hoover's Archive of CEO and Analyst Video Interviews

Yahoo Unveils Widgets 4

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 2:18 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Searchblog JobBoard Test

I'm testing a service with Simply Hired that allows you all to post jobs on Searchblog. Currently, there are no jobs in the service, but perhaps you folks might need to hire some folks, and you'll give it a whirl. I'll highlight cool jobs every now and again. In fact, I think I might post a few FM open recs here. Check it out.

Also, if any of you are interested in flat rate or text sponsorships, I'm testing these as well via the FM engine. Check it all out on the right below the tower ad unit.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:00 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

If There Was Nothing But Time...

...I'd write long, overly analytical posts on these issues:

Metaweb. I spent some time with Danny Hillis today. What he's trying to do is deeply important in terms of how the web is going to work - or not. I will write something soon, I promise.

YouTube. Man, this one is not going away, and there's a lot to say about the new NBC/Newscorp thing. First, don't pay attention to the content. I don't think it matters. Pay attention to two things: One, the community - will it show up? And two, pay attention to the distribution they struck. Note how it's all the folks on the web who are worried/terrified of Google? Uh huh.

Vista. I spent the day with a lot of technology folks, it almost felt like a day back in 2004 when I was interviewing sources for the book (it just ended up that way, no idea why). Anyway, almost universally folks were wondering what Microsoft is going to do about Vista being a disappointment. There was a vague sense of concern here - it seems the technology cycle we all understood is over - but we don't understand the next one quite yet. It can't just be Google...can it?

Two Fridays ago I took a day to write. I plan to do it again soon. I really, really miss it.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:18 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (5)

Yahoo Gets A Click Fraud Czar

Thanks to Gary and SEL, news that Yahoo has appointed Reggie Davis, a lawyer (bio thanks to Gary), to focus on click fraud. From the release:

Davis will serve as the company’s first senior executive dedicated to continually enhancing the quality of Yahoo!’s display and search listings marketplaces.

As vice president of marketplace quality, Davis is responsible for developing and executing a strategy aimed at driving more rapid innovation, greater transparency and faster delivery of product and service enhancements to build an even higher quality advertising network for Yahoo!’s customers. Davis will hire a dedicated staff to manage across all of Yahoo!’s cross-functional quality teams and ensure that customer input is integrated into all efforts to address click fraud, traffic quality, network placement and other marketplace quality issues. Davis and his team will also be responsible for increasing Yahoo!’s dialogue with advertisers and publishers on quality related matters.

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:40 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

NBC and NewsCorp To Unveil NewsTube, Er, Name TBD

This just in from the LA Times:

News Corp. and NBC Universal plan to announce as soon as today that they are creating an online video site stocked with TV shows and movies, plus clips that users can modify and share with friends, according to people close to the negotiations.

The two companies enlisted help from some of Google's biggest Internet rivals. The News Corp.-NBC Universal partnership has deals with Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and News Corp.'s MySpace to place videos in front of their collective audience of hundreds of millions.

Paid Content gets props for early coverage.

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:30 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (6)

Book Search and Inklings of The Future

Tim has a nice post on how access to a vast corpus of books is changing academics. And how that is just the beginning...

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:29 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

MSFT Reorgs Search and Ads

Nah, they're not spinning out a newco with Yahoo, but it's a start. According to LiveSide:

Microsoft today announced the creation of a new group spun out of Windows Live, the Live Search and Ad Platform. Live Search (formerly Windows Live Search, formerly MSN Search) will join adCenter in a new group that will not report to Steven Sinofsky and Windows Live, but will be headed by Satya Nadella, and report directly to Kevin Johnson, the Platform and Systems division head.

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:27 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

The Map of Science

Who doesn't love a good data visualization? This one's a doozy. From the writeup on Seed:

This map was constructed by sorting roughly 800,000 published papers into 776 different scientific paradigms (shown as pale circular nodes) based on how often the papers were cited together by authors of other papers. Links (curved black lines) were made between the paradigms that shared papers, then treated as rubber bands, holding similar paradigms nearer one another when a physical simulation forced every paradigm to repel every other; thus the layout derives directly from the data.

Link to the big map. Thanks, Bill!

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:19 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Semel The Chesire Cat

(image)
Terry Semel knows he needs a win, and it sounds like he's got one. He told an AdAge audience that Panama would "some very exciting numbers" this quarter, according to Reuters. "I'm totally all smiles," Semel said. "We are very excited and very happy and I'm smiling broadly."

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:35 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Worth the Read

Wow, a lot in the feeds today. What I found particularly worthy:

Digesting Google's PPA ads, from TechCrunch. I am still digesting. This is good analysis. I am ambivalent about the new text link ad unit, so is Mike. "They’ve crossed a hazy ethical line here" he says. The NYT covers it but does not dwell on the link ad unit.

Yahoo, Google Revs are similiar from SEW. Yahoo is in no way out of this game. It's two ends to the middle, CPA/C to CPM.

Scoble continues to beat on his old employer's search results.

Kedrosky is a robot spammer, Google says! Slow down, Paul!

is Web 2.0 Over? from Venturebeat. Analysis of venture funding.

Google unveils the Plus Box. Click on the "plus sign" and you get more data. Innaresting.

The Kinderstart case is dismissed, Matt reports. Earlier coverage.

Where the ad growth is, from Lost Remote. Er...surprised?

Clarification from Google on net neutrality via GigaOm. This is not an easy issue to clarify...

Digg on Google clarifying its plan with phones. No hardware, folks.

• Posted by John Battelle at 5:51 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Spammin'

Craig alerts me to a days old NYT search spam piece and related research from MSFT. From the Times:

Tens of thousands of junk Web pages, created only to lure search-engine users to advertisements, are proliferating like billboards strung along freeways. Now Microsoft researchers say they have traced the companies and techniques behind them.

A technical paper published by the researchers says the links promoting such pages are generated by a small group of shadowy operators apparently with the acquiescence of some major advertisers, Web page hosts and advertising syndicators. ...

....Surprisingly, the researchers noted that the vast bulk of the junk listings was created from just two Web hosting companies and that as many as 68 percent of the advertisements sampled were placed by just three advertising syndicators.

I'm not surprised, actually. It makes a lot of sense. The folks who are the best at this are the ones "winning," so to speak. Just like the big engines....

More:

The researchers found that for some keywords like “drugs” and “ring tone,” more than 30 percent of the results from major search engines were fake pages created by spammers.

