A number of recent articles have suggested we may be heading for the second web crash.  Most of these theories are base don the inflated prices being paid for barely profitable companies because they fall under the category of “social media” or because they are the latest phenomenon on the web.  Others are quoting the fact that advertiser supply is outstripping demand and many websites are being left with unfulfilled inventory.

But does this signify the beginning of the end? I don’t think so.  I’m not saying change isn’t around the corner, but at the end of the day many companies are yet to fully embrace the potential of the Internet and so there is still growth on the horizon as far as I can see.  I agree with the comments about inflated prices, Google is unlikely to ever recoup the $1.65 Billion it paid for Youtube unless it can come up with a more innovative way of monetising its traffic.  Similarly, although it is a profitable network, Microsoft paid a massively inflated price of $240 million for a measly 1.6% share in Facebook which it will never see a return on (in my humble opinion).  But this does not necessarily mean that we are seeing a repeat of the dot com collapse.  For a start, Google and MSN can afford it, they have VERY large warchest built up from years of successful ventures. 

More likely, for me, is that we will see a fall in the ad prices demanded as inventory grows and needs to be fulfilled.  This may mean the demise of some smaller players in the market but those with a strong legacy and a solid proposition will survive and continue to prosper.  In any industry you are at risk unless you have a solid offering and the Internet is no different, just because a few bedroom companies go out of business doesn’t make it the end of the Internet!

All of this can only be good for advertisers as the market levels out, and potentially dips a little, so will the prices.  Bring it on I say!

Just as people are getting to grips with the so called web 2.0 phenomenon already there are people within the internet market touting the arrival of web 3.0! hang on, what happened there? did I miss something?

Apparently, where as web 2.0 was about engagement and interaction, web 3.0 is the “semantic web”, where computer intelligence interprets information without use intervention.  An example given by Ruth Mortimer of brand strategy, is that of search engine spiders and how, with the emergence of web 3.0, will be able to interpret context and meaning of text within a page rather than simply looking at code without meaning, hence giving a more sophisticated search result.

But where did web 2.0 go? I think there is a real danger here of people getting ahead of themselves and predicting the future before theyve mastered the present.  Many companies are yet to embrace the web 2.0 ethic (and some even the basics of online!) and to go around touting the revolution is scare mongering in the extreme unless it is given some context.  My advice to companies reading these articles would be to look at your webstie from a customers point of view, decide what they would want to see, what they would want to do and provide this functionality.  If you get the basics right to start with and put in place an infrastructure solid enough to support it you will be in a strong postion to embrace whatever new technologies are around the corner.

According to reports from Reuters, Kevin Johnson, Microsoft’s platform and services president, believes the company can gain a 40% share of the search market in the next 3-5 years. This is an ambitious target by anyone’s standards with Google holding a 80% market share at present it is difficult to see how they can achieve this from their own 6% hold at the moment.  Apparently they have a “10,20,30,40” plan suggesting this will be a slow build rather than a quick win.   It certainly suggests they may be looking at acquisition to help them gain some share, perhaps a purchase of yahoo, and maybe even ask as this would tip them over the double figures mark and make the deficit a lot smaller. It could be a very interesting few years for the market if they are hell bent on achieving their goals as they certainly aren’t short of a bit of cash.  Mind you, neither are Google so it would be a very exciting shoot off if it comes to it.  Personally I cant see 40% begin achievable unless Google hit the self destruct button and do something which turns people against them. 

It has been reported this week that the rise in traffic to social networking sites has coincided with a drop in traffic to web mail sites such as yahoo mail and hotmail. This has sparked discussion about the use of social networks for communication sparking of the demise of web based email. Obviously this is an overreaction, as tends to happen with the press, but it is an interesting point all the same. Where is the need for personal email accounts when you can be in touch with all your friends through myspace, facebook, or whichever else is the network of the moment. This led me to consider what are the limitations of social networks which could be the saving grace for web mail solutions? So I compiled the list below:

• Reach: although the social networks have huge user bases they are unlikely to cover everybody you know, yet most people will have a functioning email address. There is therefore likely to be at least a few people within your group of friends you cannot contact through your network of choice.
• Flexibility: you can write what you want in an email, and can attach any type of file you wish, making it a much more flexible solution than the networks. They are however catching up through the various plug ins and applications that are sprouting up daily.
• Privacy: emails are more private than wall post, although facebook has the facility to send private messages as well.
• Length of message: wall posts are more like the text messages with emails as the phone calls. more detail can be added and more information contained and explained, the phone call still isn’t dead despite the popularity of texts.

I’m sure there are more to add to the list but none that I can think of right now. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues though and what this means to the email portals. Falling usage must also results in a fall in advertising rates and available inventory??

I have been reading up recently on tracking solutions I came across the argument between first click and last click tracking. More specifically which one gives the most accurate measure of performance?

