Saturday, February 16, 2008

Poor People Use Yahoo, Those Better Off Use Google

Duncan Riley

74 comments »

hitwise1.jpgNew data released by Hitwise yesterday shows that the difference between those using Yahoo and Google can be shown by the wealth of each user.

The graph right demonstrates “Online Representation” based on demographic types. The Y axis represents Yahoo, the X axis Google, with the higher the number, the more that particular group of users uses each service. Yahoo is strong in “struggling societies,” “blue collar backbone,” and “remote America,” where as Google obtains higher use in “small town contentment,” “affluent suburbia,” and “upscale America.” The size of each circle represents how many in each group have spent $500+ online.

The differences between the groups aren’t great, but the results do go some way in explaining the Yahoo conundrum. Although a distance second in search, Yahoo has remained the number one traffic destination online ahead of Google, so you’d think with more traffic Yahoo would convert that traffic into similar returns to Google. But alas we know that not to be the case, and that would appear in part to be related to people using Yahoo not spending as much online and being in poorer demographic categories than Google users, providing a lower return per user.

11 Things To Know About Semantic Web


Written by Bernard Lunn / February 16, 2008 3:46 AM / 13 Comments

1. You don’t need to apologize for calling it Web 3.0. Of course the Web does not upgrade in one go like a company switching to Vista. But there is a definite phase transition from current technologies. My personal Web 3.0 definition is “the combination of Web 2.0 mass collaboration with structured databases”.

2. Semantic Web will start the long, slow decline of relational database technology. Web 3.0 enables the transition from “structure upfront” to “structure on the fly”. The world is clearly too complex to structure upfront, despite the tremendous skills brought by data modelers. Structure on the fly is done by people adding structure as they use the service and by engines that automatically create structure from unstructured content. Structure on the fly is very, very hard and RDBMS is very, very entrenched so this will be a long and slow transition; but the decline is inevitable. Innovation has slowed in the RDBMS world - with open source at one end and Oracle at the other, there is little reason to innovate - just when Semantic Web innovation is accelerating. RDBMS was good for enterprise scale performance and reliability but for Internet scale it falls short; just look at what companies like Amazon use.

3. If you have a firm grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of the semantic web, things like RDF, tuples, Sparql and OWL that make my brain hurt, you will be able to charge a fat premium in consulting fees for a while, as not many people really understand this stuff. But make hay while the sun shines, as some entrepreneur will surely figure out how to abstract this stuff and make it accessible for the masses.

4. The success stories will be different from Web 2.0. Just like Web 2.0 success stories were different from Web 1.0 successes. Web 2.0 successes were mostly about a single feature (photos, bookmarks, video, phone, blogging, etc) where there was extremely rapid adoption by consumers. Semantic Web is inherently about integration and those plays tend to be different, longer and much bigger potential.

5. Don’t look for a killer app. That implies a client/consumer win. This is much more likely to be a server/platform/enterprise win. Even if the initial experimentation is done in the consumer domain; Freebase for example looks like a mass Beta test for some enterprise technology that Metaweb wants to release later.

6. As this is a platform play, look for powerful APIs and ways to motivate entrepreneurs to build apps on top, with a clear “show me the money” proposition. Those apps maybe consumer or enterprise focussed.

7. Semantic Web could slow the Google steamroller. This could be like the PC for IBM or the Web for Microsoft. The steamroller’s momentum carries it forward for a very long time and it can build all kinds of wrapper systems around it, but something new always does come along. Google mastered how to give some structure to countless unstructured HTML pages. Semantic Web will gradually make that less critical as the underlying content will be more structured. These big generational changes - mainframe to PC to Web - seem to be happening faster, so it seems about time for another big generational change to start happening.

8. But don’t look for Yet Another Search Engine (YASE) to be the David to Google’s Goliath. Just like PC was not another mainframe and Web was not another PC. Don’t ask me precisely what it will look like; if I did know I would have to kill you if I told you. I just know what it won’t look like

9. Vertical Search is the pragmatist’s Semantic Web. Vertical Search businesses use whatever techniques they need - basic search engines, scrapers, APIs, human editors - to create some meaningful/useful structure in a single domain. Over time these cobbled together pragmatic solutions will be replaced by a semantic web platform, probably by an API that enables human editors to leverage their valuable domain expertise.

