free html hit counter The Conversation Economy Archives | Page 9 of 28 | John Battelle's Search Blog

Signal Austin Conversation: Matt Mullenweg

By - March 15, 2011

I posted earlier about my conversation with Matt, from that post:

When WordPress.com was split off into the for-profit company, many were concerned it would quickly become clogged with ads, but Mullenweg and his partners have been extremely careful in how they’ve introduced marketing into the community. Experiments include FoodPress, EcoPressed, and others in partnership with my company, Federated Media, as well as one-off sponsorships with Microsoft around IE9, and some clever use of Google’s AdWords and other ad networks. Clearly media is a business WordPress will get into more, especially with the traffic and uniques it attracts (see chart at bottom).

Instead of advertising, so far WordPress has focused on tools – including a “freemium” model for key plug ins such as backup, polling, and spam protection. But as the platform has grown, it has taken a considerable amount of investment capital, and those investors will at some point demand a significant return. Furthermore, WordPress has earned the dubious honor of being large enough to become a target for hackers with less than honorable intentions (not to mention ongoing battles with black hat spammers).


Below is the conversation I had with Matt at Signal Austin.



  • Content Marquee

Signal and SXSW: What Should I Ask WordPress Founder Matt Mullenweg?

By - March 08, 2011

Screen shot 2011-03-08 at 6.34.10 PM.pngOn Thursday at Signal Austin, and then again on Friday at SXSWi, I’ll be having an onstage conversation with WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg, who continues to be the driver of the WordPress community. WordPress is a unique platform – Matt works for Automattic, a for profit company that owns the rights to the hosted version of WordPress, at wordpress.com. There’s also WordPress.org, which is an open source, not-for-profit foundation that boasts a vibrant community of developers and hackers who merrily create hacks, plugins, and any number of patches to the WordPress code.

When WordPress.com was split off into the for-profit company, many were concerned it would quickly become clogged with ads, but Mullenweg and his partners have been extremely careful in how they’ve introduced marketing into the community. Experiments include FoodPress, EcoPressed, and others in partnership with my company, Federated Media, as well as one-off sponsorships with Microsoft around IE9, and some clever use of Google’s AdWords and other ad networks. Clearly media is a business WordPress will get into more, especially with the traffic and uniques it attracts (see chart at bottom).

Instead of advertising, so far WordPress has focused on tools – including a “freemium” model for key plug ins such as backup, polling, and spam protection. But as the platform has grown, it has taken a considerable amount of investment capital, and those investors will at some point demand a significant return. Furthermore, WordPress has earned the dubious honor of being large enough to become a target for hackers with less than honorable intentions (not to mention ongoing battles with black hat spammers).

I could go on and on – I am fascinated by WordPress, as well as by the publishing platform space it inhabits. The same habitat is populated by a clutch of super interesting companies, including Tumblr, which recently surpassed WordPress in pure number of pageviews (though not engaged uniques) and of course Twitter. It’s my sense these three companies are due to run into each other in the marketplace over time, in particular as the independent web matures into a real media play (more on that another time).

But rather than have me ramble on about WordPress and Automattic, instead let me put the question to you: What would you have me ask Matt at Signal and SXSW? Please leave your questions in comments, or tweet them to me at @johnbattelle with the tag #FMSignal or #SXSW. Thanks!   

Screen shot 2011-03-08 at 6.28.50 PM.png

Austin Signal: The Program

By - March 07, 2011

SignalAustin_LogoSmall.jpg

(cross posted from the FM Blog) In just a few days I’ll be welcoming 200 or so digital marketers to Signal Austin, the second edition of FM’s Signal conference series – regional, “mini” versions of our highly-acclaimed annual New York event. Our first Signal – based in LA – focused on content marketing. I’m proud to say it was both oversold and very well received.

This week’s Signal in Austin will focus on the impact of location in marketing. Given that Austin – home to the legendary SXSW conference – is where Twitter, Foursquare, and Gowalla all broke out, I’m expecting quite a program. To that end, I wanted to give readers a bit of a “curtain raiser” on what to expect for the day. As with all our shows, the conference is limited in attendance (we thought we’d cap it at 150, but nearly 200 are already registered) but we’ll be livestreaming it and putting the audio online as well.