First click tracking is the term given to solutions which cookie the user on their first visit to a website and record the source of their visit.  On each subsequent visit they are recognised as the same visitor and allocated back to the original source and so when they convert through to sale/application/sign up the software records them this as the origin of the conversion.

Last click tracking relies on session cookies and so no matter how many times a user visits a site, the source of their conversion will be recorded as the final means by which they reached the site.

So which is a more accurate measure of advertising performance? Well its difficult to say really.  Display advertisers will normally put the argument across for first click tracking as they play the brand card a lot more and place their strength in building awareness of offers and products.  Some of them even cookie a user on ad impression so would even more stringently argue this case.

Search advertisers on the other hand are more likely to lean towards the argument for last click tracking as users will often use search results to find brand and products they already know they want to buy.  Regardless of where they found out about them a user is more likely to visit Google and search on a brand or product name to complete their purchase.

I’m more likely to not worry about it and assess online as a whole rather than worrying about each channel in isolation.  More and more recently I have noticed the effect the channels have on each another and I am now suggesting the holistic approach to online is the best way to go.  Conversion attribution is a difficult skill and requires a highly sophisticated piece of tracking software.  By pulling one channel you could quite easily find that although when analysed in isolation it didn’t appear to work, it was having a positive affect on another channel and you see a drop off across the board by its removal.

My advice? Although all channels need to be measured, pay careful consideration to the impact they may be having on one and other.  Look at online as a whole to measure performance before making any decisions as the halo effect exists and if you pull one brick from the tower, it could all come tumbling down!

I’ve decided to add a new feature to my blog for a little fun. You see, I’m a big fan of Yahoo answers, it’s interesting, useful, interactive and most of all, hilarious! There are some real comedians on the site and although it probably annoys the hell out of the people asking the questions, I find it highly amusing when I come across comedy answers to posted questions. So moving forward I am going to post some of the best of yahoo answers on my blog each Friday, just for giggles. Here are the first offerings:

Question - As a christian; how would you approach a homosexual?

Answer - from the rear of course!

Question - Since there is no marriage in heaven, do you think that we will lose the feelings for the opposite sex?

Answer - We all get 75 virgins! WOOOH!

Question - What is Hell Like?

Answer - its in northern england and its called crew

Answer - Warm most of the year. Windy in March. Great Mexican food. Great night life. Not a whole lot of high culture. Taxes are way too high. Nice people. Bring your English/Spanish dictionary.

It was reported yesterday on the Google Lat-Long Blog that a deal had been struck between the Google maps team and US fuelling and retail management company Gilbarco Veeder-Root.  This deal will allow for the integration of Google maps into their systems providing local business information and directions.  I can see how the directions functionality could work but am struggling to see the use of the local business information would be of use, after all, most people using a petrol station would be local anyway.

I am also thinking that they may be planning to charge for this service as well which makes it even worse.  Not many people are going to want to use the internet in a petrol station anyway and if you start telling them they will have to pay for the privilege then I cant see many people going for it.

It will be interesting to see how they integrate the system though and whether they can actually make it work.

Email received from Google today, interesting stuff!

Dear Agency partner

As you may have already heard, today a broad alliance of leading technology and wireless companies today joined forces to announce the development of Android, the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. We thought you might like to receive some further information on this announcement.  As well as detailed information on the release, please also see attached two additional pieces of information- an FAQ on Android and an overview of Google and mobile.

Google Inc., T-Mobile, HTC, Qualcomm, Motorola and others have collaborated on the development of Android through the Open Handset Alliance, a multinational alliance of technology and mobile industry leaders.

This alliance shares a common goal of fostering innovation on mobile devices
and giving consumers a far better user experience than much of what is
available on today’s mobile platforms. By providing developers a new level
of openness that enables them to work more collaboratively, Android will
accelerate the pace at which new and compelling mobile services are made
available to consumers.

With nearly 3 billion users worldwide, the mobile phone has become the most
personal and ubiquitous communications device. However, the lack of a
collaborative effort has made it a challenge for developers, wireless
operators and handset manufacturers to respond as quickly as possible to the
ever-changing needs of savvy mobile consumers. Through Android, developers,
wireless operators and handset manufacturers will be better positioned to
bring to market innovative new products faster and at a much lower cost. The
end result will be an unprecedented mobile platform that will enable
wireless operators and manufacturers to give their customers better, more
personal and more flexible mobile experiences.

Thirty-four companies have formed the Open Handset Alliance, which aims to
develop technologies that will significantly lower the cost of developing
and distributing mobile devices and services. The Android platform is the
first step in this direction — a fully integrated mobile “software stack”
that consists of an operating system, middleware, user-friendly interface
and applications. Consumers should expect the first phones based on Android
to be available in the second half of 2008.

The Android platform will be made available under one of the most
progressive, developer-friendly open-source licenses, which gives mobile
operators and device manufacturers significant freedom and flexibility to
design products. Next week the Alliance will release an early access
software development kit to provide developers with the tools necessary to
create innovative and compelling applications for the platform.

