Interactive Business (Media & Advertising)

Die Anti-Google-Verschwörung

mljevar — 2009-10-07T22:01:00Z

Diesen Text kann ich nur unterschreiben!

»Google hat die Preise kaputtgemacht«, klagen die Werber und Verleger. Deutsche Zeitschriftenverlage, Fernsehsender und Onlinewerber tun sich nun zusammen, um den groooßen bösen Daten- und Werbekraken zu bezwingen. Gelingt das?

»Google ist gut«, heißt es beim amerikanischen Anbieter, doch das glauben weder Datenschützer (nicht umsonst wird die Suchmaschine »Datenkrake« genannt) noch die Verleger, die sich schon zuhauf beschwerten, weil sie selbst wohl den Online-Markt verschlafen hatten.

Laut Frankfurter Allgemeine wollen Gruner + Jahr, Tomorrow Focus, SevenOne Media (ProSiebenSat.1) und IP Deutschland (RTL) ihre Werbereichweiten zusammenschließen, um ein starkes Gegengewicht gegen Google zu bilden. Denn bei Onlinewerbung erreiche die Suchmaschine etwa 90 Prozent der deutschen Internet-Surfer, die neue Allianz könnte es immerhin auf 80 bis 85 Prozent schaffen, orakelt die FAZ.

Ob das klappt? Man kann den Werbepreisverfall nicht so einfach stoppen, denn Werbeflächen im Netz gibt es in Hülle und Fülle. Dass die Verleger das volkswirtschaftliche Prinzip von Angebot und Nachfrage nicht rechtzeitig auf das Web bezogen, ist ihre eigene Schuld. Einige Player weniger auf dem Markt, und der Absturz ist wenigstens etwas sanfter.

Doch dass Onliner die Werbung nur dann anklicken, wenn sie wirklich am Thema interessiert sind und einen klaren Nutzen erkennen, ist gesunder Menschenverstand. Das bedeutet, die neue Allianz muss Technik schaffen, um die Zielgruppen genauso gut oder besser als Google zu treffen. Das Angebot von United Internet, deren »Targeting-Technik« TGP zu übernehmen , die in Web.de und GMX schon erfolgreich verwendet wird, haben die Verleger allerdings nicht angenommen, und so ist vor einiger Zeit UIs Versuch einer Anti-Google-Allianz gescheitert.

Neuer Versuch, aber ohne United Internet, den bisher größten Online-Werbevermarkter in Deutschland. Die Papier- und Fernsehvermarkter haben nun eine schwere Nuss zu knacken: Neue Online-Werbeformen zu schaffen, die ihr Ziel genau da erreichen, wo die Reklame den Nutzer auch noch interessiert. Aber bitte nicht so knallbunt, dass es die User abschrecken würde. Der Aufwand ist also viel größer als in Print oder TV und der Erfolg auch noch messbar. Eine Schwitzkur für die Offliner.

Immerhin können Sie sich noch über Googles Rechenkünste amüsieren. Letzte Woche vergnügte sich das Web mit den Rechenfehlern des Suchkrösus nicht mal die können nämlich 1 und 1 richtig zusammenzählen. Mit Abziehen ist es sogar noch schwieriger.

Link zu Quelle: http://www.theinquirer.de

Google Sidewiki: Danger

mljevar — 2009-09-23T22:01:00Z

Google just introduced Sidewiki, which enables anyone to comment on a page using Googles toolbar.

I see danger.

Google is trying to take interactivity away from the source and centralize it. This isnt like Disqus, which enables me to add comment functionality on my blog. It takes comments away from my blog and puts them on Google. That sets up Google in channel conflict vs me. It robs my site of much of its value (if the real conversation about WWGD? had occurred on Google instead of at Buzzmachine, how does that help me?). On a practical level, only people who use the Google Toolbar will see the comments left using it and so it bifurcates the conversation and puts some of it behind a hedge. Ethically, this is like other services that tried to frame a sources content or that tried to add advertising to a site via a browser (see the evil Gator, which lost its fight vs publishers).

So this goes contrary to Googles other services search, advertising, embeddable content and functionality that help advantage the edge. This is Google trying to be the center.