Signal Austin will open with our a trademark one-on-one conversation. These are my favorite part of the show, perhaps because it gives me a chance to interview such interesting characters. You never really know what’s going to happen on stage (who knew that will.i.am was going to go meta?), but I prepare quite a bit in any case.

The first conversation will be with Robert Stephens, CTO of Best Buy and founder of the Geek Squad. I love opening with Robert because one of the themes I believe is critical to marketing in the digital age is a deep understanding of the role technology plays in how a company speaks with its customer base. You simply can’t execute “customer aware marketing” without shifting how your company understands and leverages information and information technology. Robert understands this innately. And of course, nothing’s more “local” than feet on the street, literally, who touch customers in store and in their homes.

After Robert, Brady Forrest, curator of the seminal Where 2.0 location conference, will introduce the concept of “Startup Ignite”, a special version of his Ignite format that he’s bringing to Signal. Throughout the day, we’ll be hearing from early stage location-driven startups hand-picked by Brady.

Following Brady, we’ll hear about the big news from Foursquare and American Express. It was supposed to break at our show, but someone leaked it to the Journal already. Sigh. Stuff happens.

Signal will be focused mostly on case studies, so after an Ignite we’ll hear from the CEO of Loopt, with a case study around the company’s work with Virgin America. We’ll then hear news from another hot location startup, Whrrl.

Next comes our second conversation of the day, with WordPress and Automattic founder Matt Mullenweg. I’ve come to know Matt a fair bit over the past couple years and really like his point of view on things. WordPress, as most know, is the most successful and feature rich blogging platform on the market. He’ll talk about his point of view on local, as well as what’s ahead for his platform and his company.

After a break we’ll come back to hear from the CEO of GoWalla, the founder of JiWire, and the COO of SCVNGR – a murderer’s row of location-based startups, all of whom are doing real work and real marketing revenue. After another Ignite, we’ll hear a case study from Levi’s, and a unique POV on B2B from Spiceworks.

Once lunch is over, we’ll return to a conversation with Sean Finnegan, a senior marketing executive who recently took the helm as CEO of Geomentum, IPG’s hyperlocal agency with more than $2 billion in media billings a year. After Sean, we’ll hear from Microsoft, which has made local a key focus of its Bing search engine.

Andy Lark, a senior marketer from Dell, will then bend our concept of what “local” means with a case study around enterprise marketing. We’ll hear another Ignite, and then hear from the founder of SimpleGeo, another key location startup. After that we’ll hear from American Eagle, Yelp, and Archrival, which will present youth-focused research.

As we head toward the home stretch, we’ll hear from sponsor HP, which has made location a key part of not only its marketing, but its product strategy as well. After HP we’ll hear from Pepsi, then our final Ignite. Marc Ruxin, a pal and key man at Universal McCann, will lament the “death of touch”, and we’ll round out the day with a conversation with Marissa Mayer, who heads up location for Google.

Not bad for one day!

If you can’t make it to Signal Austin, make sure to visit the event page this Thursday. We’ll post the live link there for you.

A special thanks to all the staff and sponsors who make Signal possible. It’s really amazing to work with you all….

Live blogging Eric Schmidt at the IAB Annual Leadership Meeting

By - February 27, 2011

eric-schmidt-web-20.jpgI’m one of the four hosts of this year’s IAB conference, and kicking off the event is a keynote from Google’s Eric Schmidt. I’ll be updating this post as he speaks, so stay tuned….

Eric is wearing a vneck sweater and looks quite dapper. Executive Chairmanship agrees with him (not that I know anything about that…).

Eric starts by hitting “Morning Joe” who said that computers are “cold companions.” Eric says he’s wrong. “Computers do what computers do best, humans do what humans do best.” A “net win for humanity.”

Cites “Speak to Tweet” wrt Egypt, Ushahidi as examples.

