I missed rounding up last week’s Signal, forgive me. This week is a pretty good one though, ending as it did with something of a philosophical rant around “what is government in the age of the Internet.” Enjoy.
When I read Google announcements like this one, An update to Google Social Search, I find myself wondering why Google doesn’t just come out and say something like this: “We know social search is important, and we’re working on it. However, we don’t think the solution lies in working only with Facebook, because, to be honest, we think social media is bigger than one company, one platform, or one “social graph.” We’ve got a bigger vision for what social means in the world, and here it is.”
Wouldn’t that be great?
Because honestly, I think the company does have a bigger vision, and I think it’s rooted in the idea of instrumentation and multiples of signals (as in, scores if not thousands of signals understood to be social in nature). In other words, there is not one “ring to rule them all” – there is no one monoculture of what “social” means. For now, it appears that way. Just like it appears that there’s one tablet OS. But the world won’t shake out that way – we’re far too complicated as humans to relegate our identity to a single platform. It will be distributed, nuanced, federated. And it should be instrumented and controlled by the individual. At least, I sure hope it will be.
Google might as well declare this up front and call it a strategy. In that context, it might even make sense to do further Facebook integration in the near term, as one of many signals, of course. Google already uses some limited Facebook data (scroll down), but clearly has decided to not lean in here (or can’t come to terms with Facebook around usage policies). Clearly the two companies are wary of working together. But it’s my hope that over time, whether or not they do should be a moot issue.
Why? Because I view my Facebook data as, well, mine. Now, that may not really be the case, but if it’s mine, I should be able to tell Google to use it in search, or not. That’s an instrumentation signal I should be able to choose. Just like I can chose to use my Facebook identity to log into this blog, or any number of other sites and services. It should be my choice, not Facebook’s, and not Google’s either.
Switch the control point to the customer, and this issue sort of goes away. I have a longer post in me about “social clothing” – came up on a phone call with Doc Searls yesterday – and hopefully when I get to that, this might make a bit more sense….
Google’s timing isn’t coincidental:
Google announces “Google One Pass” – “a payment system that enables publishers to set the terms for access to their digital content.”
Google doesn’t have the iPad/Phone monoculture, but it’s got reach, it’s got Android, and it’s got a better deal for media companies.
More on this shortly.
As I read this NYT story on JC Penney’s black hat link farms, I felt like I was in a way back machine – I mean, five solid pages of copy about … old school low-rent link-spam sites? Really?
I dunno, if this is news, the news is getting stale. The never-ending battle between Google and link-buying outfits is as old as search itself. The story told in the Times’ piece sheds absolutely no new light on the tale, despite leading with lines like “the digital age’s most mundane act, the Google search, often represents layer upon layer of intrigue.”
I read the piece eagerly, expecting that it would turn up a smoking gun – proof that either someone at JC Penney knowingly paid black-hat search optimizers, or proof that someone at Google knowingly looked the other way as JC Penney, a major Google advertiser, employed these tactics. Either would have been big news.
But nope, nothing like that. Just yet another story about tactics that have been around forever, and rounds of denials that anyone knowingly did anything wrong. I do find it rather odd, given how unsophisticated the tactics were, that Google didn’t catch such an obvious and widespread link farming operation, but the Times’ didn’t push into that angle, essentially giving Google a pass (citing the “Web is really big” defense).
Sure, the web is really big, but that’s pretty much the reason Google is so valuable – it figured out a way to make the web come to heel. I am surprised that Google didn’t catch this story before the Times did. There was nothing particularly sophisticated in the approach JC Penney took to get highly ranked, and it’s certainly embarrassing for Google that, in essence, all JCP had to do was hire someone to populate a few thousand spam blogs to get the job done.
I’m going to guess that more than a few folks are feeling the wrath of Larry Page today. I’d sure love to read the memo he must have sent around….
Yesterday Google unveiled “Google Weddings,” a site that ostensibly competes with what insiders in the media business understand to be a particularly lucrative niche: Bridal publications.
Magazines and websites such as Brides.com are cash cows for the likes of Conde Nast, Hearst, and others, and usually top the lists of publications with the most ad pages on an annual basis.
So when Google teams up with a major wedding planner, organizes apps and content around weddings, and even throws in a publication-style sweepstakes, I’d imagine more than a few panties got in a twist over at Conde.
I’d tell them not to worry. While it’d be fun to declare that this is the start of Google becoming a full fledged niche publisher (next up, Automotive, then Home, then Beauty!), I think the truth is, this is a marketing campaign for Google Apps – a smart way to show off the power of Google’s tools. By this time next year, I’ll wager the site will be cobwebbed, if it’s up at all.
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.”
Tuesday marks the launch of FM’s Signal conference series, where we focus on one topic, one day, in one city. For our first event, in Los Angeles, we’ve always had a great lineup, but recent events have certainly made it even more timely.
The event has been sold out since last week, but given the weekend’s news, I’ve convinced our events director to allow people to register at the door. It will probably be standing room only, but it’ll be a great show. The focus, appropriately, is on the role of content in marketing.
We’ll begin the day with Arianna Huffingon, who just last night announced the sale of the Huffington Post to AOL. Joining Arianna will be AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, who is making a surprise visit so as to outline his $315 million vision for combining the two entities. I’ve interviewed both onstage, but not together. Should be a good discussion.
We’ll then pivot into a Case Study from the newly public Demand Media, and then a conversation with Twitter co-founder Biz Stone. From there we’ll dive deeper into the content strategies of both AOL and MSN, hear Case Studies from Gatorade and Moxie Interactive, learn about some of the most promising
startups in LA, hear from YouTube on branded entertainment, and American Express on OPEN Forum.
And that’s just before lunch. When we return, we’ll hear from the CMO of Adobe, who I’ll be interviewing. After that is a Case from the irrepressible Jason Calacanis, a Case from Toyota, an overview of Intuit’s massive gamble last month (they bought out thre
e hours of prime time programming), Cases from Appsavvy,Yahoo, and Slideshare, and then a conversation with Peter Guber, a Hollywood legend who’s just coming out with another major book.
After Peter, we’ll hear a Case from Facebook, and then we’ll close with a conversation with will.i.am, who will be fresh off his Superbowl performance with the Black Eyed Peas. That’ll give us something to talk about.
Even though the event is essentially sold out (I’m told we can sell only a couple dozen tickets at the door), we are working on livestreaming it so that everyone can join the dialog. Check the FM events page for more on that later in the day.
(cross posted from FM blog)
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?
The week that was, from Egypt to “Middlemen,” a film about the rise of porn on the web. Enjoy.