Quite ungoogley, Id say. And mind you, Im a known Google fanboy. Hell, I wrote the book.

If Google wanted to enable the conversation or collect more information about pages to be smarter about them thanks to our smarts fine, but do that at the edge, guys. This is wrong for the internet and, Ill predict, bad PR for Google.

MORE: I know Ill be asked whether I think this is evil. As I just said in a tweet, somebody should have asked the is it evil? question. Thats why its there. I sense no one did. Evil means inconsistent with Googles mission and morals. Google is about supporting the internet adding value to it more than extracting value from it (and from those who create the value at the edge). That would be evil.

LATER: On Twitter, Googles Matt Cutts says: @jeffjarvis points taken, but if it gets larger group of people to write comments on web, that can be good. Plus API allows data to come out And: @jeffjarvis and I do see one very nice use case where people can add their comments about scammy sites, e.g. work-at-home scams.

Points taken as well. It would enable sites without commenting functionality to get comments, including negative comments. In the case of a spam site, OK, that could be useful. But that could also include attacks that one now must monitor (watch out, Google: every story about Israel and race and Obama and health care will attract venom that affects my site but is not under my control).

I dont think this was done maliciously at all. I think Google didnt think through the implications.

Im in favor of beta process; thats what I wrote in my book. But its still incumbent on the developer of something new to try to think through these issues before the dangers are unleashed. At least ask.

LATER: So now in the Sidewiki, theres a parallel discussion going on, separate from this. Theres no opportunity to respond in threads. I have no control over the content associated with my site essentially on my site. What has been added? Each of those people could have and normally would have commented right here. They get their comments on their Google profiles, but with Friend Connect that could be done from the comments here. The side comments have their own URLs and a push to promote them on Twitter and Facebook, which means that Google gets Googlejuice instead of me.

Article taken from the Jeff Jarvis Blog:

Link to: Jeff Jarvis at Wikipedia

Social Media Marketing, Teil II - Eine weitere erfolgreiche Kampagne

mljevar — 2009-09-14T22:01:00Z

Es gibt sicher deutlich spannendere Unternehmen als irgendeinen Telefonprovider in Massachusetts. Und dennoch hat es die Firma Grasshopper [S1] mit einer Mischung aus Guerilla- und Social Media Marketing geschafft, sich derart spannend in Szene zu setzen dass sich wochenlang hunderttausende von Menschen mit dem kleinen Telefonprovider aus Needham, MA beschäftigten.

Und das ging so: Stellen Sie sich vor, bei Ihnen klingelt FedEx an der Tür und gibt ein Päckchen für Sie ab. Tolle Sache - jeder mag Päckchen!

Sie packen die kleine Überraschung aus und erhalten eine Aromaschutzverpackung mit fünf schoko-ummantelten Grasshüpfern [S2] (WÄÄÄH!!!) und einem Link zu einem Video [S3]. Mehr nicht.

Der Plan von Grasshopper sah beeindruckend einfach aus - und war wahrscheinlich, wie jeder einfach aussehende Plan, ein Haufen harter Arbeit:

* Identify 5,000 Influencers (Identifiziere 5.000 Menschen, die im Internet einen großen Einfluss haben)
* Raise 25,000 grasshoppers and cover in chocolate (Züchte 25.000 Grashüpfer und ummantle diese mit Schokolade)
* Send 5 each via FedEx (Schicke jeder Person 5 dieser Grashüpfer via FedEx)
* Produce YouTube video to inspire entrepreneurs (Erstelle ein YouTube Video, um Unternehmer / Existenzgründer zu inspirieren)
* Start a movement (Starte eine Bewegung)

An dieser Stelle möchte ich anmerken, dass es eigentlich fürchterlich schwierig ist, Aufmerksamkeit über den Weg der kognitive Dissonanz (ich werde gleich einen echten Schoko-Grasshüpfer essen - Neugier versus Ekel) bei einer Zielgruppe zu erzeugen, ohne dass dieser Schuss nach hinten losgeht. Grasshopper hat diesen schmalen Grat mit Bravour gemeistert und die Zahlen können sich wirklich sehen lassen!

