John Battelle's Searchblog

Remember a couple months back when I promised you guys I'd post on this?

Well, thanks to a deal with LookSmart, I finally got a chance to write it. It's over here. From it:

But here's the rub: There's a critical difference between curation based on algorithm (Google News) and curation based on human insight (Digg or Wikipedia) - and that difference can be summed up in one word: Voice. In short, sites that allow people to be part of the curation process have voice, and sites that are driven by algorithm, don't.

No matter how hard we try, we can't come up with an algorithm that creates a truly human voice. Sure, we can mimic it, but until we solve the Turing Test, the only computer that can create a human voice is, well, a human. And when you put lots of humans together, and give them all a chance to express their voices, you get community-driven media.

Now, how does this all relate to Google Maps and Wikipedia?

In my earlier post, I said "Google Maps isn't very good." That was kind of a cheap shot, because in fact the application is great - if what you need is a Map. But the promise of Google Maps goes well beyond looking at a map - currently you can get driving and walking directions, find businesses nearby, calculate traffic delays, and the like. But it's the promise of what might be layered on top of that where things get really interesting.

This stuff is going to get real, soon. From Google's latest Technology Roundtable Series:

[This] video, "Applications of Human Language Technology," is a discussion of our enormous progress in large-scale automated translation of languages and speech recognition. Both of these technology domains are coming of age with capabilities that will truly impact what we expect of computers on a day-to-day basis. I discuss these technologies with human language technology experts Franz Josef Och, an expert in the automated translation of languages, and Mike Cohen, an expert in speech processing.

BTW, isn't it funny how so many VP level people (note the guy introducing the piece) at Google says "Google" exactly the way Larry and Sergey say it, and not at all the way most of the rest of us say it? There's this funny, compressed, geeky inflection on the "ooooo" sound.

Second up in my series of crowdsourcing the CM Summit conversations (first up was Laura Desmond) is David Rosenblatt, former CEO of Doubleclick, now a VP at Google. David is something of a DoubleClick lifer, having joined the company in 1997 and rising from tech lead to CEO of a company valued at more than $3 billion when sold to Google in 2007.

Readers of Searchblog will recall the industry charlie horse that the DBLCK deal caused - Microsoft lobbied mightily against it, US and European governments took their time approving it, everyone else went on a drunken ad network buying spree, and one could argue that the deal set the painful decline of Yahoo in motion - here was Google, taking square aim at Yahoo's one remaining stronghold - display advertising.

It's been so long since the deal was announced - a year and a half - it's easy to forget it didn't really get final approval till March of this year. The integration, in other words, is still in its first six months, and Rosenblatt took a portion of this summer off before rolling up his sleeves and getting back to work.

I've spoken to David several times since the deal closed, and like Laura, find him both candid and real - he knows Google's strengths, and he recognizes the company's weaknesses when it comes to the brand side of marketing - where DoubleClick has done the lion's share of its business. So I'll be particularly interested in his take on where Google might take its fledgling efforts in non-algorithmic media.

(To register for the CM Summit - nearly 350 already have - please head here).

My questions for David include:

- With YouTube and DoubleClick, Google's spent $5-6 billion to get into the branded display business. Yet 98% of its revenue is in AdWords/Sense. How will that bet pay off inside a corporate culture obsessed with scale and algorithms?

- Google made its brand on not owning and operating media sites. But with YouTube, Knol, Gmail, and now apps, that seems to be changing. What does that portend for branded media plays in the future?

- What is his view of Yahoo and other competitors - Microsoft, AOL?

- The Yahoo/Google deal - does it have a display element? Will it clear the antitrust hurdle?

- Many in the advertising/marketing community call Google "frenemy" (Sorrell). What do you make of this reputation?

- Display is now about a $1bb business inside Google - in other words, very small. Where will Google be in terms of share of display revenue in five years? How will it grow?

- How will DoubleClick as we know it now change and be integrated with other Google products - analytics, apps, AdWords....and how will you deal with the issues of data privacy and transparency?

- Are you seeing the effects of the economy yet?

These are the first questions from the top of my mind. What are yours?

FM's third CM Summit is just two weeks away (register here), and as I have in the past (and will with other speakers as well as folks I'll interview at Web 2), I turn to the collective intelligence of Searchblog readers to help me prepare. I'll be having conversations with Evan Williams (co-founder Twitter), Gian Fulgoni (founder Comscore), David Rosenblatt (CEO DoubleClick, now at Google) and many others.

