John Battelle's Searchblog

Today's news that the iPad sold 2 million units in its first two months - coming as it does right before Steve Jobs takes the stage at his only public conference appearance in years outside carefully scripted Apple launch events - led me to reflect on my prediction, in January of this year, that the "iPad would disappoint" (that'd be #5, scroll down).   

In that prediction, which was not without its failures, I wrote:

Sorry Apple fanboys, but the use case is missing, even if the thing is gorgeous and kicks ass for so many other reasons. Until the computing UI includes culturally integrated voice recognition and a new approach to browsing (see #4), the "iTablet" is just Newton 2.0. Of course, the Newton was just the iPhone, ten years early and without the phone bit....and the Mac was just Windows, ten years before Windows really took hold, and Next was just ....oh never mind.

In essence, what I was saying is that the nexus of first wave computing (Windows OS) and second wave computing (the web) had not caught up to Jobs' vision of the third wave - mobile, multi-touch web-enabled interfaces. I was also hinting at my own bias that voice will become an important part of our interface to machines. Another bias: the assumption that Apple's tablet would actually attempt to connect the first two waves of computing meaningfully to the third.

I think my prediction was right in the short term (when the iPad was announced, nearly everyone was disappointed at what it wasn't, see the headlines from January, above), and I was totally wrong in the medium term (the thing has sold two million plus and probably has a shot at being Time magazine's "man of the year" for 2010). However I still believe I'll be entirely correct in the long term, in particular if Apple doesn't change its tune on how the iPad interacts with the web.

Allow me to unpack that last statement.  

What I missed, at least in my initial prediction, was how entirely hermetic and "un-weblike" the iPad would end up being. Like many others, I was surprised at how complete Apple's disdain is for traditional computing models - including its own Macintosh. The iPad would not be an open development environment - instead it adopted the iPhone model of command and control. The iPad would not allow you to run Mac applications - only iPad/iPhone specific apps approved by Apple would work, and that meant no Microsoft Office, thank you very little. The iPad wouldn't even let you cut and paste - an innovation Apple pioneered - and worst of all, it seemed, the iPad wouldn't use Flash - a proxy, as it were, for "the rest of the web that Steve Jobs didn't quite like very much."

So initially, anyway, the hue and cry about the iPad amongst the tech elite was decidedly disappointed. The iPad wasn't a computer! The iPad was just a big iPhone - but without the phone, or even the camera! It's an overgrown iPod Touch! It breaks the web!

Then it came out, and wow, was it purty. Apple has done it again, we all marveled - the iPad's genius, it seemed, was that it didn't try to be a computer - instead, it was a gorgeous device for consumption of media and interaction with apps. And sure, those apps could be web enabled - on the back end - as long as the web was channeled into structured, Apple approved fashion (no third party data sharing, natch). And sure, you could surf the the "real web," but only if you went through the Apple approved browser, which finds Flash unworthy of rendering.

No matter. The fact is, the iPad is a revelation for millions and counting, because, like Steve Case before him, Steve Jobs has managed to render the noise of the world wide web into a pure, easily consumed signal.

The problem, of course, is that Case's AOL, while wildly successful for a while, ultimately failed as a model. Why? Because a better one emerged - one that let consumers of information also be creators of information. And the single most important product of that interaction? The link. It was the link that killed AOL - and gave birth to Google.

It was the link that made the web what it is today, and it's the link - reinterpreted in various new strains - that drives innovation on the web still. The link is the synapse between you, me, and a billion other humans - and the signal (dare I say, a signal one might consider third party data) which allows a million ideas to flourish.

So let me ask you one question, right now: Can you link to an app on your iPad? And I don't mean a link to download the app on iTunes, folks. I mean, can you create an ecosystem of links, deep into your iPad application(s), links that connect your particular activity stream inside that app with other streams, other links, and other intentions across the web? In ways that create new values, both predictable and unpredicted?

The answer is no. Anymore than you could link to pages deep inside AOL, back when it was a walled garden.

Sure, AOL eventually figured out the web would win, but by then, it was too late.

Next week, Apple will make any number of announcements at its WWDC. I'm hoping the company will announce that it is tacking away from its walled garden approach with the iPad, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Apple makes gorgeous products, but ultimately, I think any product which rejects the web's core value of connection will simply disappoint. But more likely than not, it'll be a year or two before that becomes apparent.

PS - If you want a deeper dive on Apple and the web, read this: Will Apple Embrace the Web?  No.

Via KK and Cuban, I found this deck from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who will be speaking at Web 2 Summit this year. It's a very transparent take on his company's market position, competitors, and prospects. Worth clicking through.

I've come to know Dick Costolo, COO at Twitter, pretty well in the past year, though I've known him for much longer. FM and his previous company, Feedburner, had a deal in the early days of RSS, and I've always liked his point of view on our industry. Feedburner was acquired by Google, and Dick spent a short year or so there before moving on to Twitter.  

Since he joined, Twitter has rolled out a ton of new features, (mostly) fixed its platform stability issues, launched a beta trial of its advertising platform (Promoted Tweets), and managed to grow a few orders of magnitude to over 100 million uniques.

I interviewed Dick at Twitter's Chirp conference last month, and I look forward to doing it again at the CM Summit week after next. What would you like to hear from him? Leave me your thoughts in the comments, thanks!

Update: And don't forget to add your comments for Hilary Schneider, Arianna Huffington, Tony Hsieh, Tim Armstrong, Omar Hamoui, and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.

Five years and about two months ago, I wrote a blog post announcing the creation of Federated Media Publishing. I will admit I was scratching an itch, not certain that it would work out. In that post I hedged a my bet - mainly because I was still smarting from the loss of my previous business - The Industry Standard - and I was not certain that I (or the world) was really ready for me to run a company again.  