Social Media Marketing Kennzahlen der Aktion:

* 183.000+ YouTube Video Abrufe
* 2.959 Verlinkungen von Twitter
* 1.664 Verlinkungen von Facebook
* 170 Blog Posts und News-Artikel
* 51.709 Page Views auf die dedizierte Zielseite grasshopper.com/idea

Das alles bei Gesamtkosten für die Kampagne in Höhe von gerade einmal $68,103! Derartige Beträge bezahlen manche Unternehmen für ein paar bunte Seiten Werbung in der Tageszeitung. Grashopper stellt sogar die vollständige Fallstudie [S4] online zum direkten Download bereit - das ist freundlich, cool und passt irgendwie gar nicht zu einem Telefonprovider :-)

Einzig und allein eine Frage bleibt für mich derzeit noch offen: Wie viele neue Kunden hat Grasshopper durch die Aktion gewonnen? Meine E-Mail an Grasshopper ist raus, vielleicht bekomme ich eine Antwort. Ich würde mich freuen.
Links:

[S1] Website von Grasshopper: http://grasshopper.com/

[S2] Der Schoko-Grasshüpfer:
http://smallbiztrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/grassho...

[S3] Das Grasshopper-Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6MhAwQ64c0

[S4] Die Grasshopper-Fallstudie:
http://grasshopper.com/a/5000_final.pdf

..Story by Karl Kratz: http://www.landingpage-ebook.de..

How to make a successful media campaign in a social network..

mljevar — 2009-09-13T21:59:00Z

With the launch of the ominous concept car "BB 1" Peugeot could tell you more about a successful social network campaigns:

1. First you build a website with an own domain, with a maddening flash intro saying "His father is a scooter. His mother a car".

2. You build a Facebook fan page, where the same slogan and a reference to the cool site by using TinyURL (of course without any final point - as you have probably read somewhere, that sloppiness in social networks is cool)

3. Then you set up a twitter account, where you shoot down you followers with a cool TinyURL linking to the same website as described above.

4. Of course you do not forgett to put the Facebook and the Twitter links on this website, but let them apear after your f...ing cool slogan has been noticed..

That's the way to do it, baby!

A nice circuiting for 55 twitter followers and 909 German fans who have submitted all 7 comments on the Facebook.

Reserach by Stephan Schmatz!

What's comming up next?

mljevar — 2009-07-12T22:01:00Z

I think one of the next Google's business steps is to get into the back up storage business..

Google again in every news article

mljevar — 2009-07-10T07:14:00Z

As our company is using Google Apps for email, and we are more than satisfied with docs, etc. I am sure Google will successfuly put Microsoft under pressure with the new Chrome OS. Microsoft will have to change its business model significantly and split the products into 2 Main groups:
- Basic products for free
- Premium products
As busines users we currently run over 80% of necessery applications in the browser..so, welcome to the future :-)!

Google vs. the Real-Time Web

mljevar — 2009-05-23T21:42:00Z

Just how big a threat is the real-time web to Google? As Om has pointed out, real-time content marks a still-amorphous but important new phase of evolution in the web, allowing for the instantaneous discovery of newly added information. And Twitter and Facebook are emerging as an alternative to the traditional engine, which presents a big challenge to Googles core business. As Larry Page admitted this week, the company finally gets that.

Its easy to imagine Google falling further behind in the real-time content game. The companys slow entry puts it in the position Yahoo has held for years in search: behind the leader, always playing catch-up instead of spending creative energy on new advances. Google has struggled with social content, producing mixed results. Orkut, for example, was a hit in Brazil, but not in other major markets; initiatives like Friend Connect have shown little traction. Its had better success as a search partner, as with its MySpace deal.

Googles search engine has thrived because PageRank uses democratic algorithms that tracked page links. By contrast, real-time discovery engines like Twitter and Facebok use a more dynamic kind of democracy, linking to content that users finds worthwhile. As a result, content on the web is splitting into two basic models, and understanding this distinction makes clear why Googles centralized role is being threatened.