But first up in terms of thinking out loud here is Laura Desmond, Chief Executive Officer, Starcom MediaVest Group, a unit of the Publicis Groupe. For those of you who might not follow the world of marketing too closely, SMG is one of the largest and most influential marketing services companies on the planet, its clients include Kraft, Allstate, Kellogg's, Walt Disney, GM, Coca Cola, Proctor & Gamble, RIM (Blackberry), and on and on. The company collectively controls billions of dollars of marketing spend, including a significant chunk of the monies that fuel the Internet Economy.

In other words, Laura is one Very Important Person in the world of the web, even if you've never heard of her.

Given what I do for a living, I've come to know Laura and find her extremely candid and refreshingly absent the marketing-speak that sometimes creeps into top executives' vocabulary. GIven the economy, it's an extraordinary time to have a conversation. Here are some of the topics I plan to cover:

- SMG's clients represent a comprehensive sampling of the largest marketers in the US and global economy. Given the economic crisis, what are they saying to you now about their plans for spending? Are they going to continue to shift to digital, or are they going to pause or move spend to places where they've lived in the past (IE TV, print)?

- CPG (consumer packaged goods) brands are just starting to lean into digital. What have they learned, and how far do they have to go before they view online as central to their plans, if ever?

- How has the digital world changed how agencies within SMG do their work? (This in light of my writings on CPG vs. Conversational Media, here).

- Lastly, I've asked Laura to bring examples of work done by SMG agencies. I'm looking forward to the show and tell.

But here's where you can help: What else should I be asking Laura? Chime in in the comments!

I think the business model at Twitter is going to be really, really interesting, and I think it's going to leverage search, but search as a proxy for data and pattern recognition. We get an inkling of it at Election 2008, Twitter's mashup of Tweets relating to the election, but there's a lot more to think through. First off, Twitter is using its real estate to promote its deal with Current, which is a first, from what I can tell. The "ads" are on the right, right below each users' profile. I remember covering every new pixel as the Google homepage caved to promotional reality, it's interesting to watch it happen at Twitter, too, which I think has a lot of similarities to Google in terms of potential models.

Also worth watching is the hash function, where you can tag any topic (IE #redsox, as Churbuck pointed out). This function is not likely to catch on with my mother (I can't imagine her adding hashes to her tweets, much less tweeting...yet), but what it enables certainly could. The problem is, when you create a site to pull hashed stuff out into a stream the result is often less than useful (as Churbuck noted in his post).

This is where the role of curation and editors is paramount. Voice, as Fred pointed out. There is voice in editing, voice in curation. And voice adds value. And where value is added, marketers can play, both on Twitter (imagine a cars.twitter.com, with auto advertisers on the right rail and at the top, perhaps using contextual TweetSense - yes, it's owned, by...), and off (think about a feed of contextual Tweets and TweetSense next to conversational sites like Digg and, well, millions of others, as well as sites created simply from Twitter feeds on popular hashes...).

Just a (half) thought....

PS - why isn't search.twitter.com, where you can see hash streams, even promoted on the home page of Twitter? Am I missing something, as I usually do?

That's how Fred describes Google's new blog search, a supposed "Techmeme (or Technorati or Blogs.com) - killer".

It's a very good description of Google's services.

Over at the Amex Blog we're starting a conversation about how this financial crisis effects small business. The site has given me a chance to think more deeply about what it means to run or be part of a small business - none of us here in the Valley like to think of ourselves as "small" but by nearly every definition, we are. And FM works with nearly 200 other "small" businesses. Join the conversation, we all might learn something. From my post:

...But that doesn’t mean I don’t wake up in the middle of the night, worried about what might be coming next. Many of us in the Internet industry are veterans of the last big bust - 2000-2002 - and we can still feel the pain of losing it all (as I did with the Industry Standard), or at the very least, having to cut back to the bone and wait it out. And this time, something feels different. This crisis is not limited to an overinvestment in telecom and Internet, this time our entire financial system has been brought to its knees. How can you not be worried when Congress is in an extended session to determine the best way to spend nearly a trillion dollars, money that, in fact, we don’t actually have (we’ll be borrowing it, given our national debt)?

It’s a well worn saw that as goes small business, so goes the economy. If all of us start laying off employees and cutting back expenses by a third, our economy will go into a deep funk. If, on the other hand, we all declare faith in the future and start acting accordingly, our businesses will become the engine of economic recovery.

So what do we all need to move away from fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and toward faith and optimism in the future? I’m really eager to hear your thoughts and stories. What are you doing to deal with the current economic situation? Given your business and industry, what actions do you want government to take? What stories do you have to tell about how today’s environment is changing your business outlook? Perhaps if we start to talk about this, and share our knowledge, we can start to effect change - one story at a time.

