If we got together we could make brown babies

There is a tabletop game called Risk! I cannot quite remember all the territories but I think the most difficult to win with was the Russians. Fighting a war on so many fronts was a costly business and often the death of many a player. It’s seems clear that Google never played Risk! as their purchase of YouTube was much like buying the Russian territory in the game – a relentless battle on many fronts that drains resources. But if there was ever an organisation with a war chest big enough to to take the ‘risk’ then it would have to be Google. With some of the brightest minds pouring over the YouTube business looking for revenue models, they have done well to at least stem some of the flow if not plug it entirely. With that we’ve also seen an ascent (?) taking YouTube from ‘Poacher to Gamekeeper‘ and this continues with the (very discreet) launch of their new video rental service.

This is a HUGE piece of news due to the potential impact of this business model succeeding.

last seen wearing a T-shirt that read "I killed Blockbuster Video"

First, there is the competitive marketplace that already exists in this sector. Netflix is the major player here but there are many more like LoveFilm (UK) or the new Hulu service. The issue for those guys is the sheer size of YouTube’s audience which should steam roll them and mean it starts with a significant advantage.

Taking a bite out of Apple

Then there is the already existing rental service of iTunes. This is a big player too but Apple benefits from a large community of advocates (sometimes against reason) who will remain loyal. But this is not the biggest fear for Apple or potential ‘win’ for Google. That comes when we move to future technology. Let’s consider the YouTube rental service does well and picks up momentum. It would be very logical to build a YouTube Android phone…

take me to your iPhone

Android is already hotly tipped to take over the iPhone as the number one smartphone. There is no doubt it can win on units but what about the service. I’ve long said that Apple stands head and shoulders over it’s rivals because of the iTunes platform. It is more reliable, intuitive and ‘ingrained’ with the audience than any other store (including Ovi). But a YouTube Android phone changes that game. Imagine YouTube start serving all music (with optional videos) too. Now with an API on my phone (or dedicated handset) I could stream (on tether to my phone) a massive library of my music and video content. This becomes a major selling point for Google (and their partners like HTC) whilst really eating in to the iTunes dependency of some user. Consider, that I could then also easily share my playlists with friends or arrange to watch a movie at the same time (in different locations) and chat or skype too. There are a lot of possibilities here and it’s very exciting to see where things go.

argg, me hearties. I love's a good Googlin' on the high seas!

Finally, there is the irony element. Forget the potential here, let’s look at the service being a success and YouTube creating original content for their audience. Pretty much every online video service has done this at one point or another. You then have to consider the irony of YouTube creating original content which will be ripped and pirated by the audience and uploaded for free around the web – maybe even on another future YouTube. And is that the point when we recognise YouTube has finally come of age?

NB. I couldn’t put all this in and not mention Blockbuster Video. What has happened to them and where will this leave them?

"I used to be a somebody..."

We personally hate slow loading sites – and now – so does Google. Since the 9th April 2010 Google has started taking site loading speed into account when deciding where to list your site in their search results. So why is this important? In short, it’s time to take a long hard look at your hosting.

Good hosting is a critical component to ensuring your site loads as quickly as possible. Far too often we hear something along the lines of “Why should we pay you that much for hosting? Company X will do it for half that price, plus give us all of these amazzzzing features and will even dry-clean my cat!”. Well – here’s why…

In general the number of sites hosted on a single server goes up as the cost of the hosting goes down. And more sites on a server means that when a user (and now Google) visits your site, there is a larger number of other sites all scrambling for the servers attention. This – inevitably – results in your site having to wait its turn before the page is finally delivered to the user. End result – an irritated user who will most likely take their precious browsing time elsewhere. In other words: #fail.

Stay tuned for other fascinating reasons why you should perhaps put just a little more thought into your hosting…

interaction vs proximity graph

Brands are no longer able pitch the credentials of their products to the current social media generation. Push is almost out, but pull is sky rocketing in. Buyers and consumers want trusted and real information from people like themselves and know where to go, to get it. They need it stamped as trustworthy and good for usage (with extra features) not by any company that dreamed up the slogan at a coffee shop meeting, but by the members of a social network that they can see, interact with, and most importantly something that they chose to join. They all have an appetite for the real interaction that generate buzz in which they are a part of. Facebook’s 350 million user posts and its shared 3.5 Billion different content per week, is what these consumers want.

