Thursday, December 22, 2011
Friday, December 09, 2011
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
If this is not overturned, we need a new judge! Judge Hits Blogger With $2.5 Million Charge for Not Being a Journalist. http://j.mp/v9rigL
This is how brands like the NYTimes compete with the networks by creating niche channels. NYTimes US Election 2012 app. http://j.mp/s81kWb
Monday, October 31, 2011
From Kevin Macdonald and Ridley Scott. 'Life in a Day' available on YouTube. Worth a watch! http://j.mp/vQX7P5
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
IBM 2011 Global CMO Study. 1,700 CMO's-64 countries-19 industries. Social and Channel Proliferation are main challenge. http://bit.ly/uR4fIR
Friday, October 14, 2011
If you have the Siri app now or not, in preparation for the iPhone4S, a fun blog on 'Shit Siri Says'. http://ping.fm/jEfJv
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Twitter Launches An Issue Tracker And Other New Features For Third-Party Developers http://j.mp/oo3oVS
Friday, September 30, 2011
Terrific engagement stats on social good such as: 92% of Americans Take Action for Social Good, 52% post or comment http://j.mp/pH32ZT
Monday, September 26, 2011
The problem with Google+
Google has often competed in markets it had no long term interest in participating in, just for the sake of drawing attention to or advancing a specific area for the overall benefit of search. That is not the case here. Personal data is sorely needed for search to evolve to the next level and deliver results that are more relevant to individual needs and interests. Google is late to the game and badly needs a social win.
When Facebook crept up and stole MySpace, it was still early. Facebook realized the value of real friends vs an endless accumulation of connections to folks you did not know. Much has happened within social platforms since. Geotagging, e-commerce, currency, gaming, the ability to follow strangers sans-permission, targetted advertising, predictive search and the beggining of what is now evolving towards advanced government regulatory intervention surrounding the often gray areas of privacy.
In other worlds the 'Beta' period for social is over. Folks on all sides have deep experience and opinions as to how the tools work along with expectations as to how they want to engage with them. The players involved have deep pockets and influence and one could argue that the features listed above are pretty much becoming the greens-fee - a commodities list easily replicated.
So, what matters most? The size and quality of community. Facebook is larger than most countries in population. In order for a citizen of any country to want to immigrate over to that of another, you need a combination of 'things are pretty bad at home', combined with 'have you seen what you can do over there?' in order to feel as if your life will be infinitely richer and better tied to your community in order to justify defection or the need to carry multiple passports.
While Google+ is growing quickly, it posseses none of these qualities. Certainly not in functionality after the latest Facebook developments, nor in quality of voice. Most active users are those of us in the industry talking to ourselves. A great tool for us, but as the general population comes on board I become embarrassed for having invited my friends after having heard too many of them tell me they 'don't get it', and that the conversations are not relevant to them. Now, while that may change, there is still not enough reason to immigrate and carry 2 passports. For most folks 1 is already too much to manage...let's not forget about LinkedIn or Twitter.
To my next point, who are you to be on Google+? As people, we naturally like to express the many different sides of our personality depending on where we are. From the langage we use, to the tone of our voices, work and play call for and bring out differenct sides of us. There are many other instances too; think about gaming and our creation of avatars, or our foray into finding the perfect mate amdist online dating communities. While circles was and still is a great concept allowing us to broadcast or speak to specific groups of people, I'll argue that it becomes very difficult to manage all the complex sides to our personalities meant for work and play within one communit. Facebook has also now greatly enhanced, and copied, circles via it's own smart lists. Google+ forces us to generalize our own brand as we cannot easily separate our different personas.
Google has approached Google+ in the wrong way. It's gone top-down and sought to replicate and one-up the tools of current competitor communities. What it should do, is capitalize on what it has that the others do not have. Search data. If it could build a social graph reverse engineered to advance it's prime goal of organizing the worlds information, we may just all get a personalized version of that information and have a better reason to join.
For a more detailed analysis and additional viewpoint read this post from Mathew Ingram at GigaOM.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Infograhics in a post-literary world may be the future vs a trend. 3 Trends That Will Define The Future Of Infographics.http://bit.ly/nvjoPr
Monday, September 19, 2011
I love Google+ but it's more akin to Twitter than Facebook. Things Google Plus Can Do to Outbox Facebook - Don't bother! http://j.mp/qx8OLs
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Definitely excited about this! "Social Media Week, Peace One Day Join Forces to Support Global Truce 2012" http://prn.to/pzQWnZ
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
70+ Essential Resources for Making a Difference on the Social Web. From Mashable's Social Good Summit. Great Resource! http://j.mp/qLvoAO
How the Boston Globe Pulled Off HTML5 Responsive Design. A great case for publishing with the new power of HTML5. http://j.mp/qrCLI0
Sunday, August 07, 2011
Connecting the virtual with the real, and why we are not there...yet...