In short, I said that if the company succeeded, I might not stick around - after all, The Standard succeeded, and I stuck around, and that didn't quite work out...well you can see where the psychology is going. This time, I remember telling myself, I'll pull a Costanza and go out when I'm still ahead.

Well, that didn't happen.

So as to not bury the lead too deeply, today marks my five-year anniversary as an employee of Federated Media Publishing, Inc. Apparently it was five years ago today that I signed some legal paperwork that officially made me an employee. At the time, I owned 100% of FM's voting shares, and to this day, I am still the largest shareholder. That was a very intentional move on my part, and one that has served me - and I daresay FM - very well over the past five years.

By the Fall of 2005 I had assembled a team, an extraordinary group, some of whom are still with us, some of whom, after four years or so, have moved on. To my mind that is also a great accomplishment - the original team stayed for a very long time, at least in the life of a startup, and together we built a company that will endure. I'm proud of that, and of them, and of where we are today. Indulge me some pride, but the story of FM isn't often told, and while I won't take much more of your time here telling it, it's certainly worth hearing should you be interested. (I'm happy to stretch this into a few hours, but the bourbon is on you).

I'm particularly proud that the core idea driving FM has not changed - thanks to search and social, media models have shifted, and a new approach was needed that understood the "conversational web." FM set out to be a media company native to the social web, and five years in, I think we've succeeded.

But that's not to say FM hasn't changed. A few stats:

- FM had under half a million dollars in revenue in 2005. Five years later, we're in the high eight figures of revenue. I'd love to brag about our current growth rate, but I think that'd be, well, bragging.

- FM launched with one segment - technology - and about ten blogs. We reached a few million uniques a month, and had roughly 25 million pageviews. Today, FM reaches 36 million uniques in four major segments (tech, business, lifestyle, and the real time web), and that's just in the US (we're past 70mm globally). We stopped counting pageviews when they eclipsed a billion. We're the fourth largest pure play social media company on the web, behind Facebook, Blogger, and Myspace.

- FM has been a pioneer in bringing integrated, scaleable brand marketing to social media, first with blogs (2005), and then Digg (2006), the Facebook platform (2007), live events (Crowdfire 2008), Twitter (2009) and now location services like Foursquare (2010). Our partners, executions and programs have won countless awards, but we're most proud of the tens of millions of dollars of revenue we've driven into the emerging world of independent content and platform creators online.

- The brilliant folks who invested in FM back in 2005 (including the New York Times, Omidyar Network, and various angels) have seen their investment increase twenty-fold, based on the valuation of FM in our last round (I'd argue we're worth a lot more than that, but let's stick with what's on paper for now). Perhaps to their consternation, we have so far refused to sell the company, so they'll have to be content with looking good on paper for the time being. And since that initial investment, we've brought in tens of millions of dollars through some extraordinary partners, and we've spent almost none of it. In fact, we're now on track to add to our cash holdings year over year. I'm quite proud of that feat.

- FM was EBIDTA profitable for 2009, and so far this year, FM has turned a net income, with the best still ahead of us.

- Earlier this year, we established a new division focused on bringing the skills of publishers to marketers across digital platforms. This promises to be a very large and very scaled business. We also invested heavily in our technology platform, and while I won't give away all that we are working on, it's a very exciting platform indeed. In short, there's nothing like it in market. I never thought, five years ago, we'd become a player in technology and data as well as in media, but then again, that's the beauty of a startup.

- Perhaps most significantly, FM has evolved into a troop of 130 or so dedicated employees, led by an amazing President, who we hired this past Fall. And my work has changed, so much so that I can't really imagine a better job than the one I have right now. I spend most of my time with partners - either media or platform and publishing, and in between I'm allowed to think a bit out loud, and work on my writing. I haven't really changed my work hours, but I most certainly have changed what I work on.

And this, to me, is probably my greatest career accomplishment to date. I've never worked anywhere for five years - not Wired, where I lasted four years and change, or The Standard, where I almost made it to four. But somehow, as I enter year six at FM, I find myself energized, engaged, and thrilled to be here.

I think it's because, way back in 2005, I made a promise to myself that I'd leave if I ever felt that I was in the way, or if I was consistently unhappy in my work.

I'll admit, I've flirted with both of those demons over the past few years. And who knows, I may well again. But right now, sitting in a hotel lobby writing to you as I prepare for four meetings with clients in Atlanta, I just feel lucky.

Thanks, everyone - to our publishing partners, our clients, our investors and our employees, as well as all of you, who've read my thoughts here and cheered me on, criticized me, or both. I hope to make you all proud in the next five years of this journey.

The CM Summit is now just two weeks away, and already I've asked for your input on five major voices in digital media and marketing: Arianna Huffington, Tony Hsieh, Tim Armstrong, Omar Hamoui, and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.Next up is Hilary Schneider, EVP Americas, Yahoo! Hilary is a crucial member of CEO Carol Bartz's team, running Yahoo's largest and most public business in the US, among others.

Yahoo has not had an easy time of it these past few years, and Hilary has been there for the whole of the ride, including the frenetic, off again on again negotiations over possible acquisition by Microsoft, the subsequent search deal, the shift from Semel to Yang to Bartz, and more.

Yahoo has recently declared its position as "the world's largest media company" and seems intent, with acquisitions like Associated Content, on pushing even deeper into that world. So what's up with Yahoo, and where might it be headed? I'd love your input. Here are a few questions I plan to ask, please add your own in comments:

- Why Associated Content, and why now? How will Yahoo differentiate from Demand (CRO Joanne Bradford will be at the conference) and AOL (CEO Tim Armstrong will be as well)?

