Twitter Trends 2009 Vs Facebook Trends 2009

When Twitter came up with Trends of 2009, Facebook came up with Memology of 2009. I thought it will be an interesting thing to take a comparative look at both.

Before Facebook and Twitter, we had Google and Google Trend was the only way to understand what the world was thinking about. Google Trends were based on what people searched for. Of course that had its limitation, especially because you searched for what was on your mind only when you wanted to find out more about what was on your mind. Facebook and Twitter trends allow you to take a closer look at what the world is thinking because we usually talk about and share and RT what is on our mind. Search comes after we talk about it. This way I find Facebook and Twitter Trends more appealing than Google Trends, if you are going to base some of your advertising decisions based on what trends on the internet.

Again, a closer look at Twitter Trends and Facebook Memology reveals one key thing for advertisers. We are looking at two different types of markets when we are looking at Facebook and Twitter. Facebook Memology makes it sound like we are looking at a hoard of teenagers who will have to cajole their parents to buy the things they want to buy. How else can you explain FML trending only during exams and Mondays and still making it to the second rank on Memology? I think the Facebook Memology perfectly explains TechCrunch’s  stand on how Game Developers on Facebook dupe kids into using their parents’ cell phone to buy what they call Game Currency. Only games survive on Facebook because only kids use Facebook. Twitter, on the other hand, I think is about a mixed market. Every thing from Iran Election to Michael Jackson to American Idol to Harry Potter trended there. And this means you are talking about an audience that has the power to purchase and an audience that has the power to make their parents purchase at one single place, tweeting and retweeting! What more would an advertiser need?

Another interesting thing I noticed is that Twitter Trended on Facebook while Facebook Didn’t on Twitter. I am not sure if this was a purposeful omission by Twitter. If it was not a purposeful omission or filtering, guys at Facebook must be really concerned.

Adsense on You Tube: How is it going to help?

Google is finally opening up Adsense for You Tube Users. So far, monetizing content was the privilege of a few. From now on, Google will let the owners of popular videos join the Adsense Programme and make some money out of it. What are the implications of such a move?

People say Google is struggling to make good money out of You Tube, though it is a very popular web service. People watch You Tube Videos a lot more times than any other video site in the world, to the extend of forcing Microsoft host their Jingle Video Contest on it. Yet, it seems, You Tube fails to deliver in terms of dollars.

I can understand why people want to watch videos on You Tube - it is entertaining. But it is not enough that the videos are entertaining to make some good bucks out of it. Let me tell you why I think so! There are only two reasons as I can see why people would want to upload content on You Tube. Let me explain - there are only two kinds of videos on You Tube. One, personal videos that you want your friends and family to watch. Two, promotional videos or videos that are advertisements themselves. So people upload videos only for personal reasons or because they want to promote their brand. What does this lead to? This is a serious limitation.

Pay-per-click Advertising survives only if people have reasons to click on the links. The most legitimate reason to click an advertisement is the interest of the person who clicks, in the product. Now, imagine that you are watching a home video that I produced because you are my friend. Let us say, the video is on how my dog eats food. And Contextual Advertising would probably put an advertisement on Dog Food along with the video. I am damn sure no one would click that advertisement. Because people who watch that video are going to watch it not because they want to know more about Dog Food, but because they know me and they are curious to know what I'm up to. If I am lucky, the video will become viral and a few more people would watch it. They too would watch it not because they are interested in Dog Food, but because they are curious to know what is happening. No wonder Google makes no money out of You Tube.

Talk about promotional video content. Watching such stuff usually takes us to other sites, if I am interested in what I am watching. And there again Google loses out in the game as in the You Tube Model, Video is much more important than anything else on the site.

