John Battelle's Searchblog

Tim brings up a very good point here. In short, he's worried about the second click issue, write large (yep, I just linked to myself).

I'd like to put out two guidelines for anyone adopting this "link to myself" strategy:

1. Ensure that no more than 50% of the links on any page are to yourself. (Even this number may be too high.)

2. Ensure that the pages you create at those destinations are truly more valuable to your readers than any other external link you might provide.

The web is a great example of a system that works because most sites create more value than they capture. Maybe the tragedy of the commons in its future can be averted. Maybe not. It's up to each of us.

Working on CrowdFire (sorry, I know, but it's a big deal to me), as well as Web 2 and tons of other FM stuff, and trying to not ruin my family's time on Island. So I'm going to be dark on the blog for the most part...

When Google Ad Planner came out back in June, I immediately thought of Comscore - and I was not alone. Many in the marketing industry thought that Google's product would be a "Comscore killer," and when I noted as much in my coverage, Gian Fulgoni, Comscore's chair, shot back in a comment to my post:

Hi John: Before celebrating the availability of these products from Google, I think it would be prudent for web site operators to compare their site traffic numbers as obtained from their server logs (or Google Analytics for that matter) with the unique visitor numbers that Google is now publishing through Google Trends and Ad Planner. I think they will be astonished at how much lower Google now says their traffic is.

I asked Gian to elaborate, and published the resulting interview here.

But until now, we've not had the data to back Gian's claim. I asked him if he could provide it, and to his credit, he did. The story it tells is certainly not what one might expect. (Of course, the data is from Comscore, so it must be taken as such, but remember, Comscore is a public company that stakes its reputation and its market value on data, so my gut tells me that Gian is not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.)

A bit of background: Anyone paying attention has noticed that publishers, by and large, believe Comscore's panel-based measurement system grossly underestimates traffic and unique visitors. As a publisher myself (FM represents more than 160 middle to large sized sites, including this one), I've been one of the most visible such complainants. And that list is not short. In fact, Comscore and Nielsen are both working with the Interactive Advertising Bureau (I am a board member) on an audit of their practices to verify their methodologies. (Comscore notes that it believes the issue of cookie deletion can cause significant inflation in unique visitors, for more see this release.)

Given this, the world expected that Google, with its unparalleled access to web-wide data, would validate publishers' concerns and show that Comscore's numbers were significantly under-reporting reality.

Turns out, the reverse is true. Gian provided me data comparing Google Ad Planner and ComScore data in two cases. First, for a large sample of 20,163 sites, his shop compared reporting on monthly uniques between the two services. Secondly, Gian pulled out 5,398 sites that are part of the Google Adsense ad network, and ran the same comparison.

The results are pasted in these two charts (provided to me by Comscore):

What to make of the numbers? First off, it's quite interesting to see that Comscore measures, on average, a significantly higher number of uniques across all types of sites. Comscore's numbers are three to three and a half times higher, according to Comscore.

Secondly, for sites that are using Google's Adsense network, the undercounting is not as dramatic (that's the second chart.). As Comscore's charts note, there seems to be a "significant bias in Google Ad Planner data" toward "sites that carry more ad impressions from Google."

In short: If you were a media planner using Google Ad Planner, and you were looking for larger sites, you would be led to sites that are running Google AdSense, on average, over sites that do not. Net net: This data indicates that Google Ad Planner pushes ad dollars to Google sites over non-Google sites. This makes sense - Google has data on Google users, after all. So that data might naturally bias toward Google-related sites.

But as I said in my coverage: "Such a tool must be neutral and not bias advertisers toward buying on Google properties or those that have Google ads, which of course is going to be a perceived bias in any case. Such is the price of being Very Big."

So far, not so good on this measure. As Gian and Comscore have long pointed out to me, it takes more than raw data to make for good measurement. Ideally, you weight your data with a lot more knowledge of its context - what kind of machine is creating it (work or home? Man or woman? etc.). While Google once blended Comscore demographic data into its ad network, Comscore confirmed to me that this is no longer the case. And while it is subject to endless criticism, Comscore does have a lot more practice at this game than does Google. At least for now.

This data once again raises the question, long asked, of how Google is measuring in the first place. Most believe Google must be leaning heavily on its Toolbar data (see TC for more here and Danny here), and this data does nothing to counter that argument. The strong bias toward Google network sites is suspicious - one can imagine that folks who might install the Google toolbar are clearly already biased toward visiting Google-related sites, for example.

But Google will not acknowledge any use of the Toolbar. Instead it said in its announcement: "Google Ad Planner combines information from a variety of sources, such as aggregated Google search data, opt-in anonymous Google Analytics data, opt-in external consumer panel data, and other third-party market research."