- Overall, how has Yahoo's content strategy shifted from your first year there (2006)?

- How is the Microsoft search deal going? What's different now, what is the same?

- What do you make of Facebook's recent moves (Open Graph, etc) and how deeply will Yahoo be integrating these services?

- You recently cut a big deal with Nokia. Why? What's coming from that? Does Yahoo have a mobile strategy per se?

- What can marketers get from Yahoo that sets it apart, besides massive scale?

There are certainly more things to ask about. But I'll ask you guys to help me with that. What do you want to hear from Hilary?

Google today announced that it gives publishers 68% of its take for AdSense advertisements, eliminating one of the longest guessing games in our industry. Everyone knew that AOL, Ask, and other large partners pre-negotiated their deals, but no one knew what "typical" AdSense players made. Now we do, apparently.

This 68% split is relatively new. How do I know that? Well, as recently as two years ago, sources I know to be extremely reliable were actively negotiating with Google to get a 65% cut - less than what was announced today. So....you do the math.

Also, what many don't realize is that Google takes a 15% "serving" fee off the top, before splitting revenues with publishers. So if you do the math, 68% of 85% is really 57.8% - not nearly as generous as first it seemed.

UPDATE: Google disputes this, sending me this note: "For online publishers, the 68% revenue share is not new - it's been that figure for all online publishers since AdSense for content was launched in 2003.

And there is no 15% serving, or any other, fee for those online publishers. "
I'm quite certain there was such a fee. I'll look into this after a day of meetings.
Update: The 15% fee, also known as a "AFC Deduction", was commonly used (and still is as far as I know) for negotiated contracts with larger publishers. Google maintains it was never used for those who signed up directly on the Google website.

Early last week I wrote a long-ish piece on the iAd – in which I both criticized and praised Apple for “re-gifting” a mobile ad format that already existed. Since then I’ve spoke with Apple’s head of corporate communications, as well as several other potential clients and agencies. I didn’t learn a lot from Apple, but I did get some context for this next installment.

Apple’s genius has always been in seeing the value of something that already exists, and taking that value to a new level (the Mac, after all, was inspired by Xerox's work. And the iPhone? Anyone remember the Treo?).

But while we can be relatively certain that the iAd will be a quality experience, the great unknown remains return on investment: Will buying iAds be worth the price? As I write, marketers are evaluating Apple’s pitch and trying to determine if it’s worth the rather steep initial price of entry. Many have already jumped in. But others are still questioning the investment.

My conclusion? If you’re an ROI driven marketer that craves certainty and are relatively risk averse, stay away. There are more unknowns than knowns in this program, at least for now. We will know a lot more in two weeks, when Apple convenes its developers’ conference, but by then, it’ll be too late to join the launch party.

However, if you’re already a savvy mobile marketer who likes to spend into innovation, or if you have inclinations that lead you to purchase a Superbowl ad, then the iAd is quite possibly tailor made for you.

Here’s what we do know about the iAd:

* Apple is in market selling iAd launch packages for $1mm or more, depending on exclusivity terms. However, several clients I spoke with claim to have gotten into the launch for the “low hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

* Apple will charge one cent per impression (a $10 CPM) and $2 per click. These charges will back into the minimums described above for the launch program.

* The iAd unit is a banner which brings a user into a rich media webview. This is not a new format, but given the iAd is exclusively this format and will be identified to consumers as an iAd, it does claim the high ground.

* At launch, Apple will execute all creative, with client oversight and approval. This will change over time.

Assuming a 1% clickthrough rate (which is a reasonable expectation, given the iAd’s relative novelty and industry standards which can range as high as 2%), the iAd will drive a “cost per engagement” of $3 – two bucks for the click, and one buck for the 100 impressions, one of which drives that click. That's a $50 CPM, comparable to what high end premium publishers charge on the web or in television.

So is that engagement worth $3? Depends on what you do with it, of course. Compared to search, where cost per clicks range from five cents to $25 or more, it’s all relative to what you are trying to accomplish with the attention you’ve just paid to capture. Of course, with search, the market is mature and lead conversion is a science. A search click can convert directly to a sale, and often does. So is an iAd worth the same?

We’ll get to that. But first…let’s talk about what we don’tknow about the iAd.

Here's that list:

* The exact data Apple is using to target. Sources tell me Apple has told them many things about which iTunes store data is used in its “targeted special sauce,” but the consensus is that Apple is using the list of apps a person has downloaded to create cohorts – IE, folks who download business applications, or lifestyle (Food, Shelter, Health and Beauty, etc.).

* Whether and how Apple consumers have been made aware of that data use. Privacy is a rather big issue at the moment, as we've learned from Facebook. I’ve pored through the iTunes Terms of Service, as well as Apple’s privacy policy, and I can’t quite figure out if it covers this data use as is. If it does, I doubt consumers are aware they are being targeted. This is a potential issue for marketers, who don’t want to be caught up in another privacy tempest. (I’ve asked Apple about this, but so far no response.)