And here comes Google with this cool idea - let users monetize their videos. Probably the JK Wedding Dance inspired the idea. Which ever way, all of us are going to gain from this decision. How? Look at the key to this idea - Google is going to let only the publishers of popular content monetize their videos. Some people say Google is doing this because they are worried they can not monetize all the content on You Tube. Some are so worried about how advertisers will have to put up with sponsoring things they do not want to sponsor. But I am not worried about anything. I look at this decision as an opportunity for publishers to make good money out of what they post. I am sure in the days to come You Tube is going to be more than just personal videos and promotional videos. I'm sure You Tube is going to see more quality content as publishers compete to make videos that make people watch. I am sure people are going to come back and watch videos and click on the advertisements because they are interested in what they are watching and advertisements will hopefully cater to their interests. And I'm sure slowly You Tube will become another research tool as more quality content is going to show up.

After Thought: Now we know one reason why Google bought ON2. I'm waiting for the rest of the reasons to surface.

Net Leeches: How good or bad is phenomenon dependence?

There are hundreds of companies that build their business model around the most popular IT Phenomenons of the time. You must have come across Web Services that claim to enhance your Twitter Experience. You must have come across websites and blogs, including techedIN, that run only 'Ads by Google' There are developers who develop only for Facebook. I would like to call them Net Leeches and I would like to call what they do 'phenomenon dependence'

Over the years, all of us have come to understand that trends on Internet are like water bubbles. They can burst any time. And if they don't burst, like Google haven't, these trends can suddenly change their policies not to suit what you are doing.

Very recently, I hope you have heard about a URL Shortening company going down the drains because they have built their entire business model around Twitter. Of course, on Popular Demand, it is back again. But I'm sure they are running it with out any economic gain. They are just running it because they don't want the URL to get into the hands of 'bad' people. It is sad that such a popular web service had to think of closing down because of their phenomenon dependence. It is interesting to note that their decision to close made people who use their services panic.

I have come across many blogs talking about search engine optimization and the way Google blacklist websites and services that they don't like. I have read their ever growing rant about how 'evil is Google' because they don't show up in the first page of search result. Why do Google usually blacklist sites? Do they have the right to blacklist sites? I think they do because they make it clear when and how they blacklist a site. It is the fault of the leech sites that they decided to depend on the phenomenon.

You must also have heard about the Netscape Founder funding a project that builds a browser that is specifically made to access Facebook. IT Experts are already wondering how it can help him? This is phenomenon dependence and may have only a short term success, even if it does succeed. And I wonder why the man who made Netscape wants to be a Net Leech!

This is what I think of phenomenon dependence and Net Leeches:

1. There is something popular online and the Net Leeches come up with quick solutions to make the maximum out of that phenomenon. But what if all of a sudden the phenomenon dies?
2. What if the company that created the phenomenon changes their policies and cuts off the Net Leech? Like Apple did to Google Voice? Or Twitter did to Trim?
3. What if all of a sudden there is another phenomenon on-line and the leech cannot quickly change directions to make the most out of the new wave as they have a phenomenon dependent audience.
4. What if the Phenomenon Company comes up with a product similar to what is floated by the Net Leech Company? 

I wish Net Leeches would find a way to stand on their own and let the phenomenon company take care of enhancing their own user experiences. This way, web can see a lot more innovation! Like Trim decided to kill their URL Shortening Service and go to greener pastures. That was a late decision of course. Better late than never, isn't it? I wish all Net Leeches would follow suit!

A battle of Links is on!

Arnon Mishkin wrote "The Falacy of the Link Economy" on PaidConetent.org, adding fuel to the fire that News Sites are already in. With Murdoch announcing his plans to turn all his News Sites into paid ones, the News Sites were severely criticized for not being capable of adapting to the changing needs of the Internet Era. And Arnon's post as a reaction to the demand by Associate Press and the likes for News Aggregation Sites to pay to link worsened the criticism further.

From Google News to Huffington Post, News Aggregation and Syndication Sites are aplenty. And Arnon claims to have done a study of these Aggregators. He claims he found out the following:

The vast majority of the value gets captured by aggregators linking and scraping rather than by the news organizations that get linked and scraped. We did a study of traffic on several sites that aggregate purely a menu of news stories. In all cases, there was at least twice as much traffic on the home page as there were clicks going to the stories that were on it. In other words, a very large share of the people who were visiting the site were merely browsing to read headlines rather than using the aggregation page to decide what they wanted to read in detail. Obviously, this has major ramifications for content creators’ ability to grow ad revenue, as the main benefit of added traffic is the potential for higher CPMs. (Disclosure: I have consulted for the AP and other content creators, though not on this particular issue.)