(image credit Marin IJ)
I've just posted my latest missive on the American Express Open Forum blog, where I Think Out Loud about my local hardware business, which just might be forced out of business. It's titled "Think Local, Act Conversational - It Just Might Save Your Business." From it:

Corbet’s Hardware is my neighborhood hardware store, it’s something of a local legend. Let’s see what happens when I put it into Google (I omitted the apostrophe, as most folks do).

Interesting. First up is a link from “zinsser.com”, which appears to be some kind of a shellac company (no, really, a company that makes shellac). Corbet’s probably carries their products - the Zinsser site lists its distributors - but man, what on earth is that doing being first? Clearly, Corbet’s has not exactly joined the conversation economy quite yet.

Put another way, the very first link for Corbet’s is not Corbet’s own website (the store does not seem to have one), it’s some random supplier of Corbet’s. This is not a good thing.

Second up is a very nice profile of Corbet’s in the local paper. Third is another link from the paper about the store moving. A credit to the store, for sure. But it’s not really very conversational (for more on why I think “conversational” is so important, read this).

Fourth is a link from “ziphip.com”, which looks like some kind of listings directory (or more cynically, an Adsense honeypot). Nothing really useful for a potential customer of Corbet’s - nothing conversational or particularly trustworthy.....

....But imagine, if you would, that Corbet’s had a blog, and used that blog to talk about its business. The folks at Corbet’s could post about weekly specials, tips on home improvement, best approaches to pest control, and all the stuff that brings customers into the store. Oh, and by the way, it could leverage all its built in good will to drive its customers toward the Larkspur City Council, who, in the end, will determine whether or not Corbet’s will continue as a business - if Corbet’s doesn’t get that zoning change, it can’t afford to stay open. Ouch!

Given how sparse and poorly connected the first few links for “Corbets hardware” currently are, it’s clear that such a blog would come in first, and possibly second, third, and fourth, in any Google search. Add a Twitter account, and you’re nearly guaranteed to be a major force in any web-based conversation around your business. (In fact, I’d be willing to bet that within a few weeks, this blog post may well rank in the top ten for a search about Corbet’s…).

In short, by joining the conversation, Corbet’s would get a chance to shape it. And by shaping it, it just might ensure its future. Which leads me to ask: Has your business joined the conversation? You might consider doing so, before it’s too late.

Read the whole post here...

Thanks to Adobe, who sponsored this work, I pulled together some sketches for the book I keep talking about. It's blog posts from Searchblog, a talk I gave at Cisco, work I've done for the Amex Open Forum blog (which just won a Mixx award!), with Powerpoint and video. A nice package, in fact, and I'm proud to say it all happened thanks to a sponsor. Check it out here (download will initiate). Thanks, Adobe!

Here's Boy Genius' take on the first phone to use Google's Android platform.

(image)
After seeing the clearly obvious story about texting being a bad thing to do while driving (er, no sh*t), I just had to write that headline. Sorry. I text with the best of them. I love the concept and efficiency of short messaging.

But the interface is deeply stupid. I see these commercials from carriers extolling speed texting, and think to myself - "We've already invented an incredibly efficient way to get thoughts from our brains to others - it's called speech."

Why I can't simply say to my phone: "Text Michelle" and the phone gets ready to send a note to Michelle. Then I say "Mich I'd rather hit Left Bank than Ambrosia for din love you bye" and the damn text goes to Michelle?

Say Michelle is driving. Her phone buzzes with a text. She's driving, so she says to no one in particular "Listen text". There's my voice! Is this too complicated to make happen? Please. It's not. The problem is there's simply no culture of product development and entrepreneurial thinking in Carrier World. And Carrier World, alas, still rules here in the US.

Of course there are times when you want to use your thumbs, say, when you're in a dull meeting and want to text on the sly. But the fact that you can't text with your mouth is simply unacceptable. I think it's going to change, and soon.

I missed this blog post last week from one of Google's most senior VPs of Product, Susan Wojcicki. Titled "Ad Perfect" it starts:

Google's advertising business was founded on the core principle that advertising should deliver the right information to the right person at the right time. This is very similar to our mission in search, and, like our colleagues in search, those of us on the ads team are constantly striving to achieve better results. We have hundreds of thousands of advertisers who collectively have millions of products and services, and out of that vast amount of information our goal is always to show people the best ads, the ones that are the most relevant, timely, and useful (and, from the advertiser perspective, measurable). Achieving this ideal has been difficult since the early days of ads, but now, with the Internet, it is within reach.