Talk about a lot of possible brand awareness and brand management. People know the members of their social media networks and trust what they have to say. They can access all this information quickly and easily to help them learn about the product, and step into a shop knowing more about the goods compared to the shopkeeper himself.

Social media is about investing in relationships that create more economic value than they cost. It is about engaging with the people who decide whether to buy or not buy what you are selling, like it or dislike it, recommend it or trash it, and even to mould it or to throw it out the window.

A great (and very fun) way to show the power of social media marketing is to enter “(BRAND NAME) sucks” into Google. Put into consideration the fact that around 80% of the information read on the Internet today is not read on the site that it was originally published, but through social media, the word is spread to different websites, blogs, forums and networks. It is no longer just a fad for kids or a way to spread the word about your fart app; social media is evolving as a powerful and a fast paced low-cost, high-reward tool for making the sales, turning profits and taking home the big prize.  The price tag is appealing and it is no holds barred.

Monster attacks Google

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is about to launch a new App Store, focused around creating software for Google Apps. Google’s plan is to sell software built by third party developers to enhance Google’s suite of apps (e.g. Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Sites, Gtalk). These outside apps could be for adding more security, enhancing word-processing features or porting information into Google Apps.

A Google Apps store would work in the same fashion Android or the iPhone App Stores operate, which developers set a price and Google and the third party share in the revenue. It’s a model that has proven very successful. If it took off, it could create a whole new marketplace and a new stream of income for the largest online search engine. It could even pave the way for app stores within Google’s consumer products.

It has been announced to commence around March, although now that news has broken, it’s likely an official blog post from Google will come sooner. However, The Next Web proclaims that Google already has an “app store” known as Google Solutions Marketplace (http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/) but ‘Google Apps’ may just sound a bit cooler.

the Highlander battle of phones has begun - There can be ONLY one! iPhone vs Nexus; how does the Nexus fair?

Wow, everyone’s out with their review of the new Nexus handset and how it stacks up as the latest iPhone killer… So here I am to add my own review:

What a load of sh*t. A real missed opportunity for Google to move the market forwards but instead they just release a ‘me too’ product. Yeah, it looks alright but it’s no iPhone. Better camera but that’s about it. Where’s the power? Where’s the wow factor? What they needed to do was release something that made my iPhone-hugging ass think about how I could dump this crappy O2 contract and get me a sweet new Nexus. Instead it’s just another failed opportunity. Another failed launch of an iPhone killer. Everyone – including us iPhone owners – want to see an iPhone killer and set the industry and consumer wars on fire, but so far, no-one has delivered. And here we have the central problem with the mobile industry; it’s failure to deliver on promise. How long has everyone waited for Year of the Mobile… year after year since the early noughties. The iPhone finally kicked things off and now we are back to the waiting game. The only good thing about the Nexus is that it is (just) enough to keep things ticking over until the real iPhone killer gets unveiled later in the year – the iPhone 4.0/ 4G

Touchnote.com

We like the guys and girls at Touchnote. Having been working with them for months before launch, it’s really nice to see things coming together. Touchnote is a service that lets you turn your digital photos into greetings cards. The latest addition to the (already numerous) digital ways to make this happen is a Nokia app.

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/4884246]

Apps are a great way to extend brand reach, engage new and existing audiences and drive revenue. iPhone apps are big business right now – with over 1 billion downloaded!

But apps are not for everyone… Check out our supplementary pages that explain more about what an App is and take our App Test to see if one will work for your brand.

bing logo

“Following speculation last week that Microsoft was planning to rebrand its search engine, the company has announced that it will be launching Bing on June 3rd.

In addition to a new name, Microsoft is re-positioning itself in the search market as not necessarily a better place to go for navigational queries (i.e. – where’s the official site for my city government?), but rather to help people make what the company is calling “complex decisions.”

For example, Bing is touting its ability to help you with searches in areas like shopping, travel, local businesses, and health-related research. These also happen to be high dollar areas when it comes to search advertising, so it’s no surprise Microsoft is highlighting them.