 If Arnon learned from his study that aggregators hinder the growth of News Sites, there is something seriously wrong with his method of study. I use Aggregators to keep in touch with the world as I do not have time to go and look at every News Site around. Aggregators bring the news to me and if I find something I'm interested in, I click on the link given and go read the full story. I repeat, 'if I'm interested in". Or if it is something that really matters to me. News Sites can't force me into reading any crap they write as they used to do when News Paper was the source of information. Remember those days when you had to buy the whole newspaper just to read on or two stories you were interested in. I don't buy newspapers any more. With  Aggregators around, I get to choose what I read. Contrary to what Arnon suggests, I click on the link and go to the site to read the whole story as I don't get the full picture from the Aggregator. Aggregators give me the headline and the first one or two lines of the story.

I think Agrregators add value to a link. But what that link leads to is for the News Sites to decide. If they don't have anything that will take me to their site, I won't go there for sure. I don't see the point in blaming the Aggregators for the incapability of News Sites to provide quality [interesting and worth reading!] content.

Whatever, the battle of linking is on! If News Sites are going to seriously consider the three suggestions Arnon makes in his post, then the present Aggregators are doomed. They either have to pay for the content and links they use or they may have to run advertisements from the original content developers on the Aggregator Sites.

All said and done, I still can't see Arnon's point. If his theory of Aggregators stealing traffic from News Sites holds water, then even if all the News Sites come together and create an Aggregator of their own, as he suggests, things will be pretty same. The new Aggregator will have all the traffic and News Sites will have none, unless they improve content.

I think the issue with the News Sites is about how the package information. On-line Versions of News Papers look pretty like the News Paper it self. Many News paper Sites have E-versions of their Printed Versions. I think that was such a bad idea to digitize the printed versions of news paper. If only they could spend that money to make locally relevant content available. If only they could use that money to allow users to set their preferences so that they get what they usually read. If only they could spent some money to make their headlines more catchy. If only they could use that money to promote citizen journalism. If only they could use that money to convert their News Sites into News Services. I wish!

Crisis Phobia and "The Top 100 Search Terms Queried by Kids"

I remember a Professor of mine who used to always call our attention to the 'crisis phobea' some writers try to spread. I don't know if you have ever noticed some writers going about their job as though the world is going to end if you don't listen to them. I remembered my Professor and his long lectures on the perpetrators of crisis phobia when I read OnlineFamily.Norton's list of  top 100 terms kids search on-line.

Top 100 Search Terms Queried by Kids? Do you know what they are? There is everything from YouTube to Google to Face Book to Michael Jackson to Pokemon to you name what you consider popular with kids on net and they are there! Take a look at it and at first it appears to be a very innocent list. But wait a second! Is it as innocent as Norton is trying to sound?

There are some search terms in the list  that can be very disturbing where parents are concerned. Sex is fourth in the list. Porn is sixth in the list. And at least four more 'taboo' words occur on the list. And the write up does not mention the age levels of the children who would have searched these words while they were surfing. It simply gives you a general list of 100 search terms and of course a note to many of them in case parents sat wondering what they were.

Norton claims that they tracked down 3.5 million searches and a search term had to be submitted at least 50 times to qualify as a 'kids' top search term.' See how they are trying to validate their findings in the best way possible. And Norton says [See the crisis words stressed using inverted comas]:

According to OnlineFamily.Norton, kids’ top 100 search terms include sites like YouTube, eBay and Craigslist, as well as social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. The words “sex” and “porn” also made it to the top, ranking number four and six respectively.

And one clearly understands that the post target parents as there are explanations to most of the search terms used. Why did they do it? Of course we know - they have this OneFamily Child Protection, Net Filtering Software to sell. Yah, the one like China's Green Dam. And this report shows us even they can keep track of what you are doing with your PC, like Green Dam.