They discovered that the average spam density — a measure of the percentage of Web pages that contain only advertisements — was 11 percent for 1,000 keywords they used in their research.

The researchers said large advertisers were to blame for a significant share of the spam problem.

• Posted by John Battelle at 5:31 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (4)

The New West Summit

As many of you know, in a previous life I ran the Industry Standard. My partner in editorial pursuits was Jonathan Weber, a man I hold in very high regard. He's running New West now, an innovative regional newssite based in Montana. He asked me to come to his New West Summit, and I certainly couldn't refuse. It looks like a great event. If you have an interest in how the economy of the Rocky Mountain region is changing, I highly recommend it. And it's not a bad place to be in June, I can attest to that. Jonathan is a consummate host!

• Posted by John Battelle at 5:15 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

The Most Analyzed Company Ever

Google is endlessly fascinating for us, and Henry Blodget continues the speculation with talking points for a debate about whether Google will become "King of all Media." He makes the (accurate) observation that Google may conquer distribution, but it does not create content, so it doesn't threaten traditional media companies. Yes, save this one fact: Traditional media companies either owned distrubtion, or depended on it for the bulk of their revenues (ie advertising in scarce distribution markets). But the debate continues...

• Posted by John Battelle at 12:03 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Searchmob Roundup

Google vrs KinderStart - Case Dismissed

Time to "Fetch" and other Federated Search Tools

Adobe Apollo Officially Launched

Who Created the First Blog?

iFilm Infringement Could Blut Viacom's YouTube

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 10:54 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Yahoo And YouTube

I've read this once, and want to read it again, but I think he gets the main point: Google knew what it was getting into when it bought YouTube - the battle for the future of video on the web. It might be a public, legal suit, it might be the threat of one which gets the parties to a business agreement. But it's far from over.

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:05 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

New Yahoo Mobile Search

News from Yahoo on mobile search:

Today we are launching Yahoo! oneSearch on our Yahoo! Mobile Web service, which is accessible to the more than 85 percent of you in the US who can use a browser on your mobile phones.

If you ever tried using mobile search before today, you’re familiar with the list of links you get as your search result, just like those you’re used to getting on your PC. But is that what you really want on your phone, where networks are not yet DSL-fast and some of you have to pay to load every page? All the consumers we’ve talked to back us up on this: You want instant answers, right on the results page — not a list of links. That’s just what Yahoo! oneSearch does — we give you the answers you want in just one search.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:34 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Tidbits

Eric Schmidt interviewed by students at Stanford.

Google offers "themes" for personalized home page. Cheesy, but, interesting. d

A meaning-based search launch, CognitionSearch.

Google introduces pay per action test. Huh.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:24 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

Light Posting

I've got an all day non-work related commitment Tuesday, so posting will be light....

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:44 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Searchmob Roundup

SEO Tests with StumbleUpon

WIRED Magazine ReDesigning Website

Google Invites Beta Testers for Radio Advertising

blinkx Launches Wiki & Handbook for Video Search

New From Microsoft Research: MyLifeBits Online

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 3:00 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Ballmer On Google - Uh Oh

Late last week Steve Ballmer gave an speech at Stanford in which he stated that Google is a "one trick pony" - that trick being search, of course. He also noted that Google's staff growth is "insane" and called Google, in short, "cute."

Lordy, Steve. That's simply baiting the bear, isn't it? Now, lemme think. For its first ten years (Google is nearly ten years old now), Microsoft was a "one trick pony" - that trick being DOS. IBM, the incumbent, most certainly saw you as "cute." And as you piled on staff up there in Redmond, handing out options like it was crack, I bet someone gave a speech claiming you were "insane."

I love the fire in the belly. But where's the plan of attack? I'm guessing you have one. No, I'm sure you do. Can we hear it?

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:38 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (13)

Buy The Business, It's For Sale

Another sign that Microsoft, or someone else, could buy business from Google: Comcast is using the Wall St. Journal as a broadcast medium to potential partners that its deal with Google is up soon, and it's looking for someone to buy the business. Price tag? $100 million. From the non-public article:

Comcast Corp. is negotiating to use Microsoft Corp.'s Internet search services on its broadband portal, a sign the cable titan isn't happy about its current search deal with Google Inc., according to people familiar with the matter.

Comcast, the country's largest cable operator, also has been talking to Google about extending their relationship. Currently, Google provides search results when users of the Comcast.net portal enter queries into the search box on the site. But Comcast thinks it should get a larger share of the revenue generated by the arrangement. It also is unhappy about other terms of the deal, these people say.

Hmmm. Gotta love "these people."

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:24 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Lycos - Jubii

A NYT story dated for Monday says Lycos will re-enter the US search/portal market under the brand Jubii, the name of a Danish subsidiary.

Er. OK. I have a soft spot for Lycos, it bought the assets of Wired Digital, which I owned a very small portion of in 1997 (I don't own any of it now). I've always rooted for the company, though it's never won anything, to be honest. So, with that in mind...Go Jubii, Go!

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:20 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Image Search - What Will Happen

I was in the Portland airport recently and I saw an image of a happy, professionally smiling face welcome me as I logged into the free wifi there. The image is at left.

It was very, very familiar. I felt like I had seen it, or rather, her, hundreds of times. Then it hit me. Once we can search by image, I mean, really by image, we'll be able to find ALL the instances of this gal, all over the web. Imagine what happens once we can find every single stock image of glad handing corporate models? It'll be just like it used to be, searching for "copyright (insert date here)" or "about us" back in the early days of text search. Ah, nostalgia!

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:12 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (5)

Reader Kamal Writes...

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:10 PM
• Permalink

Some Links Worth Checkin'...

Yahoo's China woes continue...(BB and Wired)

And BB on Google and privacy....

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:35 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Time on Google v. Big Media Like Time

Fine piece. Read it here...points out the distribution issue. But to take it home, read this...and this....

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:15 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Meanwhile, Google Acquires AdScape, Gapminder

Thanks to AC for pointing this and this out to me. Google keeps buying...

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:54 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Giants 11, Rockies 7

We walked to the game, played a bit of catch in the stadium, then Bonds homered, Cain pitched well, some new talent showed off their bats, most of the vets stayed through the fifth, Benitez didn't blow his save, it was sunny and gorgeous, and the "Lemonade Like Grandma Made" man signed a ball for my son. It doesn't get much better than this.