Turns attention to advertising. Avg. American spends about a third of their media time online. Kids will be always online. Media will mean digital media. Smart phones surpassed PCs two weeks ago. “Mobile first.” Build first for them, then worry about web.

(So far, this is stuff we’ve heard from Eric before…)

Here’s something new: Mobile searches spiked 200% for Chrysler during Sbowl, only 48% on PCs. Interesting. Union of mobile devices and advertising is big…”especially display.” Current size ad market $26billion, 9 of which is online display (US). Eric says he thinks display can be $200bb globally.

It’s too complicated to get a campaign up, that’s limiting growth to that $200bb number…we can automate this.

Need to address measurement (no sh*t!) and give more choice/control to all parties (indeed)

Three bets: 1. Everything is changing. Our intuition about future is linear, but IT grows exponentially. The new online advertising model is real time, iterative, not press the button and see what happens in the week, it occurs live.

He notes Chrome is growing as fast as Twitter, and Android has beaten iPhone “and it looks like that will continue.”

Eric is now promoting ad networks (adsense) as good for publishers. And onepass, payment for content…

We’ve never fundamentally solved the problem of “mass engagement” in this medium. Need to … does not go into really how.

Now talking about hyperlocal…phones and tablets are perfect for this. Ex: RadioShack does this with mobile…pushing NFC as solution for closed loop. Agree this is a big deal.

Now Eric is pretty much talking “The Gap Scenario” … we’ve spent 20 years getting there and we’re nearly there now…

Eric is now talking near future world scenario: Computers are very good at remembering things, they remember you don’t…you’re never lost. You can predict where you might want to go. And with statistical translation, it’s good for the world.

“The computer can help me.” You’re never lonely, you’re never bored….computers can connect you to others….you’re never out of ideas, always something new to learn…

“What I like most about this future is the biz of information has always been the biz of elites….but our vision covers everyone…”

End of main speech, now to Q&A

QA time. Martin N. of NYT asks about “native apps” closed v. open – Eric does not like “closed apps” (IE Apple..) No kidding…Closed has worked because it’s simple, works well, easier to work with. But ultimately the world wants more choice and more openness. Ultimately scale wins. Apps should be able to know what container they are in and then optimize to that container…sounds like Java then Flash, no?!

Question about DSPs which I admit I missed….but had to do with Google’s position as both a DSP and an ad exchange/network. Eric said he was not going to become a monopoly.

Question: From Dave M. Simulmedia: What about TV? What about TV? Eric talks about ads product (tvads) and Google TV, which he said is “controversial”. Said that TV industry is mad that Google is taking “dumb TV and making it smart”. Indeed….

Q: privacy…”industry has to get our act together fast.” Goog working on this. Concerned abt early govt. reg. b4 innov. plays out

Q: M&A: We have been acquiring a lot of small companies very quickly.

Q: How long till we get to $200bb in display online? Eric says it’s going to be faster than we think…5-10 years

And he’s off…

will.i.am at Signal LA

By - February 10, 2011

I’ve interviewed will.i.am before, but this conversation at Signal LA earlier in the week was my favorite of the day. will.i.am is a remarkable thinker and as you can see from our conversation, he’s much, much more than “just a musician.”

File Under: Metaservices, The Rise Of

By - February 04, 2011

memolane.png

I’m beta testing a new service called Memolane, which collects the breadcrumbs we drop around the web (from Foursquare, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, RSS, etc) and visualizes them as a timeline. It’s not fair for me to review the service at this point – I’ll save that for later. Rather, I’m interested in what it augurs: The rise of metaservices.

The problem/opportunity addressed by metaservices has been worked to death by folks far smarter than I – in particular by well-intentioned developers looking to create better standards for services to share data. But so far solutions have failed to address the market opportunity. I think this is going to change, in the main, because we’ll demand it does.

Let me step back and describe the problem. In short, heavy users of the web depend on scores – sometimes hundreds – of services, all of which work wonderfully for their particular purpose (eBay for auctions, Google for search, OpenTable for restaurant reservations, etc). But these services simply don’t communicate with each other, nor collaborate in a fashion that creates a robust or evolving ecosystem.