* What inventory will be available, and on what terms. I’ve heard conflicting stories about whether iAds will be directed (IE you can select which app your ad runs on) or if it will be a blind network (where you can't). The consensus is that it will not be directed, at least not at launch. This is a very key point, given the next unknown:

* What publishers will be in the iAd network. Are they the same ones that currently run Quattro ads (Apple bought Quattro, for those just catching up.) This is a crucial question for app makers, especially premium publishers like the NYT or Conde Nast, who plan to sell their own app inventory directly. If Apple’s targeting gets too close to promising marketers that their ads can run on premium publishers’ sites (for example, if the “food” cohort insures that an advertiser runs on Conde Nast’s Epicurious app), then publishers like Conde Nast will most likely pull all their inventory from iAd. Which begs the next question:

* Will Apple have enough (of the right kind of) inventory. And what is the makeup of that inventory? Can that inventory satisfy marketers’ targeting needs? With a $3 CPE, savvy marketers are going to want very specific inventory. If I’m a consumer packaged goods giant trying to create brand preference for a particular brand of detergent, I’m probably going to want my message in front of women of a certain age and certain household income, ideally women who can be tagged as the “CHO” – Chief Household Officer. If I’m marketing a movie aimed at kids, I’ll want kids and their parents who match the movie's ideal audience. Will Apple be able to offer enough inventory that delivers ROI on these audience cohorts?

* What is the right creative given the constraints of mobile devices? While Jobs showed some pretty cool executions, the truth is that those executions are still unproven (even though they’ve been available well before Apple gift wrapped them.) There’s still a lot to learn about what works, and in what context.

* How long exclusivity will last. Apple is selling iAds as category exclusive for a short period of time, but the company seems willing to let some marketers buy longer exclusivity based on investment levels. However, my sources seem to find a consensus around a period of six weeks to two months. By early Fall, I’m told, all bets are off for exclusive deals. Which begs the question – if you can buy iAds in the Fall, why get into large commitments up front?

* Will the FTC train its sights on Apple? While the buzz is about the government’s decision to approve the Google/AdMob deal, Apple may well gain the FTC’s attention should the company slip up on privacy (see above) or make moves that effectively (or directly) eliminate third party advertising networks on Apple devices. Hence:

* Will Apple eliminate third party advertising networks on its devices? I’ve heard all manner of thinking on this issue. It’d be very Apple-like to entirely control the advertising ecosystem on i-devices – much as Comcast does on its networks, or Conde Nast does in its magazines, for instance. But as I’ve argued elsewhere, that’s not very “web-like” – and it raises questions of whether or not Apple has a responsibility, with its own devices, to allow third party ecosystems to thrive (as they currently do). Were Apple to cut off third parties, Apple would be entirely responsible for driving advertising revenue to its app developers. Should it fail to do so, it could really screw the pooch. Not to mention that the lack of third party ad networks like AdMob would limit marketers' choice and retard innovation.

Recent policy changes from Apple have raised strong speculation that the company plans to kick third parties out. Apple has not responded to my questions on this topic, though I do expect it will address this issue at its developers conference. My own take: I don't believe Apple will do this, but then again, it's not out of the realm of the possible. I am certain of one thing: If Jobs had his way, all the other networks would already be gone. Jobs may well use the privacy argument to accomplish that goal - "We're not sending your data to third party networks so as to protect you." In the current environment, such an argument could well fly.

Now, to the punchline: Is the iAd worth it, given all we do and do not know about it?

If you’re comparing apples to apples, I’d have to say the answer is no. (We’ll get to the apples to Apple comparison in a minute).

Remember, my estimated CPE is $3 for an iAd. The fact is, you can get a click which drives to an identical rich media engagement on a network like AdMob or Greystripe for up to five times less cost, on average (these figures have been provided to me by those companies). In other words, it’s a lot cheaper to experiment in other ad networks, and they won’t ask for a six- to seven-figure minimum commitment to do so.

On the other hand, $3 is, as one agency chief told me, “an entirely reasonable price to pay” for a quality engagement with the right audience. "We pay similar CPMs on television, and don't get any engagement," this person argued. If iAds is truly a premium environment, with premium audience and premium creative that drives premium engagement (and therefore, creates brand preference and/or conversion), the price is entirely reasonable. That’s the apples to Apple comparison – you can spend a lot less, but you’re not going to get the Apple magic.

To me, the question comes down to the long list of unknowns when it comes to that magic. So far, marketers don’t know much, if anything, about the targeting, inventory, or creative that will pay off those premiums. That’s an awful lot of unknowns to be writing seven figure checks against.

My recommendation? If you’re already a confident mobile marketer who is familiar with rich media creative and have a strong sense of the inventory you want, and a strong guarantee from Apple you’re going to get it, jumping into the iAd pool right now most likely makes sense. If you’re not in that camp, I’d wait till the Fall, and start experimenting now on other networks, while they can still offer you strong reach into Apple devices. One never knows how long that might last.

I love Fred's thoughts on being an entrepreneur - he backs some of the best. I don't write often here about my own experiences, but I can tell you, I certainly will, once the dust settles and I am not actively running a company. Upon reflection, I realize I've been doing this a long time. In fact, I've been starting companies since 1987, though my first real startup as a founder was in 1992. (That was Wired).

In today's post, Fred writes:

If I look back over 20+ years of entrepreneurs I've backed, the ones who were anxious and afraid of failure most certainly had worse outcomes than the ones who were agressive and confident. You simply can't be tentative in a startup. You have to go for it at every chance you get.

And if the leader of the organization is anxious, his or her fear pervades the organization. Everything comes from the top in a company. So it is best to have to have a leader who exudes confidence....So if you are starting a company or building one, face your fears and move past them. It's critically important to your company.

I agree - in the day time, at work, in front of your staff, your investors, and your partners - you must exude confidence. They are looking at you as True North - and your company is the ship sailing by that particular bearing.