Android holds the promise of unprecedented benefits for consumers,
developers and manufacturers of mobile services and devices. Handset
manufacturers and wireless operators will be free to customize Android in
order to bring to market innovative new products faster and at a much lower
cost. Developers will have complete access to handset capabilities and tools
that will enable them to build more compelling and user-friendly services,
bringing the Internet developer model to the mobile space. And consumers
worldwide will have access to less expensive mobile devices that feature
more compelling services, rich Internet applications and easier-to-use
interfaces — ultimately creating a superior mobile experience.

Open Software, Open Device, Open Ecosystem

“This partnership will help unleash the potential of mobile technology for
billions of users around the world. A fresh approach to fostering innovation
in the mobile industry will help shape a new computing environment that will
change the way people access and share information in the future,” said
Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt. “Today’s announcement is more
ambitious than any single ‘Google Phone’ that the press has been speculating
about over the past few weeks. Our vision is that the powerful platform
we’re unveiling will power thousands of different phone models.”

“As a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance, T-Mobile is committed to
innovation and fostering an open platform for wireless services to meet the
rapidly evolving and emerging needs of wireless customers,” said René
Obermann, Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Telekom, parent company of
T-Mobile. “Google has been an established partner for T-Mobile’s
groundbreaking approach to bring the mobile open Internet to the mass
market. We see the Android platform as an exciting opportunity to launch
robust wireless Internet and Web 2.0 services for T-Mobile customers in the
US and Europe in 2008.”

“HTC’s trademark on the mobile industry has been its ability to drive
cutting-edge innovation into a wide variety of mobile devices to create the
perfect match for individuals,” said Peter Chou, Chief Executive Officer,
HTC Corp. “Our participation in the Open Handset Alliance and integration of
the Android platform in the second half of 2008 enables us to expand our
device portfolio into a new category of connected mobile phones that will
change the complexion of the mobile industry and re-create user expectations
of the mobile phone experience.”

“The convergence of the wireless and Internet industries is creating new
partnerships, evolving business models and driving innovation,” said Dr.
Paul E. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of Qualcomm. “We are extremely
pleased to be participating in the Open Handset Alliance, whose mission is
to help build the leading open-source application platform for 3G networks.
The proliferation of open-standards-based handsets will provide an exciting
new opportunity to create compelling services and devices. As a result, we
are committing research and development resources to enable the Android
platform and to create the best always-connected consumer experience on our
chipsets.”

“Motorola has long been an advocate of open software for mobile platforms.
Today, we’re excited to continue this support by joining Google and others
in the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance and Android platform.
Motorola plans to leverage the Android platform to enable seamless,
connected services and rich consumer experiences in future Motorola
products,” said Ed Zander, Chairman and CEO of Motorola, Inc.

Regards

Google Agency Team UK

It was reported today on the New Media Age website that Kylie Minogue is to launch her own social network KylieKonnect.com alowing her fans to interact with one another.

One KylieKonnect fans will be able to create personal profiles, make new friends and hold conversations with one another. They will also be able to download Kylie tracks via 7digital and mobile ringtones of their favourite Kylie tunes. And on upon joining the site Kylie will be their first friend!

The article claimed Kylie is going head-to-head with Facebook and MySpace which is a little creative license from the author but it is an interesting development. I would be intrigued to find out about the additional functionality of the site above and beyond what can be found in message boards on other fan sites and it will be interesting to see how it is adopted by her fan base. It is certainly something which could be picked up on by other artists if it takes off could be the first of an influx of people trying to ride the social media wave. Im not sure I will be rushing off to sign up just yet though!

Social media and networking is the new buzz word in online marketing and everyone wants a slice of the action.  It could be through blogging, customer discussion or other means businesses are sitting up and taking note of the power of the social internet community.  But does it work for everybody?

This is a question I asked myself in the face of a company who were very keen to enter this sector and asking for guidance.  The problem is that people take this buzz word, hear the hype around it and decide, “we need to be doing social”, without thinking about what that means to them as a company.  I imagine what they think it means relates to myspace, facebook and bebo, but how do you engage these audiences when you are selling something which doesn’t fit, pensions maybe, of life insurance.  That’s not to say that some of the audience would not be interested but the vast majority aren’t going to be. 

The first question a company should ask itself is, “does my product fit with social media? What am I going to achieve by getting involved?”  If the answer to the first question is no, then stop, look for other ways to achieve your goals.

This example relates directly to the common perception of what social media involves, i.e. social networking sites.  When looking at the broader scope of social it may be you can find a small element which will work for you, customer discussion boards, integrated blogging, community engagement, they are all forms of social media and all have a use.  Social media has a much broader reach than the websites people automatically quote when the phrase is uttered.  So look further afield, engage an social media expert and take their advice on board.  And at the end of the day, if social media isn’t for you, walk away.  Just because something is the flavour of the moment, doesn’t mean its going to taste sweet to everybody.