John Battelle's Searchblog

Remember when I wrote about the new "Search Stories" ads for Google's core search offerings?

In that post, I noted "It's truly a brand campaign: Google is not selling anything here other than its own brand - that ephemeral sensibility that resides between its customers' ears." Well I've got a pretty reliable source who is telling me Google plans to hit the branded advertising big leagues this Sunday - the source says Google's "Parisian Love" ad (below) will air during the third quarter of the Super Bowl.

Now that would be a true turning point for the brand - a brand that, for nearly ten years, dismissed brand advertising as a waste of money ("The last bastion of unaccountable spending in corporate America," in Eric Schmidt's words back in 2006), and built its entire fortune on turning the advertising model upside down.

I emailed folks at Google for comment today, and a spokesperson said "Watch the Super Bowl!" That ain't a no, folks. (It's not a yes, either, but...)

I can't find the ad in this lineup of SuperBowl advertisers, but I'd not be surprised if Google had asked CBS to keep their name out of the pre-game hype (my source was told Google was keeping this quiet). File this as a strong rumor for now, as I can't get a secondary confirmation - though Google's response was pretty telling.

Needless to say, I'll be Tivo'ing the game....Here's the ad.

UPDATE: After I emailed Google for comment, Eric Schmidt tweeted this out:

Can't wait to watch the Superbowl tomorrow. Be sure to watch the ads in the 3rd quarter (someone said "Hell has indeed frozen over.")

Eric, you trying to scoop my scoop?! Who ever would have thunk it?

Today is all about checking in. Not so much driven by anything in today's news, but every week or so I'll just go off based on what's on my mind - driven by the news, to be sure, but also by the bricolage of a lot of inputs over time.   

And over the past few weeks, I've been developing a thesis around the concept of "checking in." Now for those of you not playing along at home, "checking in" is the terminology for "declaring where I am and what I'm doing through mobile devices and social media platforms."

As usual, I'm a late bloomer in this new trend. I joined Foursquare, one of several check-in-based services, about a month ago. I've started checking in at work, the gym, various restaurants and local businesses. The service has a strong game element, with social capital earned for checking in, or doing more than one thing in a day, or unlocking action-based "badges," or repeat check ins over time (Foursquare makes you "Mayor" of a location if you check in there the most. Competition amongst Foursquare nerds is pretty intense for those Mayorships.)

Other services that employ checking in include GoWalla, Yelp, and MyTown. Twitter is adding location services as we speak, which is just another way of saying it'll support checking in shortly (although most check in services drive announcement tweets already).

And while it may not be clear as to why, I fully expect Google and Facebook to follow suit by enabling some kind of check-in behavior shortly.

Here's why. To my mind, checking-in is simply another use case on the evolutionary path of search. As I said in the book, each search query is a declaration of intent - you are telling that search engine what you want, and hoping the engine will return a result that satisfies that declared intention.

Checking-in is a powerful new field in the database of intentions. It is a social declaration that "I am here" and, in a more nuanced way, "I am open to appropriate responses/conversations based on the fact that I am here." Whereas search intent is clearly a request for a specific response, check-in intent is less specific - and hence more open.

I expect this to evolve quickly. I can imagine a time, and it ain't far off, when we set our mobile devices to automatically check-in at our favorite places, and expect that that check-in will reward us with localized and personalized offers, discounts, and social capital of some sort or another. Furthermore, I expect we will soon expect that if we set our device to "discovery" mode, local businesses (and random strangers too) will be able to ping us with enticements and announcements of all kinds.

Instrumentation of this new social/local/mobile reality will be initially clumsy and fraught, but not for long. The use case is simply too compelling. It's already happening in various ways - the Chipotle burrito app, the Polo store. Imagine what happens when McDonald's adopts it? Game changer.

-----

In other news:

Is Amazon Building a Superkindle? (NYT) Yes, it bought a multitouch technology company, and yes, it's going to get fun out there in ApplevsAndroidvsAdobevsAmazonLand.

Snickers Uses Social Media, SEM to Support 'Lead Spot' in Super Bowl Ads (ClickZ) More proof that social marketing is platform independent/supportive.

He Calls Google A Vampire, But Mark Cuban's Mahalo Is Doing The Sucking (SEL) Oh SNAP.