Connecting with long-lost high school buddies is nice. We reconnect virtually as familiar faces bring back a flood of memories. In most cases we will never see these people in real-life again. Families and friends are drawn closer via virtual walls but it is not a replacement for being there. For the opportunity to participate we need to post, check in, tag or be tagged. A duplication of the real. A broadcast or a brag for those that missed it. It takes real work. Time...when we no longer seem to have any. To not participate is to be invisible. To not comment is to shun the clan. There is even a study that shows that those who do not participate online cannot be trusted. What I really wander about is the need to have to manually duplicate all of our actions. I long for the time when our technology evolves to the point of organic connectivity. When our whereabouts and check-ins, the images of what we see and the feelings related to our actions are filtered based upon our preferences and broadcast to those we care about automatically. To feel one another's thoughts when we need to, to see what they see when they want us to...without having to go on-line - because we are online already. But is this what we want...a neural web that feeds us? Maybe we do not need to take it that far, but we live in the real world and we need our networks to support us as we walk about; live, love and laugh together vs. late nights in solitude fueled by the glow of our LED monitors. We need the virtual and the real worlds to collide. We need to remember that one only exists because of the other. We will get there, but we have a ways to go. Until then, stay close.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Prediction: Facebook or Twitter to buy Katango within 3-6 months...
With the rise of Google+ and your ability to sort your friends into as many categories (circles) as you would like, it's the ultimate privacy setting as you can elect who sees what on a post by post basis! How are Facebook and Twitter to compete? Of course you can already sort your friends inside of Facebook, but the usability of this feature is buried and involves a maddening process. Twitter does not have this feature at all! Not to mention that this type of activity is easily embarked upon at the start of building your network as opposed to having to go back and group hundreds of friends after-the-fact...who has the time for that?!
Enter Katango. Via Facebook connect, Facebook friends are automatically grouped based upon not just your relationship to them, but based upon all communications between linked friends - along with Katango's secret sauce. I was a sceptic at first, but I was amazed at the accuracy and 'magic' of how fast the application was able to group my friends. Facebook or Twitter simpy have to buy this company if the have any hopes of competing with the privacy and usability of Google+'s 'circles'.
Katango, I am sold. It's a no - brainer. Can you help me to automatically do the same for Google+?
Friday, July 15, 2011
Watch as GooglePlus becomes the place for Brands.
In the early days, there is no shortage of conjecture. Remember how Facebook, Twitter and MySpace started? They were very different early on. Some say Google+ is more of a threat to Twitter than Facebook....and maybe Tumblr too. Given the power of the Google brand Google+ has had an astounding rate of adoption - but those that are joining are the early adopters, the media...the tech savvy...and believe it or not, Brands too.
This never happened at Facebook. Brands tip-toed in. Damned if they did, damned if they did not. With Google+ they have marched in the door from day 1 and Google is bending over backwards to make a place for them. It took both Facebook and Twitter forever (web-time) to make a plan for Brands. At it's core, Google's revenue stream is from Brand advertisers. Google has little interest in privacy and has always been an advocate of openness.
But you still need community - and lots of it. With 10MM users to date, Google is well on it's way and the influencers and news organizations whom have flooded this early on will draw the average consumer...who doesn't have a gmail account?!
Google+ also has the feature set that will appeal to Brands:
No 140 character post limit! Perfect for brands, with the type of engagement features that Twitter lacks.
Hangouts are also the perfect place for Brands to engage with members of the media and consumer influencers. The perfect focus group - a virtual test kitchen at practically no cost.
Not to mention Sparks, the perfect place for folks to list the things they like...and the perfect place for Google to serve up Brand related to our interests.
But Google+ is deafening. Not a place I feel like I want to collect my friends. Even the power of carefully curated circles cannot drown out the noise and focus the conversation. I'm exhausted already!
Google+ won't kill Twitter, nor will it kill Facebook or Tumblr, but it may just become the primary home for Brands, News Organizations and Publishers. The place to kickoff each press release and the definitive place to engage.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
New top-level domains will change the way we navigate.