As I pointed out earlier, I don't think such coyness can stand. I've pinged folks at Google to get a response on this, and as soon as I do, I'll update this post.

UPDATE: Google has provided a statement to me:

We take the objectivity of Google Ad Planner very seriously in providing advertisers and publishers with a better understanding into online audiences. While we don't comment specifically on our data collection methods, Google Ad Planner in no way treats AdSense sites differently than non-AdSense sites.

Outside Lands is next week, and folks have been busy uploading photos, videos, and memories of great music over at the CrowdFire site. We're almost at 1000 total media objects, which is amazing. Anyone can feed the fire, which gets lit next week...help us cross into four figures!

Check it out here. And don't forget to feed the Crowdfire here. You can see shots from my Blackberry of the Wailers last night here!

The New York Times mines a very old vein.

One of the news items I missed while I was away was the launch of Google's VC business. Not sure if anyone made the connection, but Google has already been in the VC biz, though in what might be called "very late stage": They invested $1 billion in AOL back in 2005, mainly to protect the distribution that AOL provided Google (and keep it from going to Microsoft or Yahoo).

At the time, I suggested that Time Warner spin AOL out and let it go public on its own. Since then, Time Warner has managed to, well, pretty much bleed AOL out.

Yesterday, however, Google acknowledged that the investment, on its own merits, was not quite working out.

If you liked these, you'll also like this:

Here's the release. Again, feed the fire at CrowdFire here.

A month or so ago I sat down for a strategy briefing from Kevin Johnson, the then-president of Microsoft responsible for Windows and online services. I never did get around to writing what I thought of that meeting, partially due to a request from Microsoft PR that the session be on background.

I enjoyed my time with Kevin, but wondered a bit about whether his strategy, outlined somewhat in this Fortune piece, was going to be enough to sate Steve Ballmer's appetite for competing with Google.

Now we know. With Live Search, share has been lost, and with Yahoo, the deal is not closed. Here's the spin:

REDMOND, Wash. — July 23, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. today announced that the Platforms & Services Division (PSD) will be split into two groups: Windows/Windows Live and Online Services, with both groups reporting directly to CEO Steve Ballmer. Microsoft also announced that PSD President Kevin Johnson will be leaving the company. Johnson will work to ensure a smooth transition.

“Kevin has built a supremely talented organization and laid the foundation for the future success of Windows and our Online Services Business. This new structure will give us more agility and focus in two very competitive arenas,” Ballmer said. “It has been a pleasure to work with Kevin, and we wish him well in the future.”

Effective immediately, senior vice presidents Steven Sinofsky, Jon DeVaan and Bill Veghte will report directly to Ballmer to lead Windows/Windows Live. The Windows organization recently announced strong annual sales, with more than 180 million copies of Windows Vista sold globally, and it has driven more than 100 million installs of its Windows Live suite. The organization’s innovation pipeline includes a new version of Windows Internet Explorer, the next version of Windows and the next generation of the Windows Live product suite.

In the Online Services Business, Microsoft will create a new senior lead position and will conduct a search that will span internal and external candidates. In the meantime, Senior Vice President Satya Nadella will continue to lead Microsoft’s search, MSN and ad platform engineering efforts. Microsoft recently announced a strategy to redefine search through innovations in the user experience and business models. As an example, the company’s cashback search program, announced in May, is already generating strong momentum among online shoppers and advertisers.

In addition, Senior Vice President Brian McAndrews will continue to lead the Advertiser & Publisher Solutions Group (APS). APS has great momentum, having signed more than 100 new publisher deals in the past year. McAndrews will continue to focus on the display advertising opportunity for Microsoft, driving execution and integration of advertising assets, including recent acquisitions such as Massive Inc., Navic Networks, ScreenTonic SA and YaData Ltd.

“Our Windows business is firing on all cylinders,” Ballmer said. “We see tremendous opportunity in search and advertising, and we have a clear strategy for investing in success today and growth in the future.”

The headline in the Wall St. Journal.

Google Inc.'s second-quarter net income rose 35%, but the results disappointed investors and shares fell nearly 10% in after-hours trading.

Update: If you want snark, but worthy analysis, read SAI:

GEORGE REYES takes over. Grab the coffee.

AdSense DOWN sequentially. First time ever. Attributed to quality control, seasonality.
Paid clicks DOWN sequentially. Again, first time ever. Attributed to quality control, seasonality.

UK DOWN sequentially. No FOREX benefit, seasonal weakness. Again, first time ever.

Operating margin down sequentially.

Interest income down (some of the EPS miss here). Lower cash balance from DoubleClick deal, and lower yields.