Unclear ROI Impedes Mobile Marketing (MarketingProfs) You want proof of ROI? It's coming. BTW, it's also already here in terms of higher CTRs, if that's your thing....(as anyone at AdMob or Microsoft Mobile Ads will tell you).

The IAgency: How the IPad Will Change the Advertising Business (AdAge) Or: Why We Should Emulate the Dying Publishing Industry. Yes please...do.   

Mobile Internet Market to Eclipse Desktop Internet (Brian Solis) Anyone who saw Mary Meeker at Web 2 last year already knew this but it's worth repeating...

Foursquare Plots Its Business Model (BI) Tick, tick, tick....BOOOOOM.

SlideShare Launches Channels for Businesses and Brands (Mashable)

The folks at Aardvark have posted an ambitious paper over on the 'vark blog. Titled after Brin and Page's original “Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine”, the paper presents the Aardvark engine and, in its authors' words: "describes the fundamental differences between the traditional “Library” paradigm of web search — in which answers are found in existing online content — and the new “Village” paradigm of social search — in which answers arise in conversation with the people in your network."

I have read most of the paper, which has been accepted at WWW 2010 (it reminded me of all the search papers I read in preparation for writing The Search), and found a lot worthy of interest.

First, the paper's authors, both of whom have worked at Google, clearly have a sense of potential history here, in that they not only crib Google's original paper's title, they also mirror the first line (substituting "Aardvark" for "Google", of course). Now that's some b*lls. Of course, when Larry and Sergey first presented Google, they couldn't even get their paper accepted (it took three tries, if I recall correctly. Someone should write a book about that...).

Second, it's unusual for a Valley startup to lay out its architecture and technological specs as willingly as Aardvark has. There's a lot of math in here that I couldn't parse even if I had the will to try.

Third, we learn some cool things about how Aardvark works. Check this quote out: "...unlike quality scores like PageRank [13], Aardvark’s quality score aims to measure intimacy rather than authority. And unlike the relevance scores in corpus-based search

engines, Aardvark’s relevance score aims to measure a user’s potential to answer a query, rather than a document’s existing capability to answer a query."

Also interesting: " this involves modeling a user as a content- generator, with probabilities indicating the likelihood she will likely respond to questions about given topics. Each topic in a user profile has an associated score, depending upon the confidence appropriate to the source of the topic. In addition, Aardvark learns over time which topics not to send a user questions about..."

There's a lot more like this in the paper, it's worth reading. The authors even did a test of Aardvark results against Google, with the results being something of a push (see the last page for details). Not bad for an upstart service.

Lastly, we learn a lot about the service, thanks to a number of charts, including something about Aardvark's growth, which I had not really anticipated. It's up and to the right, as you can see from the chart.

Forget the iPad, today Google is taking another step toward its stated goal of "making search more social." There's a lot of goodness in here, in terms of features and approach, but it's just silly to pretend you can do any of this without directly addressing the 400 million-person elephant in the room called Facebook. Put simply: I can't figure out if this new service uses my Facebook social graph. And to my mind, that's a problem.

From the blog post announcing the public beta of social search (first announced at Web 2 late last year):

We think there's tremendous potential for social information to improve search, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface. We're leaving a "beta" label on social results because we know there's a lot more we can do. If you want to get the most out of Social Search right away, get started by creating a Google profile, where you can add links to your other public online social services.

Indeed - a lot more, like make it really easy to use your Facebook social graph, the way tons of other sites and apps do. Why not just use Facebook Connect? Hang on a tick, the video giving us an overview of the service says once you create that Google Profile, you can add connections via Blogger, Twitter, and "any other online networks you might be a part of" (45 seconds in). Might that include Facebook?

OK dear readers, I'm going to do it. I'm gonna make a Google Profile, just to find out.... Well, I'm still a bit perplexed. You can add any URL as a "Link" in your profile, so I added my Facebook pages. However, once I got through the initial form (which was not simple - I had to fill out all the info I already did with Facebook and LinkedIn, and my own name is not available as a profile URL, not /johnbattelle, not jbattelle. Darn! I picked /johnlinwoodbattelle, so now you all know my middle name...) Er, anyway, there *was* a prompt to "Share It On Facebook" after all that...