You know that domain that you want?...well, it's taken. At least the .com version of it anyway. What else is there, unless you want to be a .org, or carry the patriotic flag of your country as in .de (Germany) or .uk (United Kingdom)?
It's true, soon anyone will be able to register and buy any top-level domain. Top-level being the 'thing' after the 'period', as in .'com'. But it ain't cheap. At almost $200k, top-level or root domain's are not like buying URL's already associated with a .com. In other words, it's not for you and me - but meant for companies, industry verticals, causes, political parties, countries, cities, or even towns that can afford it. Big brands like Canon Cameras are already in line to purchase .Canon.
Does all this really matter? Yes - in a big way. My guess is that as this is adopted, more and more folks will align with a common navigation, much in the same way that desktop applications follow the same menu options. Let me explain. Lets say a brand like Nike bought .Nike. Rather than having to go to the homepage to find out how to find information on its officers, products or careers, you will most likely just be able to type in officers.nike, products.nike or careers.nike - something that is impossible to do today because we do not know the web-directory structure that the company uses. Companies also do not follow a common directory structure as directories are often based upon navigation and slaves to .com. Even more importantly most folks are not used to thinking that way...this will change.
This change will make things simpler for everyone to start using a common language - much like the menus across most applications. You could of course always navigate to the homepage to find what it is you are looking for, or just Google it. But chances are, since companies will now control the root, along with related re-directs, that you will be able to easily navigate directly to your general area of interest as we all start to use similar terminology and naming conventions.
Google may not be happy about that.
Are We Ready for the Era of .Anything? Friday, June 17, 2011
Spotify positioned to compete directly with Apple and Pandora in music.
With its new funding round, Spotify will compete directly with Apple and Pandora. In my last post, I purposefully did not mention Spotify as they were not available in the U.S. market, nor did they have the funding to compete - but now they do. Apple will have their hands full once Spotify and Pandora ramp things up in the next 6 months.
There is no doubt that the future of music will be subscription vs. ownership. One could argue that Apple really doesn't care about 'owning' access to music via iTunes and that it only created this marketplace in order for them to sell more hardware. Amazon is the one most vulnerable, as it does not own a player nor the hardware. Either way, the economics of the music business will continue to shift in a very big way.
Spotify, Gearing Up For U.S. Launch, Closes Its $1 Billion Round
Thursday, June 09, 2011
In music-Apple's competition is not Google or Amazon-it's Pandora!
All of you Apple fans who have been clammering for subscription to come to iTunes, that's what Pandora is, and more...especially if you are looking for the social sharing promised by Apple's Ping.
The future of music is not ownership, it's subscription. That's what the cloud is for - not to store a copy of all the music you already own for access elsewhere, but it's a cute & expensive idea. Apple cannot have missed that, but I'm not sure that the data-center approach Apple has taken is the right strategy. Pandora, with it's peer-to-peer model, may win the war. It certainly is much farther ahead of Apple, especially with it's streamed licensing arrangements with the big music labels. When the labels figure it out, their fees will plummet as they race to prop up a true Apple competitor.
Pandora's IPO could not be better timed. The liquidity that an IPO brings will give Pandora much deeper pockets to compete in this arena.
Let the games begin.
Written with Essay on iPad
-------------------
Jared Hendler
O: +1-212-704-9727
M: +1-917-754-9520
F: +1-212-704-0917
-------
For the sake of the environment, please think before you print. Thank you.
-------
Sunday, May 29, 2011
What Google's new flight search will mean for the airlines....
American Airlines made an idiotic move in pulling out of Orbitz. As consumers, we are lazy, preferring one stop shopping. Having to visit multiple airlines in order to piece our travel together is painful. It is why Expedia, Orbitz and sites like Kayak have been the go-to destinations for initial travel research and in many cases, purchase. Google will now change that, as you will have one place to go that pulls all fight information across all carriers together for you. From there you can decide which carrier and fare you want to purchase. Google has no interest in being an intermediary in ticket sales, but it is challenging the airlines to get their act together. Initially Google's search is best with direct flights to and from major cities as it does not recommend connections or track many flights from smaller airports.
What American Airlines did was short sighted, and I'll even argue that this type of move should have been illegal as it does not allow the consumer to have access to all options unless they are aware of a specific carrier or deal. If all the airlines chose the route of American Airlines, everyone loses. The marketplace, the consumer and most of all, carriers like American Airlines.