But what Fred doesn't reference - though I know he is well aware of it - is what happens in the dead of night - at least for just about every successful entrepreneur I know. As dark gathers and you attempt to put the work away to steal a few hours of sleep, you are inevitably visited by questioning spectres - waking apparitions of failure dancing in the shadows of your doubt, dodging your attempts to force them into the light of reason. For more nights than I (or my wife) care to count, I've entertained and processed a thousand failure-filled scenarios, each frolicking endlessly in my mind, each disappearing as quickly as they came, unless captured, quickly and with mixed results, in scribbled notes on index cards, or, if I truly capitulate, in the gloaming of my newly awakened computer monitor.

It's enough to make you mad. But then again, this particular madness is embraced, again and again, by a certain breed, and folks like Fred keep giving us money to embrace it. Were I more devious, I'd call Fred a pusher of sorts, a dealer in madness and joy. In fact, I'm quite certain that's what he is.

I've been starting companies for a solid 18 years now, and for at least half of those years, I've been visited by these spirits nearly every single night.

May they never yield.

If you’re coming to the CM Summit in a few weeks, or if you’re just curious about the lineup and content (which is sure to drive quite a conversation in the world of marketing), you should download the CM Summit mobile app. The app provides access to speaker, attendee, agenda, and sponsor information as well as twitter and news feeds. I’ve used it in beta and it’s pretty darn slick. Check it out! (Cross posted from FM blog).

Google has fired a broadside across Apple's bow by announcing the Google Chrome Web Store, a great idea which, to my mind, has a mediocre name - one consistent with Google's ongoing struggles with branding in general. If I'm a typical consumer, I might be a bit confused by a name that 1. has "chrome" in it 2. has the word "store" but sells only apps and 3. has the word web in it - does that mean I can buy things on the web through it? Given Google's lackluster performance with Checkout and its recent closure of its Nexus One store, I'm guessing the store might get a brand makeover before it launches later this year.

Nevertheless, I'm guessing Google called it a "Web" store to highlight the difference between the web as a platform for applications, compared to the term
"App," which is almost universally intertwingled with Apple's brand.

But the concept is quite clever - Google is reminding us all that "apps" can and should run on the open web, and not just in closed, vertically integrated and controlled environments like the iPhone/Pad/Touch.

I for one hope that this new app store will flourish. Game on.

As I do every three Signals or so, here are the links for you RSS readers out there. And for all you readers trying to decipher what I'm on about, there are hints all over these roundups. Not that you're paying attention that closely, but still, the threads are there.

Tuesday Signal: Consider This

Monday Signal: The Open Book

Friday Signal: Thank God It’s Not Monday

We trigger happy blogging geeks often get in our own way. Witness this Mashable article about an important patent granted to Apple. First, thank you Mashable, for pointing out this patent.

But you miss the point!

First, the patent:

Apple has essentially patented the ability to sync actions between two or more devices. This could be something as simple as adding a to-do to my calendar on my Mac and having it automatically sent to my phone. Or I could create a list on my phone and, based on the parameters, have that list shared with my fiancé on his device.

Now the point. This is NOT about sharing contacts with a pal, or lists with your fiance, no matter how swell he might be.

This is about the Gap Scenario. Pure and simple. Think about it....

The CM Summit is three weeks away, and already I've asked for your input on four major voices in digital media and marketing: Arianna Huffington, Tony Hsieh, Tim Armstrong, and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.

Next on the hit list is Omar Hamoui, CEO of AdMob, the mobile marketing company Google recently acquired for $750 million. That acquisition hasn't gone as smoothly as Google would like - it's still under FTC review, though a decision is expected any day now. Apple Inc. also bid for AdMob, but lost, and purchased competitor Quattro Wireless instead. Apple has since integrated Quattro and launched iAds, but Google has had to sit on the sidelines and wait.

What Omar can and can't discuss will be somewhat impacted by the FTC rulings, but regardless, he can speak to the broader market, and certainly comment on Apple's recent moves. To that end, questions I'll be asking include:

- What do you make of Apple's iAds? Anything really new there? How does AdMob respond?

- Do you think Apple will create a closed network?

- What formats can you imagine coming to mobile devices beyond what we've seen so far?

- You just re- launched AdWhirl - what's the play there? What other ad products are in the works?

- What's happening with location based services and mobile marketing? How long until this is at scale? Will you be able to use Apple based data, or will that be closed to third party networks?

- What do you make of HP's entry into the market?

- You move your desk every six weeks or so. Why?

There's far more to talk about, but I want your input. What do you think I should ask Omar?

The CM Summit is now just three weeks away, I hope you can join us. We've got more than 450 folks signed up, and we'll hit our limit pretty soon, so register now...

With that in mind, fourth on our hit list of CM Summit interviews is Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman, The New York Times Co.

Arthur has led the Times for the past 13 years, and during his tenure the company has constantly innovated in digital publishing. The Times made news recently by announcing it would take a "metered" approach to pay as you go on the Times website. It was also a launch partner for Apple's iPad. Below are some of the questions I have for Arthur, I welcome your input!

(And please, help me with questions for Tim Armstrong, Arianna Huffington and Tony Hsieh! Thanks!).

- How is progress on the “metered” approach to the Times? How did you come to this decision, and where does the project stand?

- The Times and its other properties are what the industry calls “premium” publishing brands, and you make most of your marketing revenue from “premium” brand advertising. What do you make of the whole remnant/DSP/exchange model?

- Talk to me about the differentiation of a branded environment online. What makes the investment worth it for you, for your marketing partners?

- What do you make of iAds? Are they competitive to your own sales force? Will you be using them on the NYT?

- The NYT was showcased in the roll out of the iPad. Is this device going to live up to its hype? What about the rest of the “pads” out there – RIM, Android/Google, HP, etc?

- Has the Times come up with any new forms of advertising products that you can discuss?

- What lessons have you learned going digital along the way (one that comes to mind is the precursor to the metered solution, called Times Select ?)