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:15 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Microsoft Deal For Large Customers: Use Live Search, Get Free MSFT Products

A loyal reader sent me this tidbit: Microsoft is offering its large enterprise customers free service and product credits if those customers push Live search inside their enterprises. Called "Microsoft Service Credits for Web Search," a Powerpoint overview of the program sent to me states:

"Employees search the web daily with tools from Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo. OEMs and web sites are already earning credits based on searches that their users bring. Now, your organization can earn credits for Microsoft web searches and redeem them for Microsoft or preferred partner deployment and training services. More searches earns more credits towards the services you value."

The value is non-trivial - the presentation estimates companies can get from $2 to $10 per computer annually, plus a $25K "enrollment credit". For sites that have tens of thousands of computers, that can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in free stuff from Microsoft. Most large enterprises spend millions on Microsoft services and software each year. It's not hard to imagine a CFO getting slightly moist over savings like these.

In short, Microsoft is leveraging its massive installed base - and its cash - to push search. It's not a bad idea, though there are possible drawbacks. The presentation goes into detail about how a large company might promote this program to its employees, suggesting three levels of communication - "low, moderate, and high." Moderate and high promotions include "In-house training session on ‘how to get the most from web search’ using Windows Live Search," "Remove all existing toolbars," "Set Homepage to Live Search," and "Email message of encouragement from CEO." IE 7 is mandatory for the program, as one might expect.

Interesting. This could work, but it could sure backfire. How would you feel if, to save a few bucks, the CIO and CFO dictates that you now have to use IE7 preset to Live Search? I can imagine a backlash where usage of Firefox goes way up in large corporations so as to avoid that "Browser Helper Object" installed in IE 7....

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:59 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (32)

Spring

Today begins my annual rite of spring, the trip to Scottsdale with my son to watch...baseball! Posting will be light to very light....

• Posted by John Battelle at 6:42 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (6)

Searchmob Roundup

WSJ: How Webmasters Become Dependent on Google Rankings

More Than 1 Million Pages of Historical Government Documents Removed from Public View Since 9/11

The Internet Archive Needs Your Help in Capturing 2 Billion Web Pages

Merriam-Webster Online Adds Direct Links to Microsoft's Live.com for Each Definition

Personalized Video: Divvio's Preview Release; ChoiceStream and MeVee Too!

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 5:26 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Google Takes New Privacy Steps: A Start

But it's not what I'd like to see. From Google's blog post:

When you search on Google, we collect information about your search, such as the query itself, IP addresses and cookie details. Previously, we kept this data for as long as it was useful. Today we're pleased to report a change in our privacy policy: Unless we're legally required to retain log data for longer, we will anonymize our server logs after a limited period of time. When we implement this policy change in the coming months, we will continue to keep server log data (so that we can improve Google's services and protect them from security and other abuses)—but will make this data much more anonymous, so that it can no longer be identified with individual users, after 18-24 months.

Why 18 to 24 months? Well, I'd wager because Google is all over personalization and doesn't want to hobble itself. More soon...

• Posted by John Battelle at 3:19 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (7)

Net Neutral? Not Sure

It's a fraught issue, but over at GigaOm there's a primer on current Google positions worth reading....

Update: Google says "we're not changing our view!"

A statement from Google sent to me (along with a Save the Internet post):

"Google's position on net neutrality has not changed one bit. We strongly believe that Congress must take action to ensure a free and open Internet, in the face of a highly concentrated broadband market. Furthermore, Google's position -- which we testified to last year in Congress -- is that broadband network operators should not be permitted to charge any content owner extra fees or extra tolls. We continue to support net neutrality legislation by Senators Dorgan and Snowe, and by Representative Markey, and we remain steadfast members of the coalition supporting net neutrality."

And from Vint Cerf, who I pinged:

"We haven't really changed. We think that consumers should know about any restrictions in their use of broadband services and that [broadband] providers should not discriminate among application service providers."

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:27 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

A Modest Proposal To YHOO and MSFT: Spin Out A Search Company

One of the longer bomb predictions made by a number of analysts and pundits in the past 12 months has been the following: Microsoft will take its pile of cash and massive market valuation and buy Yahoo. Hell, I even suggested it. The logic goes something like this: Combine the two companies' reach and search share, their CPM advertising businesses and various other plays, and you have a behemoth that can take on Google.

Fine, except I don't buy it anymore, mainly because I think both companies are not well positioned to deal with a successful merger. And, I think there might be a better way. Now, those of you who read regularly may recall my LiveSoft post a year ago, in which I suggested that Microsoft set its Internet businesses free. Well, thanks to many folks who work in the industry (and one in particular who will remain anonymous for now), my thinking has evolved. I no longer think Microsoft should spin out LiveSoft, nor do I think it should buy Yahoo. Instead, it should roll out a new company that focuses on one thing: Search monetization. But it shouldn't do it alone. Instead, it should be a joint venture with Yahoo.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

Hear me out. Everyone knows how difficult it's been for both Yahoo and Microsoft to beat Google at its own game - search. Yahoo has been beat up for years over its lackluster monetization efforts - after initially gaining plaudits for its bold purchase of Overture. And over at Microsoft, search is still at the Windows 1.0 phase, and the rumblings I'm hearing out of Redmond are not encouraging. People are leaving, search share is dropping, and recruitment is tough.

But then again, both companies bring a lot to the table. Yahoo did a great job combining several engines into one solid organic search performer, and early reports on Panama are also solid. Microsoft has an innovative approach in its demographically-driven AdCenter. Both companies have significant traffic of good intent. For building search companies, Yahoo is in the right location. Microsoft has huge market cap and cash. Both need to do something, quickly, to prove to Wall St. that they can compete with King Google.

So why not join forces, like back in the good old days when Overture fed both Yahoo and Microsoft? Such a venture solves any number of tough problems. For example, it lets Yahoo and Microsoft focus on what they are good at. For Yahoo, that's digital lifestyle applications and services and the CPM ad revenues that come with them; for Microsoft, it's Windows and Office (and MSN, I guess....). Despite the packaged goods mentality displayed by the "well, we're done with Vista, now we can focus on search" approach, the initial response to Vista is proof enough Ballmer & co. might want to keep its engineers focused on the product that drives the majority of your revenues - Windows. And little birdies all over the Valley tell me folks at Yahoo are tired of the search-driven fire drills there, they want to get back to the cool stuff like Pipes....

A second and substantial reason to do this is to stop trying to kill each other in the race to catch Google. Separately, neither company is going to catch Google anytime soon. Why not work together, combine resources, and give the world what it really wants - a legitimate answer to Mountain View?