Then comes the nut graph:

What does it take to do this? We need to understand exactly what people are looking for, then give them exactly the information they want.

Well...sort of. Perhaps that's the formula for the perfect "ad" - but the perfect ad is, by definition, imperfect. Advertising without marketing is, well, just a call to action. Only with marketing, a practice that I think is perhaps a bit underestimated at algorithmically driven companies like Google, can companies make any advertising they might do truly valuable. One tenet of marketing FM lives by is this: Add value to the customer's experience. Sometimes you can do that by matching customer intent with a database of ads. But other times you can't - you have to understand your customer in ways that are resistant to algorithms.

More on this as I write my next piece for the Amex Blog....

Last Fall we took a big step at FM and launched our own conference series focused on the media business, in particular, the marketing piece of the media business. Called The Conversational Marketing Summit (CM Summit for short), our inaugural event was a hit - though it didn't sell out till the very last minute, leaving me a bit terrified no one would show up.

But given the speakers - Kevin Rose, Sarah Fay, Steve Hayden, The Ninjas, Suzie Reider and tons more - I should have known it'd be fine. We then repeated the event in New York this past June, and that was really a blast - we were joined by the CMO of GE, CEO of Ning, CEO of Hulu, and tons of case studies. And that one sold out early.

Now I'm proud to announce our line up for our second Fall conference, and offer SearchBlog readers a hefty discount to book. Here's a selected list of our speakers:

* Jay Adelson, CEO, Digg.com
* Miles Beckett, CEO, EQAL (that's the lonelygirl15 folks)
* John Byrne, Executive Editor, BusinessWeek
* Bill Capodanno, Director, Central Marketing, Microsoft
* Justin Curtis, VP Creative Director, Grey SF
* Laura Desmond, CEO, Starcom MediaVest Group, The Americas (brand client list to die for)
* Mark Dowley, Partner, Endeavor (if you don't know these master agents, you should)
* Rick Farman, Principal, Superfly Presents (think Bonnaroo, OutsideLands, CrowdFire....)
* Jeff Flemings, SVP/Renaissance Planning, VivaKi (think GM and a lot more...)
* Gian Fulgoni, Chairman, comScore (let's get serious about measurement, shall we?!)
* Porter Gale, VP of Marketing, Virgin America
* Seth Goldstein, CEO, socialmedia.com
* Scott Heiferman, CEO, Meetup
* Mark Rolston, Chief Creative Officer, frog design
* David Rosenblatt, Vice President, Google (the CEO of Doubleclick prior to the merger)
* Marc Ruxin, SVP, Director of Digital Strategy & Innovation, McCann WorldGroup
* Dan Scheinman, SVP & General Manager, Media Solutions Group, Cisco
* Deborah Schultz, Strategic Advisor, Social Media and Emerging Technologies (working with P&G)

* Michael Theodore, VP of Member Services,Interactive Advertising Bureau
* Joseph Turow, Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania (he'll be debating Michael, above, on privacy and advertising policy)

And we're still adding speakers. Now to the discount. Regular price for the event, which runs two full days at the lovely Golden Gate Club in SF (at left), is $1095. But I've got a code just for Searchblog readers that will get you $400 off. All you have to do to get this pricing is CLICK HERE.

It's only good till Sept. 15th, so as they say on late night TV, act now!! See you in October!

There is always a backlash against anyone calling anything the Web OS, mainly because, as folks point out quite accurately, the term "operating system" technically applies to the stack on top of PC hardware that interfaces between that hardware and a user's intentions.

Here's an example of what I mean - A Web OS? Are You Dense? In this story, the author, who I don't know but I certainly do respect, gives Arrington a ton of shit for "not knowing anything about computers." Well, color me dense because, yes, in fact, there is a Web OS, and it will be built on top of the Windows/Mac/PC OS, and that's just fine with me, because I could care less about technical purist theories of what an OS is. I don't care if it's built on top of Windows, which is a "classic OS". In fact, Windows, as I recall, was built on top of DOS for most of its career, so what does that make Windows? Not an OS? And DOS was built on top of some arcane machine language, I am sure. And we can keep dancing on the head of definitional pins, but to me....

To me, operating systems are computer-mediated realities that help us get stuff done. And to my mind, that makes Chrome an OS. A system that lets me operate sh*t. End of story.