- How is About.com doing, and how does it fit into the overall digital strategy?

So what would you like to know from Arthur Sulzberger? Leave a comment, or tweet it on #cmsummit. Thanks.

I had a good call today with Dennis Woodside, who runs North American Sales for Google, and Susan Wojcicki, who runs products. Both are long timers at Google, Susan is pretty much a llfer - she joined in 1999.

Both are joining me on stage at the CM Summit next month, a first for Google to have ad products and sales represented in one onstage interview. We had a great catchup and prep for the conversation, which I think will be enlightening.

After we hung up, I contemplated my earlier posts about Google's brand, and realized I had forgotten to talk to them about one question that's lingered in my mind for some time. In essence, it's this: "What is Google's brand to you? To your customers?" Then I imagined their response - something along the lines of "our mission hasn't changed - we're still focused on organizing the world's information, and making it universally accessible."

True - that mission certainly covers most of what Google does today (though it's a mouthful for the average consumer to grok). But then something struck me - and its name was Apple.

Allow me to explain. Earlier in the day I was in the offices of Adobe, meeting with various folks and talking business. Apple was very much on everyone's minds given Adobe had just launched its "We (Heart) Apple" and "We (Heart) Open" campaign (see my post here).

All this was stewing in my head as I contemplated Google's mission on the drive home. And it struck me - Google was born back in the late 1990s, when it seemed inevitable that everything - all the world's knowledge - was going to be on the web, eventually. It was just presumed that the web would swallow the world - and for ten years, it largely did.

But in the past year, that world has fractured, and increasingly, a new planet has emerged, one that is best represented by Apple. It's the Planet of the Apps, and while it's rich in experience, data, and information, it's largely sealed off from Google's (or anyone else's) search spiders.

This is another way of pointing out what folks have called the SplinterNet or the Fractured Web, but somehow, I found it rather poignant to think that Google's ambitious mission is, in a very real sense, threatened by Apple's approach to the world. No longer can we assume that "The Web is the World" - because increasingly, it's not.

This is due, in part, to Google's own ambition - had it stayed a pencil - just search - Apple probably would not see the company as a threat. I wondered to myself, as I drove home from San Jose, whether Apple would let a third party search engine, one that was not competing for mobile, location, commerce, media access, etc - crawl its App World and bring it out into the light?

I'm starting a dialog with folks from Apple on Friday. I'll ask. I'm guessing the answer is no, but it's worth a shot. One can dream, after all. I've been doing just that for 25 years in this industry, and I'm not going to stop now.

From the IAB release on first quarter 2010:

Internet advertising revenues in the U.S. hit $5.9 billion for the first quarter of 2010, representing a 7.5 percent increase over the same period in 2009, according to the numbers released today by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). This marks the highest first-quarter revenue level ever for the industry.

You already knew this if you read my Predictions for 2010, #9.

This campaign - focused on "Choice" - just went live across the country in major print newspapers. Intersting that Adobe chose print for the impact - Adobe recently launched CS5 entirely on digital platforms so you can't faul tthe company for zigging and zagging. There's an online component as well.

For all you RSS consumers out there wondering what I do late at night:

Thursday Signal: Still About Facebook

Weds. Signal: Facebook Losing Face?

Tuesday Signal: A Walk in the Park

Thanks for reading....

Third on our hit list of CM Summit interviews is Tim Armstrong, CEO of AOL.  

Tim has now held that title for just about a year. Lately he's taken to rallying the AOL troops with this decidedly controversial slogan: "Beat the Internet!"

If you want to find out what that's all about, how Tim's first year on the job has gone, and more, please come to the conference. And if you want me to ask your question on stage, please leave it in comments here!

(And please, help me with questions for Arianna Huffington and Tony Hsieh! Thanks!).

Readers have asked for links to the FM Signal here, and I've missed a few. So that you might stay in touch (in particular, all you 175K or so RSS readers), herewith are them links:

Tuesday Signal: A Walk in the Park You have to see the last item. Facebook is on its heels. Maybe it needs a HeelTastic(TM). See Friday....

Monday Signal: Sue Me! As Kara said, let's try to keep it civil as we sue the sh*t out of each other, and if not that, then kill each other in the markets.

Friday Signal: HeelTastic! What happens when you drink a bottle of good red and write? Read on!

(image)

We're used to buzz around Apple, and in particular, we're quite used to buzz about how Apple goes to market. CEO Steve Jobs is widely considered the greatest marketer alive, and nearly every marketer I've worked with has expressed sincere admiration for the magic the man is capable of weaving. His products are brilliant, and the cult around Jobs and his work are extraordinary.

But with iAds, Apple has moved from the business of making ads to the business of selling them. And in the past month or so, Apple's new team - folks formerly known as Quattro Wireless but now sporting brand new Apple business cards - have started making sales calls at a handful of major brands and their agencies.

These freshly minted Apple folk must feel like the won the lottery – just a few months ago, they were duking it out with ten other mobile networks, competing on price, ROI, network quality and scale, ad format, and Lord knows how many other factors. Now marketers are literally lining up to buy into the launch of Steve Jobs’ next great thing.

And that next great thing is called iAds - which Jobs, in typical fashion, introduced last month as the answer to all those mobile ads that "suck."

I guess he means what those folks from Quattro sold (and still do, by the way, under their original brand name). Because from what I can tell, there’s almost nothing new in iAd, save the wrapping paper.

Then again, wrapping paper is what takes an ordinary object and turns it into a gift, and therein lies the genius of Jobs.