Aha! Maybe this will get my Facebook social graph goodness into Google Social Search?

Not that I could tell. Just a simply "share on Facebook" implementation, declaring my profile to my FB pals. But no deep integration. As far as I can tell, my Facebook social graph will not inform my social searchin' on Google. As I understand it from reading previous coverage of the product, Google social search *will* leverage FriendFeed, recently purchased by Facebook. But as far as I can tell, it does not leverage Facebook proper.

And that, to my mind, is just silly. Silly in the main, because as a consumer, clear, direct, and transparent integration with Facebook would be a huge *win* for my understanding of Google's social searching. Wouldn't it? Or am I missing something? (Besides the competitive issues, of course...)

I've pinged Google and other sources to find out if I'm just deeply in the dark....

Update: Google has provided me an answer to my initial question:

"If someone links to his Facebook account from his Google profile, Social Search may surface that user's public profile page. These are the same public profile pages already available on a search of Google.com and other search engines today. While we're interested to continue expanding the comprehensiveness of Social Search, we do not currently use your Facebook connections as part of Google Social Search."

What I'd like to know then is this: Why not?

.

..at the expense of Yahoo, AOL. Google also up, though less so. Release.

I've said before that search interfaces, stuck in the command line interface of DOS, will at some point evolve into applications on top of a commodity search index. I further opined that Bing, in particular Bing's limited but compelling visual search, was just such an example: search as an interactive, rich application, as opposed to search as a list of results.  

The commodity of search results is critical, but as we shift our usage to the mobile web, the use case for a list of results weakens. Instead, as this Bizweek article points out, we're using apps. On their face, these apps don't seem like search at all. Except they are.

Take the popular iPhone app Exit Strategy, for example (at left). The app helps folks navigate the NY transit system. In essence, it consolidates a subset of search queries and answers them with a combination of domain-specific structured results and an elegant user interface. The structured dataset is the NY transit map and schedule, the UI is based on the iPhone's unique ecosystem of interface. The result: No one with this app is Googling "best route Bronx Midtown". Instead, there's an app for that.

Google can't help but see this as a threat. For nearly every structured set of results, there'll be an app for that, if there isn't already. To my mind, the question becomes one of using search to find the best apps. I wonder how Google is surfacing iPhone apps as answers to questions pertinent to destroying its own query volume? For it seems to me that a very good result for the query above, if done on Google over an iPhone, would be "Exit Strategy."

Huh. Yet another reason to lean into Android, no doubt.

....driven by the need to kick Google off the iPhone? An interesting idea. Worth thinking about....

From a Businessweek article:

Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead. Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology. Jobs might cut a deal with—gasp!—Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice, or even launch its own search engine, Yarmis says. "I fully expect [Apple] to do something in search," he adds. "If there's all these advertising dollars to be won, why would it want Google on its iPhones?"

I was stunned to learn, via Danny, that our collective tweets seem lost to eternity (or at least, to search). While the data exists, tweets can't be found via search, which means they can't be found via the search API, which means...well, they can't be found. I hope this situation is rectified, if only for history's sake.

(Danny notes that they can be found using Google or Bing, at least for now. That's a relief. But it does not bode well for Twitter's ability to scale.)

I remember the time when Sergey and Larry swore they'd never have ads on the homepage of Google. Last month I noted a big one for Chrome. Today there's an additional one. Now that's TWO ads! Google has its own products to market now, and it's using it's biggest firehose of attention to tell folks about them. Both are major new fronts in very large wars: Mobile and OS/Browser.    

How do you think this will effect its core brand?

Everyone knows Kindle is a closed development platform (IE, there's not an app environment that lets developers make the Kindle platform better). Today I saw the news that Google has doubled the number of publishing partners who are now leveraging the company's "Fast Flip" e-reader software, and it got me to thinking.  

First, Fast Flip is software that runs anywhere the web runs, including mobile apps. It has an Android and iPhone version, and I'm sure there will be a RIM version soon. And when Apple's tablet comes out, and any other ebook/netbook competitor to Kindle, I'm sure Fast Flip will be there. Fast Flip is a web native app, and it plays nice with the web, from what I can see. And Google is clearly interested, as a company, in fostering developers to build out on its various platforms, from Android to Chrome to Google's App Engine.

