The End Of Search?

A version of the end of Search is what Google’s Amit Singhal presented at Google I/O. And, while the implications can certainly scare or annoy many, there are just as many that are excited about its implications. But, there are considerably fewer who can begin to fully comprehend the possibilities. Of those few, I can bet most are within Google’s walls.  As I have already gotten into a debate about this with some friends, the only end of search in sight is just the form of the verb we choose to assign to the act of search.

Courtesy of Google/IBTimes

I’m excited about the possibilities presented in Google’s plans to remove the verb.  What I mean is this: we now think of search as going to google.com and entering a question or query. Upon entering that, the results are given and we react from that.  What Google presents for their (and subsequently our) future is the action of presenting items that might be of interest due to the knowledge graph of our actions.  While Facebook made waves with the Social Graph, Google jumps further with the Knowledge Graph.

As we continue to move toward those simple and “free” products that help find, share and purchase, Google is gathering that much more data so that they can dynamically provide information they think we want on an individual basis. That predictive presentation of content is what is both exciting and scary. While I can see the things that are relevant on a Google map or Chrome or some other Google product, the mere fact that it knows so much about me is cause for concern.

But, as written in this blog before, we’re collectively moving past the concerns of privacy and on to the embrace of simplicity of information. By best utilizing the available data (that is growing exponentially by the day) there are so many permutations and executions we can only dream of.  It is possibly the truest form of crowd-sourcing to determine our next steps in most everything we do.  With the right applications and products, automation of mundane actions and events would lead to higher productivity and expanded experiences – if we want that.

This all leads us back to the end of search as we know it.  If things pop up based on predictions that we might like or be interested in something without our action of looking for it, is that a search?  If I am walking from the office to the coffee shop and see a cool object in a store that causes me to walk in the store, does that constitute a search for that object in that store?

I feel that the coincidental discovery of a product while doing something else is not a search – something a good friend of mine disagrees with. But, based on my theory, if systems are going to get smarter based on the massive data it receives and start presenting options and items that make sense as my possible next query, without the action of my thinking to ask the question, does that not mean we have reached the end of search?

Facebook and General Motors Showing The Gamesmanship Usually Reserved For Playoff Season

Days before Facebook’s IPO, General Motors announced that they were pulling advertising from Facebook. If I didn’t know any better, I would think it was a matter of an established company attempting to stick it to the newest young Turk.  We may never know how much the pulling of around $40 million advertising dollars annually affected the IPO, but it certainly was bad buzz at the wrong time.  And, we certainly may never know what the real story was that led to GM’s pulling out of Facebook advertising. With AdAge reporting an action that may seem to counter GM’s position that Facebook ads were ineffective, and instead felt a little like the kid who wouldn’t play nice, so the other picked up all his toys and left.  Either way, the gamesmanship between Facebook and General Motors points to the fact that all is not what meets the eye when it comes to media and business.

The latest stems from the “understanding” that GM had asked for a larger ad unit – a page takeover that is  the norm on publisher sites, but not on Facebook – and upon being denied, GM decided to take their business away.  Facebook has been known to not really make it harder for advertisers to insert themselves in the platform, but to certainly not make it easy.  Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has made it clear since the beginning that he is more interested in providing a better user experience than a disruptive one that might bring more money. If the purported meeting did take place the way it has been written about – nobody from Facebook or GM will say anything on the record – it seems that GM might have gone in there to start a fight.

Much the same way that you have to decipher which politician is spewing BS or which athlete is just talking trash to spark his teammates or get under the skin of an opponent, the same has to be done here. I’ve represented a number of clients in trying to get more of presence on a publishers site within a media campaign and you know what you can push for and you know what you can’t.  Ultimately, it depends on how much the media is worth to you or your company.  If the media is really effective, you might push for more, but also realize that what you’ve got is solid as it is and anything else would be gravy.  If you have the enormous spending history that would allow you to push harder form something like GM supposedly did, then there’s no problem with that. I just don’t know that, in the case where the existing media is effective and you push for more but don’t get it, you would just drop out like GM did.  That’s why I think it was a mixture of both.

If this new spin is emanating from Facebook to soften the blow of the loss of such a large advertiser, it is deflecting from the point that the existing units and programs just may not have been effective for the advertiser.  It’s easy to understand why they would drop on account of the ROI not being strong enough.  We might never know if the ROI was strong and they were just doing a hard press to get that larger full-page breakthrough.

Regardless of whether Facebook is a publisher or a platform - or whether their offerings should be like anyone else’s – this is just one example of the new challenges that Facebook will see as they really start having to be one of the big boys.

If the ROI was strong and GM used the timing of the IPO to try to force Facebook’s hand, then there was a solid example of gamesmanship that Facebook seems to have lost – and will hopefully learn from.