Please don't get me wrong! I do not endorse children visiting pornographic sites. I do not endorse adults visiting pornographic sites even. Because most of these sites spread malware, viruses and spyware. It is not healthy for your computer if you visit them. And to make sure that your personal information like passwords and credit card number are safe, you need to make sure that spyware and malware do not infest your PC or MAC. And I know kids sometimes tend to visit such sites out of curiosity and in turn gets the computer affected. And perhaps, it is good to have a Site Filtering System on your computer.

However, that does not justify the the way Norton has tried to scare poor parents into buying their software. [Ya, it is free now! But what about later?] It does not justify their attempt to generalize search terms and make it look like 'kids are as pervert as adults' I would not have bothered if they gave a reference to the age level of children. But they have made the list look like every kid from a toddler to a teenager needs to be closely watched like police watches a suspect, every time they go on-line. I can not agree with the idea that they collect user data [which is personal] and publish it on-line and try to make that a selling point!

Print Screen Image from Norton's Site

Twibbon: Is it just about wearing a badge?

Now doubt Twitter is becoming a phenomenon on-line. And the number of sites that survive because of Twitter are increasing. Earlier I wrote about Twitterfeed, a service that allow you to post your feeds automatically to your Twitter Page. Another one I recently came across is Twibbon. Twibbon is about wearing a badge to show off your affiliation. But is Twibbon only about wearing a badge?

The habit of wearing an E-badge is becoming very popular these days. There are sites that force you to wear a badge to show your affiliation. There a badge is nothing more than a reciprocal link. You link me because I linked you is bad on-line attitude.



Twibbon takes E-badges to a new level. People wear a badge to support a cause. IE6 Must Die was a cause that many Twitter users supported and made popular that it trended on Twitter for a long time. When the King of Pop passed away, people who mourned the sad demise wore a black badge on their profile and Jackson trended on Twitter like never before. Along with the Badge, Twibbon sends out a tweet on the person wearing the badge. It is actually a link to the location of the badge so that other people can come and claim a badge for their profile if they care. It is viral, viral and viral all the way.

I am always of the opinion that Internet is more about marketing than 'information' Of course it is a good way to gather and process information. But it is more about companies gathering information about what people are looking for when. No wonder why most of the services online, like search and social networking, come free of cost to the users.

Twibbon is another way of finding out what people are interested in, when. Twibbon lets you take a closer look at 'what people want', a degree higher than search engines, because people wear a badge usually because they are emotionally attached to something. And I am happy that they don't keep that information to themselves like most of the search engine companies do.

In short, Twibbon, like What the Trend is a great market research tool. I think it can go a long way by helping marketing wiz kids to formulate their strategies. Internet is mostly about Attention Economy now. And Twibbon is only about that.

Photo from Twibbon

The USAA Example: Online Banking takes another step forward!

It has been a while now since banking moved on-line and went almost mobile. Most of the banks in India give us options to do on-line transactions and use our mobile phones to keep track of what is happening with the accounts. With a bank in USA moving ahead and permitting customers to deposit their checks on-line, using their iPhones, I think it is another step forward. I feel, since banks are trying everything they can to make banking a more comfortable experience for account holders, this is soon going to come to India too. So if it comes to Indian Banks, it means you don't have to apply for a casual leave to go to the bank and sit in the queue to deposit a check.

How is this on-line check depositing done? Here, I have got this video from the bank in question, as posted on YouTube and it explains how it is done:


I am happy that core banking services are moving more on-line. And economics experts are right, in a way the global economic melt down is for good reasons. We are going to see a lot of customer centric innovations happening at every level.

But I am not happy with the fact that it is first launched on iPhone. Why? Because, lately Apple is acting very strange and stifling innovations. It took Google Voice away from its store and thus denied American users an opportunity to save a few pennies on phone calls. I know that businesses are not run for charity. But my point is, denying an opportunity to save something during this huge economic meltdown is an economic crime and Apple has done that. Now,I feel, nothing innovative should be first launched on Apple  here after. Apple should be the last one to get a taste of the innovations by other people because of their stone age policies about promoting innovations on-line.