The company might work like this. Because Yahoo is further along with Panama and YPN than Microsoft is with AdCenter, Yahoo gets more credit in the JV for that asset class. Microsoft, because it has more cash, funds the lions share of the JV. Should each company also toss in organic search? To be discussed, but not necessarily required.

The new company, let's call it Soverture, is owned 50% by each party. Each party also throws in - and this is very important - a long term (ten years?) contract binding it to using Soverture's services in both direct search monetization (AdWords) and across its properties where it has a syndication play (Facebook, eBay international, etc.). Top talent is assigned into the company, and it's located in the Valley, so recruitment is easier.

Soverture is then released to develop a killer search monetization solution, one that is unfettered from the current political and structural woes of its parent corps. Spin another 20% out in an IPO, and set the company on a path of providing an alternative to AdSense. The timing is perfect - a ton of AdSense contracts are coming up soon (Ask, for example), and with all that cash from Microsoft, Soverture can afford to buy the business while it develops its way to parity with AdSense.

OK, I'm going to stop writing now, and ask you all: Is this crazy? I know there are tons of reasons why this would NOT happen, but it also makes a lot of sense, no?

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:55 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (27)

Searchmob Roundup

The Last Days of Internet Radio?

Ask Local Adds Advanced Web 2.0 Search Features

Black Hat SEO Blog Ranks for 'But Viagra' the White Hat Way

HP Site Has Built-in Search History

FreeBase Automates Internet & Organizes World's Information

• Posted by Melanie Colburn at 12:19 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

A Detailed Look at Yahoo

The Compete blog has some data for you to crunch on...

• Posted by John Battelle at 11:25 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Look, I've Tried to Only Threaten To Sue...

...clearly, Viacom's takedown orders were not enough. The process of negotiation-by-lawsuit has begun.

WSJ, Slashdot, Seeking Alpha (Henry Blodget), more Seeking Alpha

And here's Google's emailed PR response:

"We have not received the lawsuit but are confident that YouTube has respected the legal rights of copyright holders and believe the courts will agree. YouTube is great for users and offers real opportunities to rights holders: the opportunity to interact with users; to promote their content to a young and growing audience; and to tap into the online advertising market. We will certainly not let this suit become a distraction to the continuing growth and strong performance of YouTube and its ability to attract more users, more traffic and build a stronger community."

And an updated statement from Google, attributed to Kent Walker, general counsel

"YouTube has become even more popular since we took down Viacom's material. We think that's a testament to the draw of the user-generated content on YouTube. We've been very successful forging thousands of successful partnerships with content owners -- like Warner Music, Sony/BMG, Universal Music, BBC, and the NBA -- interested in finding new audiences for their programming. These partnerships offer the YouTube community access to some of the best content in the world, ranging from entertainment and sports to politics and news. And we're only getting started."

And ResourceShelf has the actual complaint here.

• Posted by John Battelle at 11:01 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (7)

Travelin' Back

Light posting today. Much afoot. Watch the TellMe news (apparently Microsoft may buy them). Recall my write up of TellMe here back in January....

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:11 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Goodness. AT&T In The Search Biz

How? By buying Yahoo, of course. This article reports the good folks at AT&T have considered it. A monumentally bad idea, to my mind. Imagine a major telco owning a search company. Imagine further them owning a bunch of media, applications and content. Imagine the business model such a company might be inclined to push. Tiering, anyone?

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:54 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (6)

Google Earth/Census Mashup

This sounds cool.

gCensus.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:11 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Google Dish

Matt dishes on Google and Dish. Recall my Friday musings some years ago (which ended up in the book), I discuss the future of advertising on TV....

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:56 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

More Bits of Tid

So much happening.

I am in Austin for SXSW, a wonderful group of people are here. I have a few posts brewing but for now....

On to the tidbits:

- If you have Vista (and I have more to say about that soon) Microsoft is starting to roll out non browser-based search integrations. It's also working on dealing with the competitive threat of Google Apps.

- Ask keeps pluggin' away with innovations, this time in local search.

- You all know I dislike the Patriot Act. I am not alone. Just as we all expected, the powers of the Patriot act proved too much to resist, the FBI has been caught and called out for putting on Patriot's secrecy ring....my precious! A related video is worth a view.

- Good to see the remixing trend getting more support....this time from Battlestar Galactica.

- Everyone's happy to work at Google? Not this guy.

- Matt Cutts goes on the record saying Google isn't inclined to trap user data. Watch this space.

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:57 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Conversational Marketing: PGM v. CM, Part 3

(image)
Grab a favorite beverage if you're going to read this one. It's rather long.....

OK.

If you believe that conversational media (post 1, post 2) represents an important emerging category in the overall media landscape, the question must be begged: how does one pay for it? What is the central economic model for conversational media?

I have a short answer, and a very long one. The short one is this: Conversational marketing. The long one gets into how conversational marketing is simply the tip of a very large iceberg, representative of a sea change in how all businesses converse with their constituents - be they customers, partners, or employees. Yes, I'm going somewhere with all of this - my shorthand for it is "The Conversation Economy" - but for now finding a succinct definition is exceedingly notional - and frustrating. Regardless, the more smart folks I talk to in the media, marketing, and business world, the more I am convinced we are entering the age of the Conversation Economy. But to get there, we need to crack the code of conversational marketing. So that's what I'll focus on in this post. The next (and final) one will, I hope, tie it all together.

And because I am writing this all day today, I plan to experiment a bit with how I write for the web (I've referred to this as web-enhanced writing). In short, I plan to serialize this post over the day, posting it as I write it. Every hour or two or three, I'll hit "publish" and you'll see wherever I am in this process of Thinking Out Loud. Given the way I know I write, I'm sure that each successive post will not only be longer, but an entirely revised version of the stuff I've already published. I hope by the end of the day to have a decent draft finished, and perhaps, you'll visit from time to time and toss your comments into the mix.

So onwards. (Pressing the publish button for the first time now....)

Update - this post is getting so long, I'm going to put it in the "extended entry" format. Continue reading by clicking that link below....

Wow, that changed things. Now I feel like Mike Mulligan and his steam shovel, but early in the morning, when no one is watching. What happens if folks start watching? Heh.

So onwards, as I was saying, to some thinking out loud about conversational marketing. At FM, the company I founded 18 months ago, we talk about conversational marketing quite a bit. The reason is pretty straightforward - the sites we represent are all conversational media sites - sites that are driven by a highly engaged community of readers or users who are in conversation with the authors/creators of the site, or with the site itself, as well as with each other. Examples include ProTrade, Boing Boing, Digg, Dooce, Real Travel, and tons of others.