Free cash flow again hammered by massive CAPEX: Up modestly sequentially, but has essentially been flat for 4 quarters.

HAL VARIAN:

Queries in many sectors weak: autos, real-estate, finance, etc. Real estate down year over year. Y/Y auto ad spend up, but not on financing side (consumers hit). Consumers cautious. This is the first time Google has acknowledged weakness. Revenue performance remarkable in light of this.

SERGEY:

Boring product details.

I've been watching the developments over the past week, and honestly feel like it's a bad tennis match - back and forth, back and forth, but no aces, no amazing backhand winners.

Here's another volley from Microsoft today:

Microsoft Sets the Record Straight

REDMOND, Wash. – July 14, 2008 - On the evening of July 12, Yahoo! Inc. released a statement relating to recent discussions involving Yahoo!, Microsoft Corporation, and Carl Icahn. Microsoft believes the statement contains inaccuracies that need to be corrected. Among other things, the enhanced proposal for an alternate search transaction that we submitted late Friday was submitted at the request of Yahoo! Chairman Roy Bostock as a result of apparent attempts by Mr. Icahn to have Microsoft and Yahoo! engage on a search transaction on terms Mr. Icahn believed Microsoft would be willing to accept and which Microsoft understands Mr. Icahn had discussed with Yahoo!.

Specifically, on Thursday afternoon, July 10, Mr. Bostock called Steve Ballmer’s office to arrange a call. On that subsequent call, Mr. Bostock told Mr. Ballmer that “with substantial guarantees on the table and an increase in the TAC (traffic acquisition cost) rate, there are the pillars of a search only deal to be done.” Mr. Bostock encouraged Mr. Ballmer to submit a new proposal to Yahoo! for a search only deal reflecting these terms.

After considering Yahoo’s request and taking into account Yahoo’s previous feedback about our prior search proposal, Microsoft determined late Friday to propose an enhanced search transaction. This proposal included significant revenue guarantees, higher TAC rates, an equity investment and an option for Yahoo! to extend the agreement over a 10 year period.
Microsoft’s proposal did not include changes to Yahoo’s governance.

At the time Microsoft submitted its enhanced proposal, Microsoft asked that Yahoo! confirm whether it would agree that the enhancements were sufficient to form the basis for the parties to engage in negotiations over the weekend on a letter of intent and more detailed term sheets. This discussion has been mischaracterized as a take it or leave it ultimatum, rather than a timetable in order to move forward to intensive negotiations. Yahoo! informed Microsoft on Saturday that it had rejected the proposal.

That's what I am, of Google's "traditional media blog," launched early this month.

Here's the feed. Here's the mission:

The recent launch of our traditional media advertising platforms enables you to advertise on TV, radio, or in newspapers. We’ve created this blog as a place for you to turn for the latest in feature launches and tips to help you run effective traditional media campaigns.

I think the idea that Google, which most "traditional" media companies fear, "helping" samesaid companies execute is going to take some....finesse. The idea of having a voice that humanizes that relationship is a good one. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

The Journal pokes a beehive about YouTube's revenue, which is not what it should be and is a real thorn for Google. In light of the Viacom case, this is very interesting stuff. Then Cuban claims the porn issue means Google will lose - it only sells ads on non porn content, meaning it's filtering, meaning it's not a safe harbor DMCA defensible play. No matter what, this is going to be landmark stuff. The funny thing is to hear Google acknowledge it has a mess on its hands as it deals with the shift from search ads to brand ads, and not just with YouTube:

Mr. Armstrong, who is 37 years old, describes Project Spaghetti as an effort to fix the plumbing behind all of Google's ad initiatives. The inefficiencies, he says, are a product of Google's rapid growth and its innovation. Streamlining the systems and developing new ad formats, he says, should eventually improve the company's bottom line.

Funny to hear it put this way at a company that the world thinks has its shit totally together. It's never like you think it is, inside. I've been writing for years about this DNA shift - from engineering company to media company. It's great to see a well reported piece really dig into it.

The ruling yesterday on the merits of Viacom's data requests is worthy of review. Ars has more here. I am preparing for a vacation and can't elaborate, but trust me on this one...

In case you missed the CM Summit in NYC and want to see what happened, there were some great moments, and they are up on the site now. Don't miss Rich Silverstein, or Beth Comstock, or all the other goodness....

MediaWeek reports:

After taking several days to digest the news, the digital media world has reached the conclusion that the launch of Google’s new media planning product isn’t likely to bring upheaval to the Web metrics business. And it probably doesn’t represent the feared first step towards total advertising—and ultimately world—domination by the search giant either.....