You won't find anything about iAds on Apple's site (there are a few for "iAd," but if you're trying to understand what they are, you'll be disappointed). Instead, details about the program are leaking out through blogosphere speculation and reports of recent sales meetings. I’ve spoken to several folks who’ve been in those meetings, and this post, the first of a series, will be my best attempt at making sense of the iAd narrative.

And it's quite a classic tale – one most of the press is eating up. Early reports echo Jobs’ points about how iAds are different, but fail to check whether, in fact, iAds do anything particularly new.

Apple's press release reads: "iAd, Apple’s new mobile advertising platform, combines the emotion of TV ads with the interactivity of web ads. Today, when users click on mobile ads they are almost always taken out of their app to a web browser, which loads the advertiser's webpage. Users must then navigate back to their app, and it is often difficult or impossible to return to exactly where they left. iAd solves this problem by displaying full-screen video and interactive ad content without ever leaving the app, and letting users return to their app anytime they choose."

Jobs elaborated at launch, claiming that iAds would bring more "emotion" and "engagement" to what was before a noisy and crap filled environment.

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that iAds are *only* rich media experiences (once you click on a standard banner, of course). And yes, in that Apple is controlling all the creative for iAds (clients will have approvals and submit materials, but Apple alone is doing the actual development - to ensure quality control – and most likely, to maintain the mystery of iAds in general. Classic Jobs).

And yes, in that at launch, only a selected few marketers will be "allowed" to run iAds. And as has been widely reported, those brands have to pay quite a price to get into the launch portion of the program. Given the steep price tag (reportedly up to $20 million, and I'll be getting to that in a follow up piece), it's almost a certainty that the ads will be of high quality - only the most established brand marketers are going to play at this level.

So yes, the actual ads inside an iAd will be better, in general, than an “average” mobile ad experience. But then again, a Superbowl ad is generally better than an “average” television ad, ain’t it?

So…. no, there's nothing new here. Anything you can do with an iAd, I've confirmed with numerous very knowledgeable sources, you can do with AdMob or any number of other networks.

While it's true that a lot of mobile ads link to web sites, rather than to rich media experiences that keep the user inside an app, it's also true that AdMob, among others, has been using what's known as a webview (using the video friendly HTML5 standard) to deliver exactly what Jobs packaged as "new" since at least last Fall. And let’s not forget, Jobs failed to buy AdMob, which was his first choice - Google won that bidding war.

And given that AdMob has 70% reach into the iPhone/Touch/Pad world (according to the company), Apple isn't really selling anything new with iAds. In the words of one agency source who recently sat in an Apple pitch meeting: "iAds are the same thing you could get before, wrapped in a nice box with a bow on it."

Ahh…there it is: The gift. Steve Jobs’ brilliance lies in his ability to make everything seem magical. The true gift Apple is selling right now? A Golden Ticket into Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory. A chance to be associated with the greatest marketer in the history of the industry.

Think I’m kidding? Then consider this: Apple is telling marketers willing to pony up for the launch that Steve Jobs will mention their brand on stage as he launches iAds this summer. “That is worth a hell of a lot,” one agency chief told me.

That, my friends, is the bow on the box. The box itself? That’s Apple products – the environment in which the advertisers’ message will be seen. And marketers like nothing more than to be associated with quality environments.

In fact, during presentations to prospective clients, Apple’s sales force takes out an iPhone to demonstrate what iAds look like. And here’s the kicker: They unveil the phone with a flourish and utter these magic words: “This is actually Steve Jobs’ personal iPhone.”

They may as well be showing Willy Wonka's cane to a room full of children.

What Apple is selling with iAds is – Apple itself. As well they should. But they are also selling into a marketplace that, for the most part, doesn’t really understand mobile marketing. The market is still relatively small – well under a billion dollars globally this year – and major marketers have yet to embrace the format. They don’t realize that most of what Apple is pitching them can be done already.

And in the end, it doesn’t really matter. By isolating the rich media execution and claiming it as his own, Jobs has once again identified a marketing opportunity and redefined it as unique. In the process, he’s driving innovation and awareness in the mobile market. Nothing wrong with that.

But if I were a marketer considering laying out $1mm, $10mm, or more on iAds, I’d make sure I understood what my goals are.

In my next iAd-related post I’ll be focusing on just that topic: deconstructing the ROI on an iAd. Because once the launch is over, it’s all about value for money spent. And there are a lot of unanswered questions here – including publisher inventory and terms, blind vs. directed networks, targeting and terms of service for use of iTunes data, issues of third party networks, FTC regulation, and other policies, and much more. Stay tuned.

Update - I should have mentioned that there are at least two unique properties to an iAd that you can't get elsewhere - the targeting, which reportedly is based on what apps a particular user has downloaded from iTunes, and the "ViP" program, which is, in short, the ability to link directly to your app in the iTunes store. Of course, anyone can link to the iTunes store from an ad, the difference here is this is a "proprietary Apple approved link." Not sure what that means, but it should become clearer when the program is live in the wild.

Next up on the hit list of amazing conversations at CM Summit is Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, now a division of Amazon. Tony is also an author, and everyone who comes to the conference will get a copy of his new book "Delivering Happiness," which will be published the first day of the event (June 7th). Who wants to take odds that the book will do well at Amazon?  

Zappos is an extraordinary story, but so is Tony, who sold his first business to Microsoft for more than a quarter billion dollars (Tony was in his mid twenties at the time).

But the core of Tony's success lies in his philosophy around customer service, and I think all good marketers have something to learn from his story. As with Arianna, I've got tons to ask Tony, including:

- How is the new boss? Is Zappos changing Amazon, vice versa, or a bit of both? I know Zappos is retaining its brand, but do you spend much time with Amazon execs? How do the employees co-mingle, or do they at all?