This latest post is some sketching for a longer riff I'm eager to dig into. I love the fact that I can do sketch out loud thanks to American Express. Here's the first few grafs:

Over the past several posts I’ve been talking about the role of search, conversation, and media in your business. While not explicit, each of these posts was about one thing: Marketing.

Marketing is one of the most misunderstood practices in business today. For most of us, marketing is about convincing potential customers that our product or service is worth their money. And while that’s certainly party true, it never struck me as the whole narrative.

Where does marketing really begin? As management guru Peter Drucker stated it, “Marketing is the whole business seen from the customer’s point of view.” Put another way, every single interaction the customer has with your business can and should be seen as marketing.

I’ve argued elsewhere than a truly successful business is one that is an ongoing conversation. Those conversations are marketing – if you add value and connect to your customer, you’re succeeding. If you don’t, you fail.

It’s easy to know if you’re succeeding while having those conversations – we’re all pretty good at sensing when customers are happy as we directly interact with them. But we often forget a crucial ongoing conversation that usually occurs beyond our personal presence: The conversation between the customer and our products.

I hear you all. What is Battelle on about, all this music stuff, all this non search stuff? I am sorry, but you have to trust me, it's going somewhere. I'm following a hunch, of a sorts.

Today some bankers from Piper Jaffrey came by, and they asked me the same question I was asked by two or three reporters who were writing pieces on Google's 10th anniversary. (When is it, anyway? I am sure it's this year, depending on how you count...).

Anyway, the question is this: So what's next? What might unseat Google?

I find the question interesting, mainly for its lack of historical perspective. The answer, I think, is pretty damn easy.

No company will unseat Google (though ultimately, one company will get credit).

Culture will. Unquestionably, inevitably, Google will be surpassed by a cultural shift it will be incapable of exploiting. And that will be OK.

Why am I so certain of this? Well, history, for one. And my own experience, for the other.

Allow me to explain.

It's my theory that world-changing companies occur when one and only one thing happens: Our culture shifts its relationship to technology. It's a complex set of parameters that allow for such a shift, but it's happened three times in my professional life:

1. IBM and DOS. This is when computers became accessible to determined early adopters, and a democratized culture of digital information storage and retrieval began.

2. Microsoft and Windows. As much as I'd like to give this to Steve and the Mac OS, the winner was Gates and Windows. This is when we went from speaking the arcane language of computerese (.exe? .bat?) to the language of "hunt and poke" via a visual interface. A major step forward in how culture relates to information, and therefore, to itself.

3. Google and search. As I have argued many times, search is our latest interface to information, and it's one based on natural language, albeit typed words, rather than spoken.

So, what might be #4?

Isn't that the hundred billion dollar question?

I have (my own) pretty clear answer to that. Happy to tell you. But I have to write the post I promised here first. Damn. I really miss having the time to write....

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.

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!

Those of you following my posts around the theme of this year's Web 2 Summit already know that we're expanding the scope of the conference this year, and asking a core question: How can we apply the lessons of the Web to the world at large? From my post outlining the theme:

As we convene the fifth annual Web 2.0 Summit, our world is fraught with problems that engineers might charitably classify as NP hard—from roiling financial markets to global warming, failing healthcare systems to intractable religious wars. In short, it seems as if many of our most complex systems are reaching their limits.

It strikes us that the Web might teach us new ways to address these limits. From harnessing collective intelligence to a bias toward open systems, the Web's greatest inventions are, at their core, social movements. To that end, we're expanding our program this year to include leaders in the fields of healthcare, genetics, finance, global business, and yes, even politics.

Increasingly, the leaders of the Internet economy are turning their attention to the world outside our industry. And conversely, the best minds of our generation are turning to the Web for solutions. At the fifth annual Web 2.0 Summit, we'll endeavor to bring these groups together.

To my mind, no person better exemplifies the merging of these two worlds than former Vice President (and Nobel laureate) Al Gore, the Chairman of Current TV. Gore and CEO Joel Hyatt started Current as "a new breed of media company that works with its young adult audience to create media that informs, enriches and inspires," by integrating online and offline media, a very Web Meets World endeavor indeed. Readers may recall that Gore recently joined Kleiner Perkins as a partner focused on green issues, as well. And we are very pleased to announce that VP Gore will be joining us at the Web 2 Summit this year.

Others joining VP Gore include Elon Musk, of PayPal, Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX, Larry Brilliant, the head of the Google.org foundation, and Michael Pollan, author of many wonderful books on our relationship to food, including my favorite: The Botany of Desire. The full lineup is truly wonderful, and we're still adding speakers.

Requests for invitations can be found here, this is going to be one special event.

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