Coachella Fix Served by YouTube and State Farm

There is the saying that nothing beats the real thing, but sometimes what you have to settle for ain’t to shabby. This was the case with the Coachella Live site on YouTube. For those who were not lucky enough to get tickets nor able enough to take off for a weekend of all the crazy things that happen over the course of the weekend on a Polo field, this presentation sponsored by State Farm insurance was fantastic.  Sporting three live streams on a dashboard that included thumbnails of what you’re not watching, Facebook/Twitter/Google+ and a schedule of what’s to come, there was no lack of exploration and enjoyment possible. YouTube really showcased a phenomenal product and Coachella was able to serve the fix of a much larger audience to celebrate the music exploration and wonder that is Coachella.

There were a number of elements that really made this content great:

• The interface was simple, clean and clear;
• The production quality was strong throughout. The on-site direction and coverage was comprehensive and, in some instances, rivaled that of a well produced concert video.
• The streaming quality was better than I had expected. In most cases, both the small and full screen versions were very clear. Sometimes, the images were getting pixellated, but there was no rhyme or reason that I could make out. When the image quality was good, it was great and when it wasn’t, it wasn’t that bad.
• The sound quality was clear and consistent throughout – even when the picture was not.
• The Chat was extremely active with very little delay.  Unlike previous versions of this type of thing that I’ve seen, you could see songs, comments or lyrics presented on stage referenced almost immediately in the feed. The fact that three major social networks were incorporated  for ease of entry and use seems like a no-brainer. It’s surprising how many feeds choose not to use more than Facebook and Twitter…
• State Farm’s sponsorship was persistent, tasteful and refined while not interfering with the content.  Meaning, they didn’t pause sets to show a graphic in-stream - or some other annoying ad mechanic.

Though there was mention of the live streaming on YouTube and the Coachella site, I didn’t see any wide mentions or promotion for the feature.  Perhaps I missed it and imagine there could have been some artist relationship elements to consider.  Ultimately, the people who were most interested were able to find it – either by searching it out or finding it organically through friends’ social activity.

Talking about artists relations, I was impressed that the artists allowed it – and even more impressed about some of the artists that participated. With the point of the weekend(s) being music and the exploration of new music, the site makes perfect sense.  I was able to check out a solid mix of acts I knew and had even seen live before with a healthy dose of new acts.  I know that the experience is not the same as being there, but I am sure that Coachella Live viewers were able to jump from stage to stage much more quickly and easily than anyone who was physically there. The fact that I could jump from a great view of Miike Snow to the pit of Radiohead without leaving my chair was awesome.

On a personal note, My commute home after Radiohead’s late set on Saturday and Dr. Dre/Snoop Dogg’s star-studded show to close it all on Sunday night was much more comfortable than driving home from Indio.  And, the fact that I already have State Farm insurance made me feel that I wasn’t just being a freeloader – I might even feel a little bit more loyalty to them because of it.

Hopefully, this becomes a trend for more live events as it really extends the community and the technology has come about to enable that like never before. The technology upgrades has made the experience drastically different from when I spent hours in front of the television watching Live Aid as a kid.  Who would have thought then that we could control what we were watching without having to suffer through commercials and annoying MTV VJ commentary?

Props to Coachella and its partners for taking the festival to the next level by making the experience extend beyond the 180,000 people who actually get to go to the two weekends in the desert.  The fact that YouTube is now hosting some of the full sets, it really extends beyond the desert. And, you get a chance to see some freaky cool things like the holographic Tupac performing. Thanks for providing the opportunity for many more people in many countries to get their fix…

HBO Presents Their Own Smart Freemium Model

In the past, HBO was able to drive subscriptions for their services based on the fact that they were a special premium product. Whether through buzz about their shows, awards their shows garnered, or the enabling of a few days a year of allowing users to sample their content, they were able to drive subscribers.  Now that the other premium cable networks, like Showtime and Starz, have gotten into the production of buzz and award-worthy original shows, HBO has to change their traditional ways.  One of those is HBO’s entry into their own form of the Freemium model. Freemium is generally the term used for product that are attained for free and then continued usage requires payment, or premiums. HBO’s version consists of them making the pilots of their new shows – GIRLS and VEEP – available on HBO.com, YouTube, DailyMotion, TV.com and multiple distributors’ free on-demand platforms the day after their premieres. The shows will also be available as free downloads on iTunes. To me, this is a smart model for HBO to induce viewers to move from freemium to premium and subscribe to the premium cable network to get their fix of those shows.

Hopefully, HBO's Freemium play will drive engagement and not apathy. (Courtesy of HBO)

Of course, they’ve got to hope that the shows are good enough to compel viewers to actually want to pay to see more. This model is probably a stronger one than the limited opening of the FreeView windows they’ve done in the past.  From a television programming perspective, I would even allow for more than just the pilot episodes to be streamed for free. As it takes a couple of episodes to become truly engaged, they should probably look to make three episodes available. The Freemium model is proving to be more and more successful as time goes on and HBO’s foray into that style of marketing or sampling could be a sign for the future of products that are not traditionally associated with that Freemium way of engagement.