Simply put, its the difference between discovery and search, between the Now Web and the Then Web. Heres a more specific analogy: In college, most of us spent a lot of time in the library but also in a social hub like the campus coffee shop. One was a place for digging up information, the other a more dynamic, conversational setting, where ideas were casually exchanged. Google has been the webs library: archival, organized and oriented around research. Twitter and Facebook, on the other hand, are coffee shops: instantaneous, conversational and oriented around discovery.

I doubt Google will ever make a good coffee shop. But I also dont see real-time content shutting down its library. Instead, its breaking open a new arena of the web over which Google has little control. That makes Google more of a specialized player, but still relevant.

Of course, Google is going to try to dominate this new terrain, just as it does in search. To that end, it essentially has three immediate options: It can buy Twitter or Facebook. It can create a competitor to them on its own. Or it can partner with them maybe indexing their content into its search and even buying a small investment stake to deter similar deals with Yahoo and Microsoft.

A buyout is unlikely: Twitter has said its not for sale and Facebooks seems more interested at raising money to remain independent. Googles efforts to replicate their success on its own, meanwhile, have disappointed. So its more likely to forge partnerships, giving it a place at the table but not the lead spot.

Such an ancillary role wont satisfy Google for very long. Sharing more and more of the pie with others cant really be much of an option at the Googleplex. In that case, Google has one last, longer-term option hitting the upstarts where they are weak. For Twitter, that means its lack of an efficient filter. Google built a great filter for the millions of URLs scattered on the web. Its engineers will be working to do the same for real-time content with the hope that Google can maintain its role as gatekeeper to the web.

But whether or not Google succeeds, its presence in real-time search would push Twitter and Facebook to innovate that much faster, thus accelerating the webs evolution even more.

Read more on nytimes.com

A facet of Cloud Computing

mljevar — 2009-05-07T22:01:00Z

Xcerion, a swedish start up started to develop a web OS in the middle of 2007 with a funding of 10 million USD.
Now they are ready to start their facet of cloud computing for private customers with the "icloud" called product.
The offer includes remote desktop via browser with single sign in, 3 GB storage, and about 30 applications such as:
* Mail
* Instant Messaging
* Photo organizer
* File explorer
* Music & Video player
* Write
* Calendar
* Contacts
* Games
The interface looks like a mixture of XP and Vista, the engine is based on the Ubuntu platform. MS IE is recomended, Mozilla is not ready to go as they run a beta service currently.
A viennese company called "Netmonic" offers a similar solution for SMEs with costs of ca. 62 € per employee and month - see here.

Nur so ein Gedanke

mljevar — 2009-04-21T06:11:00Z

Wäre großartig, wenn ich mehr Zeit zum Schreiben oder lesen hätte..Dann müsste ich nicht so viele Artikel übernehmen.

Übrigens: in ein paar Wochen gibt's wieder News, und ziemlich interessante Erkenntnisse aus einigen Live-Test mit neuen Technologien. Stay tuned!
m

Skype, the Web Phone Giant, Brings Cheap Calls to Cellular

mljevar — 2009-03-30T09:44:00Z

SAN FRANCISCO Skype, the Internet calling service that has more than 400 million users around the world, is aggressively moving onto mobile phones.

The Luxembourg-based company, a division of eBay, plans to announce on Tuesday that it will make its free software available immediately for Apples iPhone and iPod Touch and, beginning in May, for various BlackBerry phones, made by Research in Motion.

Other companies have already made software for those phones that works with Skype, but it does not offer all of the services features.

As with Skype on the computer, users of Skype on mobile phones can make calls and send instant messages to other Skype users free, and they pay lower rates than the phone companies would charge when they use Skype to call landlines or other mobile phones.

This year, Skype announced versions of its software for Nokia phones and phones running Microsofts Windows Mobile and Googles Android operating systems.

Apple will limit Skypes use on the iPhone somewhat, allowing Skype calls to be made only when the device is connected to local Wi-Fi networks, and not allowing Skype calls over the data networks of its carrier partners like AT&T. Apple imposes the same restrictions on all voice applications in its App Store.