The rise of the app economy exacerbates the problem – most apps live in their own closed world, sharing data sparingly, if at all. And while many have suggested that Facebook’s open social graph can help untangle the problem, in fact it only makes it worse, as Fred put it in a recent post (which sparked this Thinking Out Loud session for me):

The people I want to follow on Etsy are not the same people I want to follow on Twitter. The people I want to follow on Svpply are not my Facebook friends. I don’t want to sharemy Foursquare checkins with everyone on Twitter and Facebook.

Like nearly all of us, Fred’s got a social graph instrumentation problem and a service data-sharing problem. Here’s what he suggests:

I would like to be able to run these people through all my social graphs on other services (not just Facebook and Twitter) and also my phone contacts and my emails to help me filter them and quickly add those people if I think they would make the social experience on the specific service useful to me.

When you break it down, what Fred is asking is this:

1. That each service he uses will make the data that he creates available to any other service with which he wishes to share.

2. That each service he uses be capable of leveraging that data.

For that to happen, every app, every site, and every service needs to be more than just an application or a content directory. It needs to be a platform, capable of negotiating ongoing relationships with other platforms on behalf of its customers in real time. This, of course, is what Facebook does already. Soon, I believe, every single service of scale will work in a similar fashion.

When you think about a world in which this idea comes true, all sorts of new services become possible: Metaservices, services which couldn’t exist unless they had the oxygen of other services’ datastreams to consume. At present, I can’t really think of any such services that are currently at scale. (I can think of some promising stuff in early stages – Memolane and Percolate come to mind.)

Sure, tons of services use Facebook connect to leverage our social graph. But that’s a half step. So is authorizing or logging into a site via Twitter. Solves a simple problem, but doesn’t add much value beyond that.

But I’ve noticed a trend of late. While a year ago I’d only see a “service connection” happen between an app and Facebook or Twitter, lately I’ve noticed such connections happening all over the place – with LinkedIn, Google, Foursquare, and many others. I think it’s only a matter of time – and not much of it – before we have a “metaservice” hit on our hands – an entirely new and delightful service that curates our digital lives and adds value above the level of a single site.

Perhaps it’s already out there. What have you seen that qualifies as a metaservice today?   

Remember Googlezon?

By - January 25, 2011

Screen shot 2011-01-25 at 9.08.24 PM.png

Lately I’ve become a bit obsessed with predicting the future. Not the present future, as in one year from now – I do that every year, after all. But the long-ish future, as in ten to twenty years out. That kind of a time horizon is tantalizing, because it’s within the reach of our reason – if only we play the right trends out, and anticipate new ones that could defensibly emerge.

I’ve often found that predicting the future is a waste of time, but reporting the future is a worthy endeavor. More on that in another post, but I learned this distinction from my mentors an co-founders at Wired back in the early 1990s.

Late last year the Economist asked me to predict what the world might be like in 2036. When they asked, I of course said yes, because heck, it’s very rare for anyone to get a byline in the Economist (most pieces run without credit). I think my predictions were OK, but I have to say I can’t defend them with any kind of rigorous framework.

Screen shot 2011-01-25 at 9.07.48 PM.png

Over the past week or so, however, an idea has grown inside my mind, and I can’t shake it. I spend a lot of time thinking about where this Internet Economy is going, and I’ve grown tired of the short view. I’m itching for a wider vista, for a time frame that spans years, if not decades. Most of the blogs, news outlets, and pundits I read day-to-day are stuck in the short now. I want to think more about the long future.

So I’ve started looking for predictions that spanned at least a decade. And of course the first one that came to mind was EPIC 2014. I remember covering this short film in 2004, when it first came out. It caused quite a stir back then, because the scenario it painted seemed so…possible. And given that it was predicting events an entire decade later, it had a certain whiff of science fiction to it. We want to believe in science fiction – after all, it’s nothing more than proof that the future is already here, just unevenly distributed.

EPIC 2014 focused on one thread of our ever-changing Internet Economy – our relationship to media. Some six-plus years of heady change later, I wondered, how does it hold up? And what can we learn from watching it now, just a few years from its predictive date of 2014?