Happy News Bloggers: Mr. Murdoch will charge for online content from next year!

Rupert Murdoch is an old man now. 78 years old. As an old man, may be he has lost that spark which saw him rise to the position of the media emperor he is today. Perhaps, that is the reason why he has announced the most uncharming business decision of his career the day before yesterday- a decision to make all his news sites available only to users who pay, from next year.

He said, :"Quality journalism is not cheap,..The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."

You should read people's reaction to that. Many reacted as though, it is not a big deal and they consider News Corps news sites as crap. Most of them said they don't care as they are not going to pay to read his sites anyway. News Analysers sounded very disappointed that a person like Murdoch took such a naive decision. Stories ran on blogs and technology review sites on how this decision is all about News Corps digging its own grave. Journalists are wondering how and why this is too risky for nothing. One reviewer even went to the extent of saying only Apple can save newspapers.

Is Murdoch serious about what he said or was he just testing the waters? True, his business ventures reported a net loss of $ 3.4 Billion this fiscal year. True, recession is at its best and on-line advertisement revenue is dipping. True, Wall Street Journal, a paid news site from Murdoch is doing relatively well and has users paying to read news. But, is he serious? Or was he, as I said, just testing the waters? Or, was it just a sudden outburst of frustration? May be, it was all the three put together.

Why do I say that? I think Murdoch is missing a key point here. On-line content is just a tool. I don't believe that Internet is all about Information. Internet is about advertisements. Certain products are just tools to sell certain other products. Why do Google let me search for free? Why does Google or Wordpress permit me to upload content on my blog for free? Why do social communities allow me in for free? Why are there many sites that give me many of their services for free? Why are open source applications free? Why is the news free, after all? I think these things are free because they want me to stick around as long as possible. You stick around so that you buy something, sooner or later.

 This is not a new business model. In India we have temples and churches organizing festivals around their theme of worship. They spend a lot of money, organizing a fare, staging plays or other performances by professional artists etc. These religious festivals last for five to ten days. The plays or other performances go well into midnights. You don't pay anything to watch a play during the festival. Why do they do it for free? Because, they know that people who come to the festival will visit the temple or church to pray. But the few coins they offer when they pray is not the target! People come to these festivals to set up stalls that sell from glass bangles to kitchenware. They pay lovely loads of cash to people who run the temple or church as rent for these five to ten days. In fact, there are groups of people in India, who travel from one festival spot to another and make a decent living!

To me, Internet sounds like a temple or church festival. And people who make content available or provide spaces for people to meet are like the Temple or Church Committee Members. They run the show. Sites like Murdoch's or Google's or Facebook's or Twitter's are these plays or performances staged during this Big Bang Festival called Internet. People come to the festival, because these performances are for free. And as they come, some of them, sooner or later most of them, will buy from the people who set up stalls in Google's or Murdoch's or Facebook's or Twitter's premises.

What happens if Murdoch makes his sites 'pay-per-click' as he says? May be there are going to be people who are willing to pay like there are people to read Wall Street Journal. But imagine the number of people who would have read Wall Street Journal, if it was available for free?

And if Murdoch is going to hide his content behind the 'paywalls', what about those people who hit the search engines for anything and everything? Google, Bing and Yahoo! If they won't have traces of Murdoch's Sites, won't he disappear from the minds of people gradually? This is why I said, Murdoch's announcement is happy news to Bloggers.

I am sure he will not hide all his content behind the paywalls. He will float enough summary of news stories around to make sure that he is on search engines. May be he will enter into deals with Search Engines to make sure that he is there, when people search. But even then,, it is happy news for bloggers!

Experts say that about 90% of his traffic will die because of this decision. Let Murdoch take his ten percent! Where will the rest go? The rest will trun to sites that make content available for free. I think, if Murdoch will implement his decision, there is going to be an increase in traffic to blogs we have around. Is this not happy news bloggers?

Image from Wikipedia

Google buying On2: What difference does it make?