What I noticed when I was thinking through the initial model for FM was that while these sites were in full-throated conversation between author and audience, and audience and audience, there was no conversation between those two parties and marketers - in 2004, when I was developing the FM idea, nearly every site I thought was representative of conversational media was devoid of marketing support. Why?

Well, there were practical reasons. First, the sites were disaggregated - there was no scale. And marketers really need scale - the way marketers are currently set up, it's far too expensive and time consuming to buy, manage, and analyze ROI on hundreds or thousands of sites for each message or campaign. That's why most of the online money was focused on a few top players - Yahoo, Google, AOL, MSN.

Second, there was quality. Marketers like their message to be in the context of a high quality content and community. But with millions of blogs and scores of new social networking sites launching every month, which ones were the best? Marketers needed help filtering signal from noise.

And third, there was safety. Conversational marketing is just that, conversational. Big brand marketers are, as a group, not particularly thrilled with the idea that they might find themselves in an environment where folks might poke fun at them, or criticize them, or call them out. In short, they were not used to being part of the conversation. But, brands are conversations, are they not? Interesting.

Solving for the first two issues is a matter of finding a group of sites that together had scale, and together valued quality and integrity. But solving for the third issue is a trickier proposition. After a year or so of working with tons of brands and agencies on this issue, however, as well as talking to lots of other folks and watching what the leaders in this space are doing, I'm starting to
see some patterns that are deeply interesting. (Pressing publish for the second time now, and heading to yoga....)

Ah. That was nice. OK. So what are some examples of conversational marketing? Well, let's set some context. I've argued for more than 15 years that all commercial publications are conversations between three core parties - the author, the audience, and the advertiser. The best of these have a robust shared grammar, a voice that all three parties understand and respect. At Wired, for example, we ran a survey asking readers the major benefits of reading the magazine. "The Ads" came up near the top. Why?

Wired had a very strong editorial voice, one that readers strongly associated with and felt passionate about. Sure, it was not for everyone, but what great voice is? It may be hard to believe, but advertisers are people too - and many of Wired's advertisers were readers of Wired, and they also felt passionate about the markets and ideas the magazine represented. In fact, many of our advertisers not only shared Wired's point of view and enjoyed its voice, they felt - through the products and services they created - that they were actively participating in the conversation Wired represented - they were participants in a grand conversation about the digital revolution and its impact on society.

So a funny thing started to happen. The advertisements started to adopt the grammar and voice of the magazine. Now, some of them were admittedly lame - cheap attempts to copy the design and buzzwords for which the magazine was (in)famous. These ads were off key, pretentious, they lacked integrity. But far more hit the right notes - the added to the conversation, they understood the mores and values of the Wired conversation, they respected the dialog, and they threw in their two cents appropriately. Hence, the ads became an important part of the benefits of reading Wired, and the survey results showed it.

Wired was a great example of marketers joining a mediated conversation in an appropriate, valuable way. Why, I wondered as I puzzled out FM, can't that idea be extended and deepened online? After all, as the Cluetrain taught us, your ads need not simply be a declarative statement frozen in time, as it must be in television or print. Online, the conversation can continue, it can deepen, and it can take its own course.

But to have a conversation, you need to have something to say. And on conversational media sites, where the grammar and voice are so strong, you can't open a dialog with a deafening pitch, a crass come on. You have to understand the values of the site, and you have to have something that offers value, in context, to the audience.

This is one of many places where search comes in. The brilliance of search advertising was that it was, in fact, additive to the conversation on many sites. Certainly it was additive on search sites - when you are on Google and you declare your intentions (in essence, the opening line of a conversation), the site reorganizes itself around your opening line of dialog, and the ads are, more often than not, relevant and additive to the experience.

This was less true with syndicated search ads - the examples of poor or off-key AdSense results are legion. But still and all, for many kinds of content - in particular product-driven and category-specific sites - AdSense ads were far more relevant to the conversation happening on a given site.

However, ad networks like AdSense have a weakness when it comes to rapidly changing and diverse sites. It's hard to find just the right ad to put next to content that changes every hour or so. The ads weren't irrelevant, but they were not relevant enough to drive a healthy enough conversation for all parties involved, particularly the publishers. Effective CPMs (a measure of how much money is made for every 1000 pageviews) hovered well below a dollar for many blogs and other forms of conversational media sites. While that was great additional income, it wasn't going to let those sites thrive to the point of becoming real businesses where the authors could make a real living.

A good example of the kind of site I am describing is Boing Boing. (pausing, hitting publish for the third time.)

Now, the folks at Boing Boing are an amazingly diverse group of authors, between them, they edit magazines, write science fiction and other kinds of books and articles, consult for forward thinking companies, report from all points of the globe, and generally live fascinating lives. For the past decade they've lived them online, and Boing Boing has become one of the most linked to and most influential blogs on the web.

But in early 2004 the gang at BB came to me with a problem. (I knew them through any number of working and personal relationships). They had been posting to BB for years, tending to the site as a labor of love. Boing Boing fed them in any number of ways - it nurtured their creative side, it suckled their egos, it provided a platform for them to discuss their most treasured ideas, projects, and pet peeves. But it made them absolutely no money, and by early 2004, their hosting bill was starting to go through the roof. The month they contacted me, it had hit $500, and at the rate it was going, it'd be $1500 within another six months. Could I help, they asked? Was there a business model that allowed them to cover their costs, and maybe - insert fantasy here - maybe even let them make Boing Boing their principal source of income, freeing them up to do more Boing Boing related work?

My first response was "$500 a month?! What are you doing, posting video?!" I had no idea the size of the audience, but I couldn't imagine any audience size would justify a $500 hosting bill. After all, my audience at Searchblog at that time was at about 50,000, and my hosting bill was something like $50 a month. No way was their audience ten times Searchblog's size. How many folks were coming to Boing Boing each month, I asked?

The answer stunned me: 500,000.

500,000 readers? 500,000 participants in the Boing Boing conversation? Holy smokes! Wired took tens of millions of dollars to get to that size readership (admittedly, Wired's readers paid for their subscription, making them more valuable). But still! We spent nearly $10 million to build TheStandard.com, and it barely made it to half a million readers a month - and we weren't charging!

Clearly, something was afoot in the media business. Audiences were discovering conversational sites like Boing Boing (through search, of course!), and they liked what they had found. This begged the question: Would marketers like to join this dialog?