Well, depending on how you grade it, it’s either an utter failure, or pretty smart, given the constraints of the time.

Remember, after all, that in late 2004, Facebook didn’t really exist. Certainly the idea of the “social graph” was years from cultural currency. Twitter was utterly foreign. EPIC 2014 is interesting for the assumptions it makes, and what it got right, and what it got wrong. Here are few choice ones:

- The New York Times “goes offline.” This seemed vaguely possible only a year ago. Now, the Times seems quite a bit more healthy, and it’s certainly not going anywhere soon. In fact, most news outlets look to the Times as forging a new model for news, one that just might work.

- Google buys Tivo. Nope, but damn, I bet many wish they had. This assumes Google wants to be a really good interface to TV. Apparently, no one at Google got that memo, yet. Because all I have heard about Google TV is that the interface is way, way too hard to understand.

- Microsoft responds to Google by buying Friendster and creating “social news.” If only! That might have saved Friendster, if only for a year or two. But the thinking that social news would be really important was prescient. Microsoft would create this social news service by 2007, EPIC predicted. Well, the company did a major deal with Digg in early 08. How did *that* work out, eh?!

- Google will create a service called “Google Grid” – a smart prediction of cloud computing; with “subscriptions” to “editors” who add value to the grid. This presages Twitter and Tumblr, or the rise of social editors and supernodes, as I’ve written previously.

- Google and Amazon would join forces, with Amazon lending its recommendation smarts, and Google lending its grid computing. Oddly, Amazon is now the leader in cloud, with Google a close second. And so far, Google and Amazon haven’t become real partners, in fact, if anything they are poised to be mortal enemies given the fight over media distribution coming with Kindle, Android, Google TV, and Amazon’s streaming media ambitions.

Overall, what I find fascinating about EPIC is how it got the overarching trends right, in the main, but the timeline and the details, while supporting a compelling narrative, were utterly wrong. Yes, the cloud is coming, but man, it ain’t gonna take over the world in a mere five or six years! Yes, social news and social editing will be critical, but NO, the winners of the current day – Google, Amazon, and Microsoft – would NOT rule that world. Totally new and unpredictable startups – Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr – own that space now. And in the meantime, a shooting star – Digg – came, flamed, and went!

All in all, I love EPIC 2014 just for the fact that it was made. Here and below is a link, again, to the video, this time on YouTube, which, of course, didn’t exist when EPIC was made.

I love the Internet.

The InterDependent Web

By - January 23, 2011

When I wrote Identity and The Independent Web last Fall, I was sketching out the beginnings of what I sense was an important distinction in how we consume the web. This distinction turned on one simple concept: Dependency.

Of course, the post itself was nearly 2500 words in length and wandered into all sorts of poorly lit alleys, so one could be forgiven for not easily drawing that conclusion. But since that Thinking Out Loud session, I’ve continued to ponder this distinction, and I’ve found it’s become a quite useful framing tool for understanding the web.

So here’s another attempt at defining one corner of the “Independent Web,” as distinct from the “Dependent Web.” In my original piece, I state:

The Dependent Web is dominated by companies that deliver services, content and advertising based on who that service believes you to be: What you see on these sites “depends” on their proprietary model of your identity, including what you’ve done in the past, what you’re doing right now, what “cohorts” you might fall into based on third- or first-party data and algorithms, and any number of other robust signals.

The Independent Web, for the most part, does not shift its content or services based on who you are.

Yahoo, for example, will show you one of a possible 38,000 home pages, depending on who Yahoo believes you to be. Yahoo Mail (or any other mail, for that matter), is an utterly dependent service: it will only show you your mail (we hope). Facebook, of course, creates an entirely different experience for you than it does for me, because what Facebook shows us depends on who Facebook thinks we are. And search, in general, is a dependent service – what you see as results depends both on what you input as a query, as well as who the search service believes you are (personalized search).

And while I believe this idea of a dependent service being defined as “one that changes depending on its profile of you” is important, this isn’t the only feature that distinguishes Independent sites from Dependent ones.