Yesterday, in a Press Release Google and On2 announced that Google is finally acquiring On2 Technologies Inc., a leading developer of video compression technology. On2 is about 'creating and delivering high quality video over IP networks." Google is also about Youtube, we know. And it is a $ 106. 5 million deal they say. 'Each outstanding share of On2 common stock will be converted into $0.60 worth of Google class A common stock in a stock-for-stock transaction,' according to the Press Release. What difference is it going to make, if Google acquires On2?

Now, experts say the game is all about video codecs. Video codes enable video compression and On2 makes them. VP6, VP 7 etc are high defenition, high quality video codecs, developed by On2, used in Adobe Flash Player, Web2.0, VoIP, mobile video and other embedded devices.. But at present, VP6 and VP7 are losing out in the game to H.264, which comes under GNU General Public License. That means H.264 comes under free licence and people have the freedom to modify and distribute it. VP6 is a licensed codec and expects companies to pay a licence fee every year. VP6 of course is about quality videos. And people hope and pray that Google makes it open source.

What happens if Google makes VP6 open source?

1. Companies like Adobe,AOL, Skype, Nokia, XM Satellite Radio, Sony, Yamaha, TI, LSI Logic, Analog Devices, VideoEgg, Brightcove, Cox, Naver.com (Korea), Daum (Korea), Tencent(China) etc, who are already using VP6 will continue using it and building on it for free, without having to pay licence fee to On2. This means they come back to use the more superior VP6 and we can forget H.264. Quality of videos across platforms will improve.
2. HTML5 is on the way and it will enable browsers to handle videos without the help of plugins like Flash Player or Silverlight. This will help developers stop bothering about a lot of software compatiability issues. It will also help users save a lot of hard drive space, as plugins need not be downloaded.  
3. Mobile phone users will be able to send their MMS Videos to other mobile phones, without the fear of losing quality.   
4. People who do Video Conferencing using Webcams can then start thinking about videos that are viewable and not distorted as they are these days. 

Google can go ahead and not open source On2 video codecs at all. What happens then? Apple has its QuickTime. Microsoft has its Silverlight. Adobe has its Flash. And Google has what it takes to give them the foundation - VP6 and VP7. This means, at one point or the other, these biggies will end up paying licence fees to Google. This sale was a smart move, wasn't it?

JK Wedding Entrance Dance: How a wedding video helped to sell a forgotten song!

"I now pronounce you monetized." The Official Google Blog ran a post on 30 July 2009 on the Wedding Video posted by TheKheinz  on 19 July 2009. Why did they do so? Apparantly, the video had more than a million views on YouTube. The right holder of the Video claimed it and started selling the track through ITunes and Amazon. They started running Click-to-Buy Advertisements on the Video which helped the viewers to opt to buy the track. And the track got listed on the top five downloads of both the sites overnight.

There are people who are bothered about the fact that the owner of the song is not paying anything to Jill and Kevin for making the song "Forever" by Chris Brown popular. I do agree with them. Jill and Kevin are the reasons why the song became popular and earned dollars for the 'monetizer'. A percentage of the profit should have gone to Jill and Kevin.

However, I don't see Jill and Kevin is bothered about that. They are smarter people. They launched a website  and are using that website to raise funds for a Charity. They write on their site:

We hope to direct this positivity to a good cause. Due to the circumstances surrounding the song in our wedding video, we have chosen the Sheila Wellstone Institute. 

I don't know how much they got selling Chris Brown's song. I don't know how much the JK Site could raise for Shelia Wellstone Institute. But I would like to say, this is phenomenal.

When Yahoo gives in to Microsoft!

This was the talk of the town for the last six months - the Yahoo! Microsoft Deal! And finally it is done. Yahoo sells its user share in search to Microsoft for 88% of commission on advertisements sold on search results through Yahoo! Together they make 28% of market share in search, way lower than Google 65%.