To my mind, this means Google is now in competition with Amazon not just for books, but for all professional publishing products. While it's true that publishers can and have developed versions for Kindle, the fact that it's not an open platform means Amazon has a chokehold on what gets to be on the device. I doubt FastFlip will ever live on the Kindle - though it'd be a win for all if it did, I imagine. And I also doubt that the Kindle, anytime soon, will work in an easy way with the web ecosystem, the way FastFlip seems to (I need to use it more, but it makes sharing and social actions easy, for example).

Another way to think about it is that both Kindle and FastFlip are operating systems for reading packaged goods content. Hence, they compete for the marketplace of people who need those services. Of course, the web is the underlying OS, but FastFlip works like a newsstand of sorts, letting you easily browse products and dive in when you want.

As I noted in my earlier Kindle rant, I find a e-reader like the Kindle ideal for reading periodicals. I wonder, might Fast Flip might steal that market away from Amazon? Might FastFlip become an OS standard on next generation e-readers, netbooks, and mobile phones? A lot depends on whether publishers feel like they can trust Google as an newsstand agent. That's an open question, to be sure.

I'm not as up to speed on this stuff as I'd like to be, so if I'm missing something, let me know.

Some background reading on all of this: (Credit, Oil, IT, and) Paper Ain't Free, So Don't Waste It.

(This piece was written for the BingTweets blog and is part of an ongoing exploration of search underwritten by Microsoft. See my series on the interplay of search and decisions here, here, and here. I wrote the piece below before today's web-wide conversation about content farms, but I think it's related. We need new frameworks for search, and real time points us toward one potential path.)

---------

The rise of real time search (just this past week, Google rolled Twitter, Facebook and Myspace data into its results) has everyone buzzing. Of course, BingTweets was the first real time mashup from a major player in search (and Microsoft has already announced its intentions to go further), but we're just at the start of where real time search might go. What might things look like a few years from now?

In my last BingTweets post (Decisions Are Never Easy) I posited the idea of a real time service that connects us to each other based on expertise. So if I wanted to talk with someone who was an expert in buying classic cars, the service would find that expert and connect me to him or her.

I think real time search is a step toward building an ecosystem that makes such a service possible. But we have to get out of our current modes of understanding search interfaces to really grok how this might work. At present, we still see search as a modal dialog box, where we type in a request, then wait for an answer. As different search interfaces develop, new opportunities arise. We've seen a fair amount of innovation in search interfaces lately (here's more on Pivot, for example), but real time data presents a significant challenge.

We can see the challenge in the companies most directly responsible for feeding data into the real time search index. Twitter recently changed its opening question from "What are you doing?" to "What's happening?" That subtle shift invited a much more robust set of potential responses to be poured into the service (and subsequently parsed by search services). And Facebook just this week announced it will make all of its members' status updates part of its universally public feed. Its question? "What's on your mind?"

I recently heard from a reliable source inside Facebook that there are 40 times more status updates daily on Facebook's network than on Twitter. That's a lot of data to parse, whether you are a search service, or a consumer of that service's product. What might it look like?

Well, start with the use case. Why might we want to query a real time search index? My first answer is simply this: To find out "what's up." Now, there are nearly endless refinements of that general concept: What's up with the smoke I can see in the mountains behind my house? What do people who bought the Palm Pre recently think of their new phone? What bands are playing in Chicago this weekend that I might like? What's up with Jahvid Best, will he play in Cal's bowl game? All of these questions are variations on the theme of "What's up?"

Given the right approach to interface, algorithms and filters, all of these queries can be answered by real time search....

(more at BingTweets....)

Paul points it out as a failed dishwasher search. Mike complains about automated content as does RWW. And we all have experienced it: The Google ecosystem is failing more - failing to get us what we think we want. Failing to not frustrate us. Failing at the more complicated queries we are throwing at it. Failing to be the Google that we came to love back when the web was small and Facebook was a way for Harvard geeks to try to get laid.

Now, Google's ecosystem is ripe for a quick buck - "content farms" that build article pages cheaply to make a quick buck off AdWords. But these articles, at least for a portion of us, don't really provide the answers we are looking for. (thanks @thejames for the pointers.)