- How is the supply chain integration working?
- "Are you still a little weird ?" (One of Zappos’s values is, “Create fun and a little weirdness.”)
- How big is Zappos marketing department, and how does it differ from a traditional approach?
- The Zappos Real Time Purchasing Map is pretty cool. What other real-time marketing initiatives is your team thinking of? How do you use data to drive your business?
- Tell us about the book, which you've said you wrote because "it was on your check list"... what else is on your checklist?

What do you want to hear about from Tony? Tweet it out with the #cmsummit hashtag, or leave a comment here!

Longtime readers know that as each conference I host draws near, I invite you all to help me interview the luminaries who grace our stages. We're one month out from this year's CM Summit, and the lineup is incredible.  

I'm working backwards through the keynote conversations, and the conference will end with Arianna Huffington, the founder and EIC of The Huffington Post.

Arianna's creation is now a top ten news site, has serious backing from a major private equity fund, has innovated in social media integration, and just generally become the shorthand for successful publishing in the age of the real time web.

I've got a lot to talk about with Arianna, including:

- The future of journalism: Can the Huffington Post ever compete with the newsgathering prowess of, say, the NYT? Does it need to? What models of journalism does Arianna see coming that might be different from today's?

- Revenue models: Can the Huffington Post cross into strong, consistent profitability? And how do its legions of unpaid contributors earn value from their contributions online?

- Point of View: What has made the Huffington Post so successful - is it the clear POV that the site endorses?

- Today's poliitical scene: What does Arianna make of the Tea Party movement? Of the current political climate in the US?

I could go on and on, but I'll stop and ask you to either Tweet it out with the #cmsummit hashtag or leave me a comment below, if you're so inclined. Thanks!

Over at FM blog. Thursday Signal: Take a Breath. Now Hold It.

When Bing launched, I framed the new service from Microsoft as an important step in the evolution of search:

I actually don't think Microsoft is trying to out-Google Google with Bing. I think it's trying to build a different kind of search application, one that sits on top of commodity search and helps people make decisions in a new way. Done right, this totally breaks the AdWords model that has driven search so far. To me, that is a very big step in a new direction, and one that Google cannot afford to make.

Today Google has decided it can't afford NOT to make this step, at least somewhat. The company has decided to create a left hand nav bar that pushes the service toward search as an app.

Now, when I mentioned that idea in a briefing yesterday, the Google rep I spoke to wasn't eager to confirm the concept, but to my mind, this is exactly what's going on. Bing (and Ask before it) has built a service on top of commodity search results, one that does not require you to go back and forth, back and forth, but rather instrument your search session using intelligent, persistent navigation. This is exactly what Google's new UI lets you do.

The real question, of course, comes down to money. Does this mean fewer clicks on paid ads for Google? I asked that question, and the response was telling: I'm paraphrasing, but in essence Google told me "we've found that this new approach increases the chance that users will find the information they are looking for." And in Google's parlance, ads are information.

Of course Google would never roll out such a significant UI update without rigorously testing the impact on AdWords clicks, and indeed Google confirmed to me that this is the most tested UI change Google's ever made. Indeed, the left nav bar has been seen in the wild for several years.

What's on the bar is worth grokking as well. First, "Web" has been replaced with "Everything." That's pretty meta - maybe we should change the name of the Web 2.0 Summit to the Everything 2.0 Summit - but I digress. Second, what is on the bar changes based on your search in real time. And one of the options includes "Updates" - their way of incorporating Facebook, Twitter and other real time data. A "Something Different" link gives you related searches, among many other new or consolidated features on the left nav. A full overview can be found at SEL.

Google told me that the actual underlying results - both organic SERPs as well as the ads that accompany them - have not changed. This is a new skin over Google's results, not a shift in how those results are determined. That's important, but not entirely the story.

The story is that this shift will change how we interact with Google, what our search query stream looks like, and therefore, what kind of SERPs and ads will be produced. I am certain Google has modeled this shift, and equally certain the company believes this change will impact their bottom line in a positive way. Of course, the company could be mistaken. Only future quarterly results will prove whether or not Google got it right.

What do you all make of the changes?

Devoted readers may notice I don't post here every day, and you may wonder - well what's John up to then? Well, I've created a newsletter of sorts, a daily reading list with short commentary, called Signal. It's an FM product and it lives here, at the Signal home page. Every day, I sort through hundreds of stories, most related to the Internet, media, and marketing world, and find ten or so that I find particularly noteworthy. I then annotate the links with a comment or two, and wrap the whole dealio up with a bow. You can subscribe to it as an email newsletter if you want, just put your mail up in the box on the right hand side of the page.  

I decided to do this because I wish I had such a product myself, and so far, everything I've ever made has followed that simple directive. Let me know if it works for you.

FWIW, my Monday Signal is up, and it gives you a sense of what the service is all about. Hope you like it.

From the real time search service's blog post:

Until today, we’ve been indexing the links shared on Twitter, MySpace, Digg, Delicious and by our own OneRiot panel to help determine our search results. Now, with the addition of Facebook data, OneRiot delivers search results that reflect the pulse of a much, much wider social web.

Also, the service seems a bit wary of what might come of all this:
Now, of course, we’re only showing (indeed, only have access to) data that has been shared publicly by Facebook users. A user can restrict the visibility of these Likes on their Facebook profile. However, we’d be sidestepping the issue if we didn’t recognize that some users might be concerned that stuff they have shared on Facebook can now pop up on services like ours. Given that, we are rolling out this feature as a very limited bucket test today to assess users’ reactions and gather feedback. We love the new feature. And if users do too then we’ll roll it out to everyone at an appropriate speed.

As well they should. The service can be found here.