In a few days from now, after the US Government approves the deal, you will see Bing on Yahoo! Both Steve Ballmer and Carol Bartz seem to be very happy about the deal and the notion of taking on the Search Giant, Google. I read the Bio of Carol and found that she was the lady who turned Autodesk around and made it into a profit making company. And I also understand that Steve lived Microsoft his entire career. Both are capable people. But I am wondering, what good can come out of Microsoft Yahoo Alliance!

28% in user share is not good enough to beat Google right now. But Yahoo and Microsoft can now focus more on their core competencies. Microsoft can focus on Improving Search. Yahoo can focus on their Social Networking Ideas. I think we are going to see a new era of Internet Search and Social Networking, as this alliance grows for the next ten years.

And I also think we are going to hear more from Google. In an attempt to strengthen their hold on the market, I hope they are going to come up with more search features.

Page Hunt: Microsoft tries to get Human Computation Service for Free!

Microsoft is trying all that it can to make Bing popular. The latest from its arsenal is Page Hunt. Some say it is a 'clever' twist on 'human computation', meaning to say it is a twist on Google and their Quality Raters. It seems that Google employs people to rate the Search Results it generates and now Microsoft and their Raman Chandrashekhar have come up with Page Hunt [Is the name another twist on Google's Page Rank?] to help Bing rate Search Results.

For starters, Page Hunt is a game! I don't know if you can call it a game or getting your work done by someone else free of cost!

Microsoft says:

This Game is like search in reverse: you are shown a web page which you have to hunt down using queries sent to Live Search.

 Now, the idea is very simple. When you go to the Page Hunt page, you are shown a web page. All that you got to do is type the keyword you will use to reach the page shown to you and hit Bing! If you use one of the most popular keywords used by Bing Users to reach the page in question, you get points. If you don't, you don't get points. Which ever way Microsoft gets what it wants! It will know what key word you will use to reach the page in question.

I tried the Game and let me tell you it was quiet boring. To me it looked more like work than play. Now, helping Microsoft fine tune their Search Engine is serious work. I think they should consider paying people for doing that. After all none of their products are given for free to users and even if they give it free of cost, they do so because they have a competitor. I am sure if Google were ran by Microsoft, we would be paying to use it. Now that Google is there, Microsoft offers Bing for free. And everyone knows that is done with a hope of capturing the on-line advertisement market. The better the search results on Bing, Microsoft hopes that more people will start using it and that means more income from 'sponsored links.' Since Bing is about Revenue Generation, it is not fair that Microsoft seeks to fine tune their search results for free. They should be paying the Page Hunt Users like Google pays its Quality Raters.

Off the Topic 1: As I was reading Microsoft's write-up on Page Hunt on Raman's page, I found Page Hunt connected to Live Search and not Bing. [On Page Hunt Page I see Bing and not Live Search] Is Microsoft still confused if it is Live Search or Bing they go for?

Off the Topic 2: I am just wondering, is not 'Human Computation' equal to fooling people? All the while I was thinking Google Search is completely automated and I was always amazed at this. And now that I know it is human beings who are weeding out bad results, Google's Search Technology does not sound great any more? On the contrary, please read what signor john wrote in reply to a stub that doubted Google's Search Technology:

GoogleGuy (when he used to hang out here) once explained that quality evaluators are used for benchmarking purposes. In other words, the 10,000 evaluators aren't there to weed out sites per se; their job is to help train Google's "black box" by identifying examples of sites that need weeding.

As for why Google would have to keep creating new filters at this stage of the game, I'd say it's because:

1) Search technology doesn't stand still.

2) SEO doesn't stand still, either. 

mGinger: Do they have the right model?

So the next time a popular television show host asks “Kaun Banega Crorepati?” it wouldn’t be wrong to say mGinger Users 

 The mGinger Guys wrote on their blog, announcing that they have so far distributed "1 Crore and 35 Lakhs" [13.5 Million? Correct me if I am wrong!] to its users. Yeh, that is a huge lot of money! They also claim that they have more than 2 million users!