Not only will Google (possibly followed by Bing) now become the defacto place to start your travel search, but they airlines will now be forced to place a much higher Adwords buy on Google in the hopes that the consumer will be directed towards their brand after their initial search when it comes time to purchase.
The airlines dropped the ball and now they are paying the price. Google is challenging them to get it together or (literally) to pay an even higher price, end of story.
American Airlines leaves Orbitz. NYTimes.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The New York Times - losing its digital lead.
I love the New York Times. I want to support the writers and the organization. I loved them for leading digital publishing early on and I especially loved their mobile apps.
...but now I'm reading The Daily and it is no big secret that the NYTimes digital stats are down dramatically. What happened?
Simply put:
1. Cost
2. Pricing complexity
3. Design
Cost: The Daily is 99c per week, The NYTimes, almost $9 ($8.75) per week for all digital access. For the first 12 weeks it's actually cheaper to buy the actual paper and gain access to all digital formats as part of the deal for only $5.85 per week. After the 12 week introductory period, home delivery jumps to $11.70 a week. You can then give the paper version to your friends and family in the country to use to start their fires in winter while you enjoy the digital version, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra 3 bucks. Net-Net, the price point is way too high. Not just against the 'competition' but against itself. Charging more for a digital addition when you have no printing and shipping costs cannot add up in the eyes of the consumer.
Pricing Complexity: Pricing is too hard to follow. In addition to the above complexity between digital, paper and introductory period rates, the NYTimes has multiple levels of digital subscriptions depending on what devices you want to access the content on. Are you kidding me? It's all the same to us consumers. For digital, you need to stop living in a paper world. One price for all access on any device or app is what we need...end of story!
I do sympathize. It must be hard to go from a free to a paid model. Would it not make sense to tread softly? Be aware of the 'competition', make it easy to afford? Make the price points easy to follow. The NYTimes pricing model is too complicated. There should only be 2 subscription models. 1 for those that want the physical NYTimes (for this you should automatically have access to ALL digital content across ALL devices; and 2, for those who only want access to digital regardless of the device or platform they choose to view it on.
Design: In the beginning the NYTimes innovated. The web version re-invented itself every few weeks, constantly improving navigation as it evolved into a content portal vs. an online version of the newspaper. Video became the most visited section of the homepage. Equally, apps for both smart-phones, and tablets were re-imagined to support new hardware, software and screen sizes. The NYTimes's social recommendation and sharing integration is also rock solid. True innovation.
Then came The Daily. It's not perfect, and not comparable from a content standpoint, but it is closer to what a digital publication could be. Less from a design standpoint, more from a delivery and product architecture POV. Automated daily downloads deliver complete, clear new additions, while the NYTimes apps are an undefinable hodgepodge of old and new content. Next to The Daily, the NYTimes now looks like a licensed version of Flipboard.
NYTimes lovers will loath the comparison to The Daily as the content and target are distinctly different. But the fact that someone like myself, a NYTimes lover, is now subscribed to The Daily tells a story. In marketing, perception often wins over reality. A dangerous game to be playing in a world where content is arguably commoditized and packaging plays a larger role than some would care to admit.
I love the NYTimes and I have loved their leadership within digital, but somewhere between pioneering and the need to charge, they have lost focus. The NYTimes forgets that the innovation they started is an acknowledgment that the business is now fundamentaly different and no longer about delivering paper. You cannot continue to lead with one foot in and one foot out of the new world. Commit to the future of publishing and leave the rules of paper behind you.
I know the NYTimes can do better than this. I'm rooting for it.
Related Articles:
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Will QR codes survive the insatiable advances of technology?
As PRNewser points out, QR Codes are popping up all over the place, and have become a popular marketing tool.
However, given narrow adoption and the fact that companies like Google are looking to other technologies such as Near Field Communications (NFC), will QR codes survive or become a fad of the times?
It's a good question and the survival of QR Codes will most likely hinge on 2 important factors.
1. Adoption & Integration: Until smartphone manufacturers bundle software that make reading these codes a core component of smart-phones, consumers are left up to their own devices to find and, in some cases, buy the software that works for them. Integration is critical to adoption, and without manufacturer adoption this will be a fad.