The folks at Boing Boing were not anti-marketing per se, but they were deeply skeptical. Would BB readers revolt at the addition of ads? Would BB be able to find ads that understood the grammar and voice of the site? Would we be able to make any money with ads if we banned punch-the-monkey creative, expandable banners, and the like that were rampant across the web at that time?

We decided the best approach would be to ask the readers what they thought. We ran a survey and solicited comments. Overwhelmingly, the readers told BB to go ahead with advertising if it meant supporting and growing Boing Boing, but we got a flood of input on how to do advertising right. The input largely validated the editors' sensibilities about advertising - if it were the right companies, with the right messaging and in the right tone, advertising on the site would work.

Three years later, it seems obvious that it's OK to advertise on large blog sites like Boing Boing. But back then it was not at all clear. We started by dipping a toe in the water. I asked the editors to make a short list of companies they felt "fit" the BB voice. They gave me four - Apple, Google, O'Reilly Media, and Wired. I contacted all four, and offered them three month "sponsorships" of Boing Boing. Three of them agreed (Apple declined, but has come in since), and within a month, Boing Boing was not only paying its bills, it was clearing a profit that helped the editors drop some of the work they were doing "to pay the bills" and focus more on doing things that fed their Boing Boing habit.

The approach of having the authors approve the companies which advertise on their site seems obvious, but when you think about how traditional media works, it's downright revolutionary. The lunatics were running the asylum! But it turns out, when an author approves a company to advertise on his or her site, they are, in essence, inviting the company to join that sites' conversation. A permission has been given, a trust established. To this day, every single ad FM sells is approved by our authors before it appears on their site. And despite our initial worries that author approvals would be a hurdle to marketers - after all, they're used to getting their way - it has, in fact, turned into an overture, a conversation starter that has led to all sorts of examples of new approaches to marketing online. So, as promised before I went on that long detour, here's a few examples for all of us to ponder. (pressing publish for the fourth time....)

The very first example of conversational marketing has to do with a very large computer brand which I will keep anonymous, as it's not clear they'd want me talking about them in this forum. In any case, this brand had a problem - its customers were losing confidence that the brand, which they loved, was going to remain innovative and leading edge, much less stable. The brand needed to convince the influencers of the technology world (that'd be you, and many like you who read blogs and conversational media sites) that the brand was still innovative. How to do it?

We suggested something a little risky. Why not invite your customers into a dialog about what they'd like to see in the next version of the product? You could run creative asking customers to come to a site where they could suggest cool new features, gripe a bit about things they didn't like, and generally engage in a conversation about the brand's products. Then, when you rev'd the product, you'd fold as many of those ideas as you could into the new version, and voila - a piece of hardware informed by the Force of Many and the Architecture of Participation!

The agency loved the idea, but the brand was not so sure. What if the dialog turned sour? What if the site became a sinkhole of trolls grousing about lord knows what? The brand was worried about the safety of such a dialog, and was not ready to take such a large leap. But it did dip its toes into the water, executing a campaign that invited readers to vote for a specific feature of future machines. It was a start - and the results were compelling. More than 200,000 people navigated a very complex marketing site so as to register their vote.

The next example I'll give takes the idea even further. Dice is an IT jobs board. Many of you have probably seen its ads all over tech sites on the web. Dice's agency came up with what I think is a brilliant example of conversational marketing - the Dice rant banner. Instead of simply inviting readers to another site, the Dice banner invites readers to add their conversational tidbits directly into the banner. (In the case of Dice, the opening question was "Does your tech job suck?" You can imagine the responses....).

Once you write your thoughts into the banner, those thoughts become the content of the ad. Coooool. The content initially is stored locally, but is then sent through a central server, cleaned of dirty words and sexual references (people will be people), and then redistributed through the entire media buy as a streaming content feed. This is taking the conversation to another level - the conversation becomes the marketing, the medium is the message. The response was extraordinary - the average interaction time in the banner was more than seven minutes. That's far longer than the average amount of time most folks spend on a tech news or blog site. (The Dice banner later won an award from an industry publication.)

With Dice, marketers began experimenting with the idea of inviting potential customers into a conversation that added value to their media experience, and then folded that conversation back into its initial invitation, creating a virtuous circle of dialog that ultimately branded the company as a place that "gets" folks who have tech jobs. Now, if you're a tech guy looking for that next job, and you interacted with the banner, where do you think you'd go to look?

The next example I'd like to talk about, one that builds and extends on Dice, is Symantec. As you probably know, Symantec is a vendor of virus protection and security software, among other things. Its marketing executives had been paying attention to the rise of blogs, and in particular to the rise of tech blogs that were clearly influential in its own markets. Many technology companies were starting their own blogs, and Symantec decided to do the same. It then executed a campaign across a number of tech blogs telling folks that the blog was, in essence, up and running.

Then a funny thing happened. The blog was written in a strong, intelligent voice. It was keyed to the industry it served, and folks started to notice. Then a funny thing happened. Symantec posted an entry titled "Mac OS X: Viruses and Security" which said, in essence, that finding viruses for Mac OS X was pretty damn difficult. Now, this was some pretty straight talk from a company that had much to gain from stating the reverse - after all, Symantec sells anti-virus software. The post was immediately Dugg, pushing the blog to a much higher level of awareness in the tech community. The sub title of the post on Digg says it all: "Finally, straight talk from someone inside Symantec." Clearly, there was a brand perception, at least among some on Digg, that Symantec was changing its spots.

But the company didn't stop there. Realizing it had been invited to join the conversation across the tech blogosphere, Symantec worked with the team at FM to create a new kind of advertising unit, one that pulled an RSS feed directly from the Symantec blog. The conversation that Symantec was having on its site was now projected out into its marketing campaign, reaching millions more readers.

Then we started noticing the performance numbers. Typical banner ads have a click through rate that declines over time. Those who might click on the ad do so early in the ad's run, and by the end of a campaign readers grow weary of the creative, and no longer engage. But since Symantec's creative kept changing as new posts were added to the site, the clickthroughs remained consistently higher over time. Interesting!

I've got one more example to write, then I'll pull back with some broader thoughts. (pressing publish for the fifth time...)

OK, so the last example is Cisco. Yes, these are all technology marketers, but I've found tech companies often lead all marketers in terms of breaking new ground, and FM is working with Nike, Absolut, and many others on versions of these examples.