In the music sector, Spotify has certainly established itself strongly on the freemium model, but the uptake to premium is an unscientific process. The numbers reported in a Billboard article covering 2010 and early 2011 showed a slow uptake, but that was before they launched in the US and picked up steam in their existing markets.  Even with that, users are running into issues as people start interacting with the product and deciding whether they want to shell out the money for the premium model. Spotify reports that since launching in the States in June of 2011, they have 3 million users, with only 20% subscribing.

On the gaming front, the poster child for the Freemium model is ANGRY BIRDS. They most recently launched on Facebook in February – where playing is free, but the opportunities to power-up or get other additional gameplay benefits comes with a cost. This incremental revenue may just be a flash in the pan as we see whether Facebook users actually care to purchase additional powers, but they don’t seem to be hurting amidst all their other growth on multiple platforms that all effectively launched on either the true freemium model (limited level gameplay with payment for more) or a nominal premium for slightly robust access and the payment opportunities for even more.

The freemium model across the board is increasing and revenues are driving up.  Steve Smith wrote about it on his MediaPost blog recently. Smith cites an IHS Screen Digest Mobile Media Intelligence Service report that projects that Freemium will drive 64% of app revenue by 2015.

I give HBO credit for trying something different as a strategy to remain above the competition in an ever-tightening race with more and more outlets for the type of content they are known to provide.  Will this lead to other businesses to delve deeper into their own forms of the Freemium model? If so, it’s got to be more compelling that what might have been a very early form of Freemium – giving away free food samples in stores hoping that consumers will buy. Regardless of the product, there’s got to be a real desire by the end users to get more. Hopefully, for HBO, these shows are good enough to drive that craving for more.

The Countdown Begins With Brands Flailing For Tabs

I’m sort of reminded of the Y2K excitement when people are now talking about the fact that the whole Facebook interface changes for good – across the board – in a matter of weeks.  It’s not that we didn’t know that the Timeline structure would be pushed to everyone, it’s just the effect it has on Facebook Pages. There is so much darn branded content that needs to be wholly redone to work within the new layout.  If you’re a brand that has one – or even a dozen – FB pages (and a number of tabs) then it shouldn’t be a problem.  But, if you have hundreds or even thousands of pages with bunches of tabs, you could be in trouble.

Other than the fact that the layout is changing (and that Facebook must be getting a lifetime supply of cupcakes with their sample of Magnolia Bakery on the Pages page), the main differences are in the control of the entry point and the amount of Tabs a brand can maintain.  Without being able to force people to either Like or enter an email upon first arriving at the page means that brands will now have to find a better way to get people to commit without their exploration seeming to need a gateway.  With the addition of 4 Favorites buttons that act more like navigation buttons, brands will have to put a little more thought into their presentation strategies. Will they use those to garner Likes or collect emails, or will those items be placed on the Wall for larger presence – which would also require closer management.  Brands can send users specifically to a Favorites tab page via a URL, but companies can no longer rely on that gateway upon entry.

The need to re-think or rework does present major challenges for those companies – like movie studios – who have hundreds (or thousands) of heavily designed pages up that they were hoping they could just leave up there forever. It now ends up they will be completely broken – and who knows what will happen to all those followers if the page owners decide to let the pages wither away…

On the good side, it seems like this major change will help to stop all the micro changes that the Facebook engineers unleashed on a seemingly bi-weekly schedule with no notice for the past few years.  Nothing created more headaches than waking up and seeing that your pages are broken and nobody was prepared (or paid) to update it.  The hope is that these more structured and formalized pages will make those micro-changes unnecessary.  Additionally, with the timeline, it will be easier to tell your corporate story by putting communications or newsletters on your pages and actually have them better reflect progression over time rather than a hodge-podge of items that might come if they weren’t anchored to an exact time. Additionally, the opportunity to push your creativity will be presented as the timeline will be more kind to graphic posts.

In the long run, it seems these changes will make population and content management more standardized.  This could make things a lot more easy and allow for companies to rely on Facebook as an even simpler way to even replace an unwieldy and expensive custom site.  I’m sure Facebook looked at the migration of companies from expensive sites to easy (and free) sites on platforms like WordPress caused them to take a deep look inward and provide their own solution.

Putting my user hat on, I’m very happy that I no longer have to Like something or submit my email address just to be able to see content for a possible vendor.  even from the marketing perspective, I would rather have unencumbered eyeballs on my content and then step up to the challenge of developing good incentives to have them Like my product or enter their email because they actually like what we’re about – not just because its what they’re about to see.

So, while many brand marketers may be flailing in the short-term to make things right with the transition, this could be the key to really providing stability and a strong presence for all who approach this new landscape smartly and strategically.