“They need to add so many things, it’s not even a consideration at this point,” said David Smith, CEO, Mediasmith, who pointed out that Ad Planner lacks deep demographic data and a reach/frequency function. “It’s absolutely not ready for prime time.”

True for now, but don't get comfy thinking that version 1 of this product is going to be the last version...knowing David, I bet he's watching this pretty closely.

Update: Yep, David sure is paying attention, here's his story on Ad Planner in today's Mediapost.

From Dare's blog, a posit that folks are leaving Google for Microsoft, driven by his anecdotal observations and blog post from a guy named Sergey Solyanik:

So why did I leave?

There are many things about Google that are not great, and merit improvement. There are plenty of silly politics, underperformance, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, and things that are plain stupid. I will not write about these things here because they are immaterial. I did not leave because of them. No company has achieved the status of the perfect workplace, and no one ever will.

I left because Microsoft turned out to be the right place for me.

First, I love multiple aspects of the software development process. I like engineering, but I love the business aspects no less. I can't write code for the sake of the technology alone - I need to know that the code is useful for others, and the only way to measure the usefulness is by the amount of money that the people are willing to part with to have access to my work.

Sorry open source fanatics, your world is not for me!

Google software business is divided between producing the "eye candy" - web properties that are designed to amuse and attract people - and the infrastructure required to support them.

If you have the time, and the will, read this from Adam at Fortune. It's one Yahoo employee's rant about the ongoing turmoil...and it's really, really dark humor. Really, really dark.

As someone who has, in a minor key, been through really tough times as the head of an organization that is failing, I really empathize with the leaders at Yahoo. But I completely empathize with the employees, who, in a market that is, honestly, pretty shitty, can only hold on and try to laugh a little. From the note:

As for the Google deal, HOORRAY! Now, you might be thinking that we employees - particularly those in Search - who have spent most of our waking hours trying to do battle with Google might in some way be disappointed that we are now getting into bed with the enemy. Au contraire! We love it! Nothing indicates a job well done better than outsourcing your own job to the competition. Am I right, or am I right?

Google knows it has distribution. Distribution is the key to the old school method of media success. Think cable: We have a monopoly on getting programming into homes, so you have to go through us! Therefore, we make shitloads of money. Want more examples? OK: Newspapers. And magazines. And movies. And...well, just about every packaged goods media model on earth.

Well, on the web, distribution is a sort of different deal. Some will argue it's key, others will say search has obviated the economics of distribution.

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Sure, if you have great content, search and the force of many will find it, and eventually you will end up with a Boing Boing, or an Ask a Ninja, or a Dooce or a Mashable.

But if you are from Old Hollywood, you don't want to wait for the force of many to find and validate you. Instead, you want to push your product, which you presume, because you are a beknighted Force of Hollywood, that the masses will want to see. (Gee, Mike Myers, how's that working out for you?)

So what to do?

Well, you could pay someone for distribution - Yahoo, Myspace, and AOL come to mind. Or...you could strike a deal with Google, and distribute your show through the Adsense network, which has wicked huge reach.

Yep, you read that right. I've written about this before, but the deal written up in the NYT today is probably the most high profile example yet. From the piece:

Google is experimenting with a new method of distributing original material on the Web, and some Hollywood film financiers are betting millions that the company will succeed.
In September, Seth MacFarlane, creator of “Family Guy” on television, will unveil a carefully guarded new project called “Seth MacFarlane’s Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy.” Unlike “Family Guy,” which is broadcast on Fox, this animation series will appear exclusively on the Internet.
The innovative part involves the distribution plan. Google will syndicate the program using its AdSense advertising system to thousands of Web sites that are predetermined to be gathering spots for Mr. MacFarlane’s target audience, typically young men. Instead of placing a static ad on a Web page, Google will place a “Cavalcade” video clip.

My prediction, and I could be entirely wrong here: This will fail utterly. Why do I predict this? Two reasons. One, context is everything. Until Google acts like a publisher, and works with sites specifically to place advertising that is relevant to them and integrated, Adsense is an afterthought to those sites. And second, the web is not organized top down. It's organized bottoms up. Distribution is not something you use to push shit AT people, it's something that happens when people organize TOWARD something. That's the whole point of the web, ain't it?

Now, the new "Seth MacFarlane’s Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy" show could work no matter what, if it's good. If it's good, folks will want it, and they'll click on the Google ads, as well as find it through the collective hivemind that is always created in real time around good stuff. Folks will claim the Google experiment was a hit, and start to mimic it.

But it's NEVER about distribution on the Web. It's ALWAYS about quality. The next time Google tries this, if they are not working with a hit, it will fail.