Back in the Fall Cisco was preparing to roll out a major branding campaign around the tagline of "The Human Network." But before spending tons of dough on national television and print extolling the virtues of the admittedly "empty vessel" that was the human network as a brand, Cisco decided to first see if it might invite some technology leaders into a conversation about just what the human network meant, as a concept. Working with ten noted tech bloggers (yes, me too), Cisco and FM created a site where each author penned his own definition of the term. Cisco weighed in as well, and even posted its version to Wikia, the commercial cousin to Wikipedia. Sure, Cisco would have loved to have its version posted to Wikipedia, but that would have been corporate spam, and that's not cool. Wikia was the best place to go.

Then Cisco made ad units that were particular to each author's sites, encouraging readers to go to the page of definitions and vote for their favorite. Tons of folks voted (Newsvine's Mike Davidson won), and the site and its related pages became something of a "brand beacon" for the human network idea. In short, the site was a conversation about what the term means, and that conversation became the context for filling up the "brand vessel" that was "the human network."

Cisco then rolled out its major media campaign, which you may have seen on TV. And a funny thing happened. Two, in fact. Say you were watching PGA golf and you saw the Cisco ad. You wonder to yourself, what's this human network thing all about, anyway? So what do you do?

Of course, you go to Google, and you type in "the human network" or somesuch. And up pops Cisco's conversational media site. At least, that was what happened in the first month or so. But after a while, something else happened. Someone entered the term as a Wikipedia entry, and it was accepted for publication. In short, the term now means something, because Cisco engaged both authors and audiences in a dialog about its marketing's meaning. (More on this at Chas Edwards's site, which if you troll around, has a wealth of insights on this topic. Chas is one of my partners at FM...).

Whew. That took a lot out of me, writing up all that. And yes, it's totally personal, and therefore anecdotal and inconclusive. But I sense that all these examples are not flukes, something is really afoot here. Marketers are realizing that while it's fine to advertise in traditional ways (Hey! This movie is about to open! Hey! Check out the cool new car/product, etc.), it's now an option to begin a dialog with the folks who you hope are noticing your ads. In fact, it might even be a great experience for all involved. Brands might hear criticisms that are valid, and have the chance, through conversations with customers, to address those critiques. Customers have the chance to give their input on new versions of products, ask questions, learn more - in other words, have a dialog.

And in the end, isn't having a dialog with your customers what business, and brands, are supposed to be about?

I've been writing for nearly 6 hours now, and as I've said in other long posts, anyone who's still with me deserves a medal (at 4100 words this may be my longest). Me, I'm going to have a bourbon and welcome in the weekend. I've got so much more to say about this - in particular, how the idea of conversational media informs what I think might be the next framework for the search user interface - but for now, I think I'll sign off. Thanks for reading, and toss me a few comment bones if you care to. I could use the input, and welcome the conversation....

PS - Yes, this is leading somewhere. As a tidbit for those hardcore readers who have made it this far, "The Conversation Economy" is the working title of my next book.....(pressing publish for the sixth time....)

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:59 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (26)

Bits of Tid

Today, I am writing. Yep, taking the entire day off from meetings and scheduled phone calls and travel, and just writing. Oh, what a luxury!

First off, a few tidbits have piled up in my inbox. Here they are for your consideration.

IBM and Yahoo have teamed up to create the UFOCrawler. No kidding. "UFO Crawler, a new search engine specifically tuned to search for information about the paranormal and unexplained will be launched Friday by the Anomalies Network. The UFO Crawler is taking off thanks to IBM’s newest search software, IBM OmniFind Yahoo! Edition. Like many organizations, the Anomalies Network was faced with the need to improve access to its growing collection of information, while also looking for a tool to create a competitive advantage for the business through search." Or, in other words, a fun way to promote IBM and Yahoo's enterprise search offering.

Speaking of Yahoo, it launched a new edition of MyYahoo yesterday. From the email notification: "Some new features include:

Pre-built personalized pages
Category pages for topics and "content suggestions"
Further customization of their page with drag-and-drop modules
Feed previews and a full post reader on the page
Editable Personal Assistant with instant access to things like Yahoo! Mail, horoscopes, local traffic, etcRedesigned modules from Yahoo! and partners, with games, music, commerce, sports updates, weather, finance portfolios, TV listings, etc.
Sharing feature, enabling users to send their My Yahoo! page or favorite modules with friends and family.

And we can't have a Yahoo upgrade without a Google response, this one is to their Local Business Center. This is important, I've been banging on them about how Google does not take advantage of the architecture of participation for local merchants, now it is. From the email I got: "today Google released new features to its Local Business Center (www.google.com/local/add/businessCenter), further enabling small businesses to reach potential customers looking for local goods and services online. The Local Business Center, a free service, allows business owners with a physical location to add their business information to Google Maps, and edit or delete existing listings. The new features include photo upload, custom attributes, local correction and listing statistics."

Danny Hillis is talking more about his MetaWeb project, and the Times has the story. Danny and I are trying to find a time to sit down and really talk. We spoke of this project three years ago when I interviewed him for the book. He's a very, very smart fellow. Markoff's lead: " new company founded by a longtime technologist is setting out to create a vast public database intended to be read by computers rather than people, paving the way for a more automated Internet in which machines will routinely share information." More, including screen shots, at Radar.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:40 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Web 2 Expo: Special Deal for SearchBlog Readers

I've told you before about the Web 2 Expo, it's the cousin of our original Web 2 conference (now called the Summit). I'm pleased to report that more folks have registered for the Expo than we originally predicted, and not only that, the lineup of keynote speakers is really excellent. Jeff Bezos, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Weiner are confirmed as keynotes, plus Mena Trott, Caterina Fake, Joe Kraus, and tons more. I'm going to be interviewing a lot of these folks on stage.

The event is April 15-17 in SF at the Moscone center. It's bigger and far more hands on than the Summit, and if you plan on going, the early bird registration expires next week, Monday I believe. The organizers have offered Searchblog readers a special registration code that will knock another $100 off the price for all of you. If you are interested, send me an email and I'll email you back the code.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:38 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Cuban Puts Lawyers Where His Mouth Is

Found via IWantMedia, this GoogleWatch piece on Mark Cuban, ever the critic of YouTube, poking that company in the eye by demanding it turn over the names of users who posted IP from his independent studio, Magnolia Pictures. Oh, the irony.