As Paul puts it in bemoaning his fruitless attempt to use Google for a researching a dishwasher purchase:

This is, of course, merely a personal example of the drive-by damage done by keyword-driven content -- material created to be consumed like info-krill by Google's algorithms. Find some popular keywords that lead to traffic and transactions, wrap some anodyne and regularly-changing content around the keywords so Google doesn't kick you out of search results, and watch the dollars roll in as Google steers you life-support systems connected to wallets, i.e, idiot humans.

Google has become a snake that too readily consumes its own keyword tail. Identify some words that show up in profitable searches -- from appliances, to mesothelioma suits, to kayak lessons -- churn out content cheaply and regularly, and you're done. On the web, no-one knows you're a content-grinder.

The result, however, is awful.

Yes, it often is. But I'm not worried about this. Audiences always route around that which they don't want, and when something better comes along as a navigational interface, we'll pick it up, and quick. If Google doesn't figure this out, someone else will, and the cycle will repeat.

The truth is, we're asking far more complicated questions of search than we used to, and we're expecting the same magic we used to get back when the web had magnitudes of order less content. Back in 2002, when we put "dishwashers" into Google, we'd probably find someone's blog who was talking about his favorite models. Now, we have five hundred or more attempts at gaming the keyword itself, each promising a potential answer, but rarely delivering it - at least not if we have a complicated question in mind. For simple answers, content farms most likely do a fine job. But the truth is, we are not asking many simple questions of search. We're expecting a lot more.

And in the end, this is a good thing. Our expectations drive innovation, and I can sense a major breakthrough is coming. To my mind, the essential element required for that breakthrough is human in nature. We need a new framework for search, one that allows us to leverage our inherent ability to converse. And from what I can tell, it's closer than we might think.

2010 is going to be a very interesting year.

Google's real time search integration, announced at Web 2 in October, is rolling out (good coverage from SEL). It'll be integrated as "Latest results." I'll be watching how this effects the traffic referral ecosystem across the web - that's the key. Will Twitter grow? Will Google start to obviate some refers it's now sending to Facebook? Or will the opposite occur?

Google's announcement is here. NYT coverage is here.

Google has launched a "Favorite Places" program to jumpstart its local search business. I like the moxy, but the ecosystem is lacking a clear dose of "Why Should I Do This," at least from the point of view of the business. Or the customer, for that matter. The program has the same "Church lady dancing to rap" feeling that marks nearly all of Google's socially-driven products.  

If Google is serious about this space, they best buy Foursquare, pronto, and let the folks there take over.

Google today announced a new policy in its ongoing attempt to reach detente with an increasingly querulous publishing industry. (For background, read Mashable's piece).  

A key piece of the new policy has to do with changes to Google's "First Click Free" program. From Google's announcement:

One way we overcome this is through a program called First Click Free. Participating publishers allow the crawler to index their subscription content, then allow users who find one of those articles through Google News or Google Search to see the full page without requiring them to register or subscribe. The user's first click to the content is free, but when a user clicks on additional links on the site, the publisher can show a payment or registration request. First Click Free is a great way for publishers to promote their content and for users to check out a news source before deciding whether to pay. Previously, each click from a user would be treated as free. Now, we've updated the program so that publishers can limit users to no more than five pages per day without registering or subscribing. If you're a Google user, this means that you may start to see a registration page after you've clicked through to more than five articles on the website of a publisher using First Click Free in a day.

OK, I have some issues with all of this. First, why on earth do publishers need Google doing this for them? Google passes them a refer, and they can take that and do what they want with it. And they can surely create index-able "teaser pages" for their paid content as well. Publishers, stop asking Google to do the work you can and should own yourselves! Do you really need Google's help here?

But that's not what's got me scratching my head this evening. My real question comes down to the whole "First Click Free" program itself.

Google clearly created this program to appease (or OK, if you want to spin it that way, to help) the publishing industry. Now it's adding features that it says should help publishers close a loophole that is allowing Google users to get content for free.

That implies that folks are actively using Google as a tool to get free content. Is this really the case?

Perhaps, but I'd guess it's a pretty low percentage of folks who actively try to get the Wall Street Journal by repeatedly searching on Google.