While you won’t be able to play with Bing until next week, the company has released a promotional site and a number of videos, including a product tour (note: requires Silverlight haha).

Judging from the video, it would appear that the rumors that Microsoft plans to attack Google (Google reviews) in their upcoming ad campaign are well-founded. For example, the line “telling you we found 47 million links isn’t always a great response to your query” is a clear shot at Google’s results.

The product does look significantly different than Microsoft’s current search effort – Live Search. Is it actually better than Google? It will take weeks of hands-on use to figure that out, and Microsoft will have to work hard to lure people into trying it out.

In addition to the ad campaign, Microsoft is bringing over its Cashback Rewards program, rebranded as Bing Cashback. Hitwise has indicated previously that this program, which pays people to use Live Search, is working well. Coupled with a better search engine (tbd), perhaps Microsoft will finally start to snatch at least a little bit of search marketshare from Google.

But in the end, it’s all about the search results, and that is something we’ll need to wait and see about.

stats chart for UK consumer behaviour on holiday searches vs. most things recession based

It’s official. We are in a recession. So in this time of crisis, where the latest news announcements can make a massive difference to the UK consumer, what are they searching for? News on Banking Crisis? Recession? Debt? Switching Suppliers?… or Holidays?

Yes, it appears that when the sh*t hits the fan we all decide to jump ship or at the very least fantasize about what might be (if we were not sitting in negative equity on a £400,000 broom cupboard in central London). In fact, Holiday searches are actually 14 times more popular than the nearest recession term. This may sound trivial but there can be real value for brands who use aspirational or escapist campaigns to promote their product or service during these tough times. Terry Cooney in his book Balancing Acts identifies the power and role media during the American depression of the 1930’s:

“Whether [media] offered visions of order restored, affirmations of work-centered values, or celebrations of a culture … they also held out images … that might be entered through mimicry or consumption.”

People do not want to be confronted with the depression of their daily lives or the fear of tomorrow. A successful campaign would help them focus on the ‘better tomorrow’ (or at least an escape from the ‘worse today’) that they can reach via the brand. With this in mind, one wonders if there has been a better time for the BA, Virgin Atlantic sales (environmental issues to one side)? There has always been a place for aspirational marketing to consumers but for the foreseeable future it’s a space that can be inhabited by more than just the aspirational brands. Now if only my bank could make me think about when it would be good to start saving with them again…

Why not have a play with the Beta of Google’s search insight tool for yourself and see what interesting facts you can find on UK or global search behaviour.

I’ve got to say I love Google Maps and am constantly using it to find my way to different places – being new to London it saves me a lot of time and effort trying to map read (which definitely isn’t a skill of mine!). So when I heard about Google Street View, which is soon to be launched in the UK, I was immediately sold – come the spring of 2009 not only will I be able to get a map to show me how to get to my destination, but I will also be able to visualise it thanks to the added benefit of 3D video images. Google is obtaining millions of these images and stitching them together to create a virtual replica of city streets. Having first launched in the USA in May 2007, the service is now available in Australia, Japan, France, Spain and Italy.

I think it is a great idea – not only can I familiarise myself with unknown destinations ahead of going there, it also gives me the opportunity to find an excuse not to go if I don’t like the look of it! I can also take a virtual tour of a dream destination – be it walking through Times Square, strolling along the Champs Elysees or passing over San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge!

But despite its potential advantages, Google Street View has courted a certain amount of controversy; particularly as critics believe it breaches personal privacy laws. For months now, Google have had cars and vans touring the country snapping photos with specially mounted cameras, which inevitably include people in their shots.

As a consequence of introducing Google Street View in other countries, there have been lots of amusing, wacky and also disturbing sights captured on camera! For example, in Australia a man who passed out drunk on his front lawn was horrified and embarrassed to find his picture subsequently posted on the internet. As he slept in a drunken stupor, a camera car drove by to take pictures of the street for Google’s Street View website!

In the USA, Google’s roving panoramic cameras have picked up pictures of street fights and even suspected burglaries.

Despite the reservations of some groups, such as Privacy international, to the idea of a commercial organisation taking pictures of people without their consent, Google have had the go ahead to launch the service from the UK’s privacy watchdog, provided that they put certain safeguards in place. These measures include blurring out people’s faces and vehicle registration plates. Also, if you think that you feature in any of their images, Google provides a facility for you to report your concerns to them.