2. Multi-tasking: Assuming manufacturers see the opportunities of adopting the software in order to be able to read these codes, the next step for QR Codes will be able to deliver another level of scripting (auto-tasking). As they stand right now, QR Codes are very one-dimensional. They can pull up a URL or dial a number, but imagine if they could prompt several tasks to complete all within one code. For example; scanning someones QR Code on the back of their business card automatically brings up their URL, programs your address book with their information along with opening your calendar to see when you might be free for a follow up meeting with them.
If QR Codes evolve to enable various levels of multi-tasking and smartphone manufacturers see the value of building this into core software, then QR Codes may be in business for the long haul.
Monday, February 07, 2011
Is Qwiki the future of search?
Since the 'alpha' launch I have been playing around with Qwiki, and am pretty impressed overall. Given that search has not changed much since it's inception (things became really serious when Google launched in 1998 and went public in 2004), the space is really wide open for improvement from challengers of all kinds. While search was primarily focused on the best algorithm to serve up the most relevant results, Google changed that when it built a better system to analyze the relationships between websites in order to improve relevancy of those results.
Most recently, innovation around user experience has gained traction for challengers such as Microsoft who have seen fairly large gains with Bing adoption. Bing's success (outside of a huge marketing spend by Microsoft) has primarily been driven by relevancy supported UI design. Just as we are inundated with choice when walking down a supermarket isle, we need design and differentiation of packaging along with clean navigation to help point the way. Search is no different.
Enter Qwiki. Qwiki's strategy is primarily based upon the fact that we have no time to wade through pages of information in order to piece together what is most relevant to what we are looking for. Put another way, we are lazy. To combat this, Qwiki is working on technology that can compile a relevant 'story' out of all items related to our primary search in order to deliver a succinct narrative.
Now, Qwiki is no Google, but it is not trying to be and not all searches yield results. Qwiki focuses on compiling results based upon popular searches vs. organizing the world's information all in one go...but it can get there eventually. Think of it as a Hollywood version of Wikipedia.org. A living Encyclopedia. An entertained form of Wikipedia for kids and those of us that would prefer a more animated solution to educate and entertain vs. a dry text-book delivery. It's not perfect (reminder: it is still in Alpha), but it is a great step towards evolving the space and challenging the big boys.
Monday, January 03, 2011
When will E-Books spell the Death of The Book Store?
It's not a question of 'will' e-books spell the death of the book store but 'when'. In Christmas of 2009, the early adopters took the dive. This past Christmas (2010) statistics show that the e-book is one of the most sought after gifts of the season and publishers are expecting January to be a big month in e-book sales as new e-book owners load up on titles.
From The New York Times: Christmas Gifts May Help E-Books Take Root
As much as the industry hates to draw parallels to the music business, the similarities are there and the speed at which the bricks and mortar businesses in music fell was startling. Unfortunately the same will happen here. Have you been into a Barnes & Noble lately? It's like walking into a large restaurant that only has a few customers lurking about.
The truth is more folks are reading on e-book devices, while those that had already been using an e-book, are reading more books. I bought into the idea myself around the time of Kindle's second device. The first Kindle version being too clunky and I was still holding onto the quaint idea of turning physical pages and telling people how I loved the smell of paper...I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. Once you dive in, the benefits are endless:
1. Never having to lug around more than 'one' light 'book'.
2. Not having to decide which book to take on a trip as you can simply take them all.
3. The ability to easily find any phrase or paragraph across all of your books in an instant when the moment of sharing inspires you.
4. Being able to highlight or save searcheable notes across all of your titles.
5. Having access to a clipping file of those highlights and notes on your PC in order to be able to use them for personal research or studying.
6. See what others who have read the same book find interesting.
7. Sharing what inspires you with your family and friends on Facebook directly from the e-book...
8. Being able to browse and purchase books on the go without having to visit a bookstore.
...the list goes on.
Convenience is not the only good news. This may very well spell the rebirth of the small, local bookstore. Not for fiction or non-fiction reading, but for art books, photography, or kids pop-up and craft books. I suspect these have a way to go before they become digitized or before we are ready to give them up all together. As Tower Records crumbled, think of the rebirth of the record store, for those who still love Vinyl. I put the large stores survival at end of 2012 on the outside.
We need to remember that technology advancements used to move more slowly, giving us time to adapt with major changes coming only once or twice in every generation. This is no longer true with major shifts happening every 3-5 years, with the pace of change increasing all the time. The Toffler's had it right with 'Future Shock', only they were a bit early. The irony of it all is that their title is not yet available as an e-book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