The really interesting question is this: Does "First Click Free" actually deliver a decent conversion of paid customers to media companies? (Know that by traditional marketing metrics, a decent conversion is pretty damn low - IE less than one half of one percent of people who see a paid offer actually converting).

Anyone out there have an answer?

Microsoft has been kind enough to give me a limited number of invitations for readers of Searchblog to grok Pivot, which I wrote about here last week.  

In that post I promised to grok Pivot, then report back more here. Alas, Pivot is currently Windows only, and - alas - I am currently Mac only. I do have a couple of PCs in my house, but they are owned by my son and my wife, and it's fair to say I'm not eager to to use them for experimental installs. My son in particular will kill me if I touch his machine (though I'm pretty sure he's going to download Pivot before I ever do).

Anyway, those of you with a PC and a desire to check out a new approach to search, you're in luck.

Head to the Live Lab's Pivot page, and when you hit the download button, enter this code during the install process:

A1C8 7318 57F3 E92C

But hurry. This code expires after a certain number of you use it.....Tell 'em Searchblog sent ya, and please, let me know what you think. I wish I could play with it...

Update: There are some international use issues, from Gary's email explaining it:

...we think your readers are encountering another issue which is summarized with a work-around at:

  http://www.getsatisfaction.com/live_labs_pivot/topics/no_setup_internet_connection

Basically, in order to release the Pivot as early as we did, we chose to defer fully internationalizing the code. As a result, Pivot will not cooperate with a system that is non-English and non-US. However, some of our users have reported that by changing the system defaults for language and location, they have been able to successfully install and use Pivot.

I never did understand why everyone releases the "top Searches of 2009" with one month yet to go. It's as if nothing happens in December. Anyway, here are the sites:

Bing.

Yahoo.

Google.

Back when I was reporting the book, I remember a meeting I had with Gary Flake, then the lead technologist at Overture, now a Fellow at Microsoft running Live Labs, responsible for stuff like Seadragon, Photosynth, and now, Pivot, an experimental approach to large datasets that attempts to rethink some fundamental approaches to what we understand search to be today.  

Back in 2004, I asked him why we couldn't move forward in search interface, which struck me as a major issue (and still does). Gary looked at me ruefully and said something I've never forgotten: "If only I had just one modal dialog box..."

What he meant was that search, at that point, was a race for the best ten blue links, and anything that got in the way of that, like a modal dialog box that popped up and asked a refining question, would mean that a very large percentage of folks would abandon the search.

And abandonment of the search meant loss of revenue.

Google was just better at getting (approximately) the right first set of blue links, and hence, it won the first round of the search interface wars.

But things are changing. A lot.

I've notice lately that I've not been happy with search results, because, well, there's just not enough refinement in the SERPS. But it's not just the SERPS, its also the interface. I've written a lot about this, but in short, I'm frustrated with the way search does post declarative navigation. (OK, that's totally geeky, but those of you who really care probably know what I mean).

And this is why I'm grokking Pivot right now, and let me just say this....this is worth grokking. So I am going to be doing just that over the next day or so...expect more soon.

If you'd like to grok Pivot, check out this presentation. You'll need Silverlight....

You imagine something out loud in a book, and then it starts to happen....

I am sure many of you have heard of RedLaser, but I hadn't until today. I love it!

Here's the text from my blog post, written in 2004 (pre iPhone, so I used a Treo...) which I rewrote into the book:

What to do? Not to worry, you’ve got Google Mobile Shop installed on your phone. You whip out your Treo 950, the one with the infrared UPC reader installed, and you wand it over that bottle of 2001 Clos Du Val now lovingly cradled in your arms. In less than a second a set of options is presented on the phone’s screen ....

Here's the video on the app:

Danny was kind enough to ping me about this story, which breaks the news about Google's new "Dashboard," which is, in essence, a first start toward realizing the "privacy dashboard" I asked for so long ago (and again here), back when I was posting ideas like a madman (I'm going to be doing that again shortly, so watch out...).

It's a big deal I think, even if most of us never use it. And it's very smart of Google to lead here. It really had no choice, when you think about it. And it's kind of cool to see stuff I wrote about here over three years ago happen in the real world.