Google’s Street View is a fun-to-use application that most Brits will find a use for – we’ll all just have to remember to spend a little bit longer getting ready to go out, in case any of those pesky cameras are roaming around!

It is generally agreed that when we potter over to Google, hunting for enormously exciting topics to read about, we want it to return the best results possible for a search. But who or what should decide what those “best” results are? Option one – is a machine. Since its conception in 1998, Google has based results on its Page Rank™ algorithm. A method of measuring a page’s importance based on its incoming links, which – it is generally accepted – was Google’s major unique selling point. One of the keys to Page Rank’s success was its pure objectivity. All pages were born equal in Google’s eyes, and had to “earn” their rank by other pages “voting” for them via an incoming link. Google’s – or anyone else’s – personal opinion of a given page was effectively irrelevant.

However there are problems with this which first started to surface a few years ago. Google appeared to be struggling. With the Internet growing at a rate of 10 million pages per day, they appeared to be struggling to find a relevant page for all those obscure topics out there. The tiny amount of relevant content was slowly getting lost in all of the rubbish (and porn).

Option two – is a human. The best current example of a large human created information resource is Wikipedia. Written and reviewed by humans, Wikipedia is a collection of over 9.1 million pages covering almost all topics of interest. Because Wikipedia is peer reviewed so closely, you can almost guarantee a relevant page is returned, whether you’re searching for “Aabenraa”, “Zaafaraniyeh” or “Basil Brush” – the lovable anthropomorphic fox. But there are obvious problems with this. A human created resource is subject to bias. Even when reviewed by large numbers of people, cultural bias still exists.

So why is this relevant? Well – in my opinion – Google has hit a wall (again) when it comes to returning relevant content using purely machine learning. With the Internet now containing more than 1 trillion (that’s 1,000,000,000,000) pages, Google’s job in finding those top 10 relevant pages for a given term is now harder than ever. At the end of the day – for now at least – a computer cannot fully comprehend all of the possible variations a given search term could mean, and the relevance (if any) that those variations can have with each other.

One option Google has is to start applying human editorial judgement to their search results. This however would surely go against Google’s founding principle. Then again, there are signs that Google are starting to consider just that. Their Terms and Conditions used to state that “Google’s indices are indexed by Google’s automated machinery and computers”, but this disclaimer has now been removed. Perhaps the most interesting development to this effect is Google’s recent interface change. When you now perform a search on Google whilst signed in, you are graciously supplied with additional controls relating to their “SearchWiki”. As you can see from the image below, we are now given the options to “Promote” or “Remove” a URL (using the icons to the right of the page’s title).

Now initially, using these options only affects what you (you being the person currently signed into Google) see. However Marissa Meyer (Vice President of Search Product and User Experience at Google) has stated that “in the future it’s likely Google will use the data to at least make obvious changes”. Now this comment, made at Le Web conference in Paris last December, is enormously significant. This is – for the first time – Google admitting that they are going to use human generated information to affect their search results.

So what are the ramifications of this? Well I could go on for quite a while about these, but let’s just stick to the key factors. First, this is going to affect the Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) industry. At present SEO “experts” can go about their task with the sure knowledge that Google will treat the site they’re working on with the pure, unemotional objectivity as every other site online. However once human subjectivity is added into the mixing bowl, all this changes. At this point it doesn’t matter if you have the perfect keywords in just the right positions around your site, if enough users don’t agree that your site matches the search term, then that alone could send it tumbling down the search results.

The other key factor is trust from the perspective of objectivity. One of the reasons for Google’s mass popularity is that when you enter a term to search for, you can be sure that the results returned are not there due to any bias, be it political, religious, cultural etc. However if Google do decide to go down this path, then it’s quite likely that we will start to see a bias on the side of those who choose to use tools such as the SearchWiki. This might not only affect our faith in Google, but more importantly – from Google’s perspective at least – advertisers’ trust in Google. After all, nobody is going to want to advertise with a company who appears to be favouring a competitor.

So what would you rather? An objective search engine run by a machine that returns ok results, or a subjective search engine run by humans that gives “better” results (assuming you side with the bias)?