Read more: nytimes.com

Steve Ballmer Maps Microsofts Cloud-y Future

mljevar — 2009-03-22T23:02:00Z

Look at the picture above. Its an original Steve Ballmer created before my eyes on the wall of a conference room here at The Times.

Simple, isnt it?

Well, thats the point that Mr. Ballmer, the chief executive of Microsoft, was trying to make when he drew it. I was talking to him about Microsofts plans to offer companies cloud computing services software that will run on Microsofts new network of big data centers. As I learned about the Azure system, Microsofts new cloud operating system, I started to wonder if it is overly complex. I asked if Microsoft was risking taking on too much, as it did with Longhorn, the operating system rewrite that led to the ill-fated Windows Vista.

Read the whole article on nytimes.com

Why Microsoft Continues to Chases Internet Search

mljevar — 2009-03-19T23:01:00Z

If you are making something that is growing and profitable, why throw billions at something else that has kept losing money and market share?

That was the last question for Steve Ballmer, the chief executive of Microsoft, when he came by The Times Thursday. I wrote earlier about most of our conversation, which was about the companys plans to offer computing services from its network of data centers to corporate customers. While I wondered about the complexity of Microsofts software design, it has the advantage of a strong position in the corporate software market, which it won over the last 10 years.

But I asked Mr. Ballmer, why bother with trying to catch up to Google in search when it looks as if the enterprise market has much better potential return given the risk?

He flatly rejected the premise of the question.

I dont feel like I have to make the choice whether to do foo or to do bar, he said, using the language of computer jocks of a certain generation. (Wikipedia traces the word foobar, meaning placeholder, to the Digital Equipment Corporation in the 1970s.)

Mr. Ballmer wants to be in search because thats where the money is.

At the end of the day, one of the key lessons is that not all businesses on the Internet are good businesses, he said. Microsoft, he pointed out, dominates instant messaging in Europe, but that popularity hasnt turned into much profit.

There are only three things on the Internet that have made money: Amazon, eBay and Google, he said. If were going to make a lot of money on the Internet, well have to challenge Google in search.

Mr. Ballmer added that when individuals use Microsoft products, it helps sales to business.

Getting people hooked on using Office in a collaborative mode at home is super-important to getting them to use it that way at work, he said. If you lose the consumer, you lose the enterprise.

Hows that for putting even more pressure on the team trying, yet again, to come up with a search engine that people actually want to use?

Read more on nytimes.com

Computer Makers Prepare to Stake Bigger Claim in Phones

mljevar — 2009-03-15T23:01:00Z

Emboldened by Apples success with its iPhone, many PC makers and chip companies are charging into the mobile-phone business, promising new devices that can pack the horsepower of standard computers into palm-size packages.

The companies are also shifting gears because their technological feats of the last two decades smaller laptops with faster chips to deliver snazzier graphics no longer impress consumers, who increasingly find their three-year-old computers adequate for everyday tasks.

Read more on nytimes.com

I'll go crazy..

mljevar — 2009-03-13T15:36:00Z

I cannot hear it anymore:
"..google will revolutionize the world, google ist going to do that...blablabla..."

I do not understand why all top 10 web companies come from the USA.

Is Google the only one company depending on the web business?

Poor old Europe..

..going home now..
Have a nice weekend!

Advertisers Get a Trove of Clues in Smartphones

mljevar — 2009-03-10T23:01:00Z

The millions of people who use their cellphones daily to play games, download applications and browse the Web may not realize that they have an unseen companion: advertisers that can track their interests, their habits and even their location.

Smartphones, like the iPhone and BlackBerry Curve, are the latest and potentially most extensive way for advertisers to aim ads at certain consumers. Advertisers already tailor ads for small groups of consumers on the Web based on personal information. But cellphones have a much higher potential for personalized advertising, especially when they use applications like Yelp or Urbanspoon with GPS to identify a persons location, right down to the street corner where they are standing.

Advertisers will pay high rates for the ability to show, for example, ads for a nearby restaurant to someone leaving a Broadway show, especially when coupled with information about the gender, age, finances and interests of the consumer.

Read more on nytimes.com