Another way to understand the distinction is that Dependent sites tend to be ones we, well, depend on for some basic service in our lives. You might depend on Yahoo or Google for mail. We depend on Facebook for our social graph, and Twitter for our “interest graph.” Of course we depend on Google (or Bing) for search. And I’m starting to depend on StumbleUpon to surface sites I might like.

In fact, most of us “depend” on Dependent-web services to discover independent sites – a fact we may as well call “the interdependence of the independent and dependent web.”

Whew. We employ both kinds of sites, and each type depends on the other for value. What would Google be without the billion points of independent light out the rest of the web?

Not much, to my mind, and I think that’s essentially the point of both Fred’s call out today (see his piece on The Independent Web) as well as his partner Albert’s advice to Larry Page.

The funny thing is, Dependent web sites crave the dollars that big marketers spend on branding, but their services don’t complement brands, in the main. Yet up until recently, brands haven’t have many other places to spend their dollars online (brands love scale), so they’ve spent them at large dependent web services, and, in the main, bemoaned their comparative weakness to television. Yahoo Mail is a famously terrible place to put brand advertising. Google is a direct marketing machine, but it’s not a great environment for brands. Brands love Twitter and Facebook, but are still trying to figure out how to leverage those services at scale – Facebook’s “engagement ads” are not exactly brand friendly, though they can serve as great distribution for a branded story somewhere else (same for Twitter’s promoted services).

So where does that brand story live? My answer: On the Independent web.

Consider the sub-category of “content” on the web. It’s a very large part of what makes the web, the web – millions of “content sites,” ranging from the smallest blog to ESPN.com. Most of these sites don’t change what they show us depending on who they think we are. So does the “independent/dependent/interdependent” framework help us distinguish anything interesting here?

I think it does. To me, an independent content site is one driven by a sense of shared passion around a subject or a voice, one that a consumer independently chooses to visit and engage with.

Publishers pay close attention to what visitors choose to do independently on our sites – we covet “repeat visitors,” “high engagement,” and “low bounce rates.” Do visitors come back independently, or do we, as publishers, depend on acquiring one-time traffic from SEO, SMO, or other “tricks”? Once visitors come via a dependent service like search or social or StumbleUpon, do they independently elect to consume more than just the one page they’ve landed on?

When it comes to “engagement”, dependent sites tend to have more of it, at least if you are measuring in user minutes. Folks stay on Facebook for a long, long time. Twitter users go back over and over again, especially power users. The average Google user goes back again and again. Most of Yahoo’s engagement is in mail – take mail out of Yahoo, and Yahoo would lose a huge chunk of its user minutes.

But there’s a big difference between engagement on a dependent site, and engagement on an independent site. And in a word, that difference is what makes a brand.

When we engage with content, we engage with a shared narrative – a new story is told, an old story is retold or re-interpreted. And that shared narrative shifts what we believe and how we see the world. We are in the space of shared symbols – brands – and it is in this space that marketers can tell their stories and shift our perceptions.

I’m fascinated by how brands can leverage Dependent services in conjunction with the Independent web, and if there’s one conclusion I’ve come to, it’s this: Brands must be robust actors in the Independent web, underwriting its ecosystem and participating in its ongoing creation and curation. It’s not enough to “have a presence in Facebook” or “do an upfront with Yahoo and Google.” Brands must also engage where ideas and narratives are born and shaped – and learn to join the Independent web.

Sure, that idea is self-serving – FM’s tagline is “powering the best of the Independent web, at scale.” But that doesn’t mean we don’t love us some Dependent web services. We’ve been pioneers in working with all kinds of great services, from Digg in 2006 to Facebook Platform in 2007; Twitter in 2008 to Foursquare in 2010. If you’re going to succeed as a publisher or a brand on the web, you need to work with both. They’re interdependent, and wonderfully so.

Some might argue that you never need to leave a particular service or domain – that you can “get all you need” in one place. I certainly hope not. That sounds like a movie we’ve seen before, and don’t need to watch again.