• Posted by John Battelle at 11:55 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (6)

Google: Finance Updates, Apple Speculation

Google updated its Finance app with video and after hours charting; and rumors are rife that Apple and Google are up to something (recall Eric joined Apple's board). I'll have more to say on the latter, later.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:14 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

MSFT Search Chief Is Leaving

The woes at MSFT search continue: Christopher Payne, the boss of search at MSN, is leaving. I have been talking to a lot of folks in the MSFT world, and search is a true charlie horse for the company. It needs an order of magnitude shift to win, and that's a very, very tall order. More as I can write more...

• Posted by John Battelle at 11:48 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)

Big Q4 For Net Ad Revenues

From the IAB release:

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) today announced that Internet advertising revenues for 2006 are estimated at $16.8 billion, a 34 percent increase over the previous revenue record of $12.5 billion in 2005. The 2006 Q4 revenues totaled just under $4.8 billion, making it the highest quarter reported. Fourth-quarter revenues for 2006 represent a 32 percent increase over the same period in 2005, and a 15 percent increase over Q3 of 2006, estimated at slightly under $4.2 billion.

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:08 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Two Reader Suggestions

First, check out Research Google, a CSE rolled by reader Chris that includes 160 or so Google related sites.

Then, check out cRANKy, which is "age relevant" search, thanks to reader Joel.

• Posted by John Battelle at 10:02 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (4)

The Google Phone

Lots of chatter while I was away. Cnet's story is here, the posts outlining details are here and here.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:25 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Another Old v New Media Piece in the Journal

This one is public, so you can all read it.

Mr. Schmidt said the Internet giant continues to pursue deals that will let it show media companies' copyright content on YouTube but said there is a "genuine disagreement." Traditional media argue their content has a certain intrinsic value, while Google says "prove it," he said, speaking at a Bear Stearns investor conference yesterday. "That's often a difficult conversation."

Asked by a member of the audience whether Google is "arrogant," as charged by some in traditional media, Mr. Schmidt said, "I'm sure we're arrogant." But he chalked up such complaints to a negotiating tactic, grousing that one of the ways traditional media negotiate is by leaking details of deal negotiations to the press and then threatening to sue.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:15 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (1)

Meanwhile, A MSFT v. Google Battle Brews...

It's always when I'm on the road. Microsoft's counsel today made some inflammatory comments (more here) about Google and copyright, infering that perhaps Google's entire approach to media was in violation of copyright. Google pointed me to a response by the head of the CIAA, here.

This is not Microsoft's - or others - first attempt at playing to Big Media's fears of Google. More as I have it...

Update: Google has provided me with this comment from David Drummond, their Senior Vice President Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer:

The goal of search engines, and of products like Google Book Search and YouTube, is to help users find information from content producers of every size. We do this by complying with international copyright laws, and the result has been more exposure and in many cases more revenue for authors, publishers and producers of content. In the publishing industry alone, we work with more than 10,000 partners around the world to make their works discoverable online, and in video, we recently added new partners including BBC and NBA. We look forward to working with even more partners to make more content discoverable online.

Just as Google is in a pitched debate with major media companies over YouTube, Microsoft pokes at its soft underbelly. I love this stuff. It literally writes itself.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:41 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (11)

More Road Days

Today I am in South Florida, in my role as author - speaking to a group of communications execs at a conference here. Posting will return soon...

• Posted by John Battelle at 4:15 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

And We Needed Proof Alexa Is Terrible

Well, no we didn't, but as I've said before, when is Google going to gift the world with a non broken version of Alexa? Google Peter Norvig does a good job of anecdotally proving the obvious. (via another Googler, Matt Cutts).

For example, let's look at the log stats for my site and for some of my friends who have recently published their stats for 2006. We list the actual number of visits and pageviews, and the Alexa numbers for reach and pageviews. The difference is quite profound.

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:19 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (8)

GooTube: How Goes It Internally?

A SF Chron article takes a look. Fine overview if you've not been paying attention..

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:02 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

Google Advances Into Real Estate

I know it's been working on this deal for some time. Google has syndicated real estate listings and most likely will have a lot more noise to make in this business soon.

• Posted by John Battelle at 7:49 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (0)

I Love Comments

Some great comments - and debates - all over the site lately. Thought I'd point a few out.

On my post about Quintura, some of Searchblog's most prolific and accomplished commentators have a strong discussion of approaches to search. Worth the read.

Over at my post on Google's 10-K, reader Lars, who has some serious credentials in new media, goes off on a nice long rant, it's also worth the read....

On my Panama post, a few readers chime in with gloomier outlooks for Yahoo...

Thanks for all the comments. In fact, check out the graphic at left. Look at the number of comments on this site, compared to the number of posts. 4.5 times more comments than posts. Put another way, I've created 3000 or so discrete bits of "content" on this site, and you all have created nearly 14,000. Cool.

• Posted by John Battelle at 5:19 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

Again, On The Road

Heading up to Niketown today. Posting will be light till my plane gets delayed and I'm stuck in the Portland airport posting rants about how terrible the MLB Game Day Audio is.

• Posted by John Battelle at 11:02 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (3)

$11B in Liquid Assets and Growing

Google filed a 10-K this week (thanks Gary) and there were a few tidbits in there. If you're a Google geek, it's worth a read.

Google had more than 10,00 employees at the end of 2006, for example, and spent nearly $2B in capex in 06. Advertising is 99% of all revenues for three straight years. The UK is 15% of Google's revenues. The US has declined from 66% to 57% in three years. TAC (traffic acquisition costs) are blended into overall revenues so it's more difficult to figure the TAC percentage as a portion of Adsense, (a bit of other stuff may be in that figure), but if you take TAC as all Adsense related, you come up with $3.3B paid out, on $4.16B in Adsense (Google Network) revenues, or 79%, which is consistent with previous numbers.

Astonishingly, cost of sales is 8 percent. Very low and very efficient. Contractual obligations to publishing partners came in at $1.17B.

The YouTube acquisition is detailed, technology from that was valued at just $24mm. Goodwill (if ever there was an irony...) is the majority of the price. There's $45mm in liabilities assumed...

dMarc and other was also listed. Not sure how the "others" was factored in, but again, the majority was "goodwill." Again, it was an on the come play...

I am sure I've missed tons of stuff in here, but that's why the link is there.

The headline, which I've buried: Google is sitting on more than $11B in cash and liquid instruments as of the end of 2006.

• Posted by John Battelle at 9:35 PM
• Permalink
• Comments (12)

More Numbers from Google, This Time on Invalid Clicks (AKA ClickFraud)

I wish I had more time, running to the first meeting of the day. So read Google's announcement, and then read Danny....

• Posted by John Battelle at 8:26 AM
• Permalink
• Comments (2)