10. Tagging is the quietly disruptive technology. Everybody tags. It is the most basic human urge to mark what we find. We do it with Folders in Windows. We do it online with Bookmarks. Specialist tag Microformats such as Hcard and Hcalendar add more structure and we are only at the very start of this wave.

11. Semantic Web will leverage the “community” to add structure and this will use some techniques from first generation Social Networking. But it is very unlikely that Semantic Web will emerge from the walled gardens of current social networking sites. The winners will know how to motivate community to provide structure and will provide the tools that make the structuring so easy that nobody knows they are doing anything so boring as structuring. That is the big lesson from Web 2.0 that will be applied in the Semantic Web.

Friday, February 15, 2008

January 2008 Online Ad Spending -- Financial Services 1st, Web Media 2nd

Found via the Dogster blog, Marketing Charts has released the online ad spend numbers by industry for January 2008. The chart is embedded below. Ted Rheingold from Dogster notes, "The numbers are rather staggering. I’m not surprised to see Web Media coming in second. They understand that to drive traffic to online properties you must catch people online.... And we definitely expect the Consumer Goods amount to grow quickly based upon our experiencing on the front line with their brands and advertising agencies."

Big brands are shifting dollars to online but it's a slow move. Companies like Glam Media are making smart moves as they have by launching their primetime ad network. It helps when you can tie into an overall buy than sticking online as another line item. Eventually that will change.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Wireless Monitoring Of People and Things: Future Of Social Networking?

Wireless Monitoring Of People and Things: Future Of Social Networking?: "If you need information, the Internet offers a wealth of resources. But if you're hunting down a person or a thing, a computer's not much help. That may soon change. Electronic tags promise to create what some call the 'Internet of things,' in which objects and people are connected through a virtual network."

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Starcom MediaVest Group

Starcom MediaVest Group: "Starcom, Tacoda and comScore’s “Natural Born Clickers” findings suggest “the click is dead” as go-to measurement of effectiveness for brand-building display advertising campaigns"

US Online Buyers Spend Less Offline

FEBRUARY 12, 2008

In-store spending still dominates retail.
More than two-thirds of US online buyers who participated in the USC Annenberg Center for the Digital Future's study in 2007 said that their Web purchasing reduced their retail store purchases, up from the 65% who said so in 2006.

That does not mean that online buyers always avoid making purchases offline.

Web buyers spent an average of $511 in stores compared with $313 online in a three-month period during Fall 2007, according to Forrester Research "Retail Channel Surfers Prefer to Buy Offline" report, as cited in Internet Retailer.

But online was far ahead of other channels such as catalog, phone and TV shopping.

Web merchants are getting better at retailing physical products on their sites, and product information is now available at review, social networking and other sites, which helps explain why buying goods online has become so popular.

Different purchasing channels have traditionally offered different benefits, as detailed in the e-tailing group's "2006 Transformed Multi-Channel Shopper" report, conducted with J.C. Williams Group and StartSampling. Consumers surveyed expressed a preference for stores for the social experiences available, and catalogs for portability.

Yet social shopping sites bring a social experience to Web shopping, and the popularity of laptop PCs has made retail e-commerce a more portable experience.

This is all straightforward good news for pure-play online retailers. But multi-channel retailers face a question: if buying online reduces in-store purchases, how exactly should the two channels work together for consumers?

Monday, February 11, 2008

apophenia: a google horror story: what happens when you are disappeared

a google horror story: what happens when you are disappeared

Earlier this week, an acquaintance of mine found himself trapped in a Kafka-esque nightmare, a nightmare that should make all of us stop and think. He wants to remain anonymous so let's call him Bob. Bob was an early adopter of all things Google. His account was linked to all sorts of Google services. Gmail was the most important thing to him - he'd been using it for four years and all of his email (a.k.a. "his life") was there. Bob also managed a large community in Orkut, used Google's calendaring service, and had accounts on many of of their different properties.

Earlier this week, Bob received a notice that there was a spam problem in his Orkut community. The message was in English and it looked legitimate and so he clicked on it. He didn't realize that he'd fallen into a phisher's net until it was too late. His account was hijacked for god-knows-what-purposes until his account was blocked and deleted. He contacted Google's customer service and their response basically boiled down to "that sucks, we can't restore anything, sign up for a new account." Boom! No more email, no more calendar, no more Orkut, no more gChat history, no more Blogger, no more anything connected to his Google account. MORE