I remembered joining a site that offered to pay me to read SMS Advertisements on my cell phone a few days ago as I was thinking of what to write on techedIN. That was way back in 2007. I wanted to see if the site still existed. I had forgotten what my user id and password were. I sought mGinger's help to mail me my user id and password and logged in. I remembered two of my friends who joined me up on invite. They were still there and that was it! My 'Network' has not grown beyond that. I clicked on the 'Earnings' Tab to see what I have earned so far, for the two years I have joined and forgotten mGinger. Gosh, I have earned 34.85 INR. Not so bad I thought! Not so bad for all these days of inactivity!

I remember mGinger starting up and I think it was one of my friends who had invited me to join in. I did, out of curiosity, then! I never believed a word of what they said. I knew I was not going to become a millionaire joining a site that paid me to read SMS.I don't believe that I am going to, even now! But I like the way mGinger persisted.

When I joined, mGinger was just a start-up. It was all about two or three friends joining hands together to try something that was unconvetional in India, then. And even as I joined, I liked the fact that they never made any lofty promises to the aspiring millionaires. They stated in plain and simple language that, as they are a start up they could not promise that members would start earning from day one. But, I remember them saying, as days go by and the network grows advertisers would see the point and use mGinger as a marketing tool and then things would change!

I think things have changed now. Right from day one, I could see people trusting what the mGinger Guys said.  They gained the confidence of users by calling a spade a spade. I think, from what I see on the site and the way people still respond to their blogs, they were successful in maintaining the trust people had in them.

Why am I talking about mGinger now? I am talking about mGinger not just because I want people to join in. I am talking about them because I am impressed to see that now they are talking about 'spicing up your mobile' than plainly asking you to join in to get paid to read advertisement. They started off blending two marketing models that were prevalent then: One, get paid to read advertisements, where you had to click on links that a site gave you to get paid. Two, the 'chain business' where you made people join to get paid. I think now they have one more option for people who join in, in their kity. They have these SMS Discount Coupon Offer, an adaptation of Google Coupons I guess, where you can download the coupons on your cell phone and avail discounts.

I am not still sure how far this 'get paid to read ads' work. Because I don't see many advertisements directed to me from mGinger on a given day. If I am some one who does marketing, I won't approach a company that pays the people to read the ads that I send. Yeah, you are right - they send advertisements based on interest categories. But that is not enough to convince the businessman in me!

If I were mGinger I would do the following:

1. Drop the 'get paid to read ads' model or restrict the interest categories people can choose. The way it is now, I can choose all the interest categories mindlessly, even if I am not interested in knowing about any of them. 
2. Hold on to the 'get paid to get people join' model and increase the incentives
3. Promote the Discount SMS Coupon thing! [I think they are doing that. Because I see a lot of coupons on their site!]

My point is: members trust mGinger Guys. But do the marketing wiz kids trust their model? Because, at the end of the day advertising is [not just about brand awareness] all about how many people buy what you are advertising! If it is about sustaining growth, the number of people and businesses who use their SMS Model is as important as the number of members!

The Economics of Attention: What is the trend now?

It was Google Trends who gave a new meaning to the word 'trend' on the Internet. It was about what the world was searching. It was Google's effort to assist the advertisers to make their decision during the keyword auctions for Adwords. Google sold contextual keywords to advertisers to run Adword Campaigns, one of the most innovative and successful advertising models ever. They have Search Based Keyword Tool that helps advertisers decide keywords for their campaign, based on actual search queries. And I think Google Trends added value to this by showing advertisers which keywords were searched the most. Perhaps, the price of the keywords went up depending on the trend,helping Google boost the Adword Sales.

'Trend' is now the Twitter Word. It is more about 'trending' now than about 'trend'. If 'Trend' was about what the world searched, 'trending' is about what the world is buzzing. Google Trend was about what the world searched during a day and was usually consolidated by the end of the day. But 'Trending' is about seconds! We see that trends change every second.

In 2007, Richard MacManus wrote about "10 Future Web Trends". The fifth possible trend he mentioned was "Attention Economy". There he mentioned a write-up by Alex Iskold, on Attention Economy. In the write-up Alex explored a proposition by Herbert Simon:

Herbert Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:"...in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it" (Simon 1971, p. 40-41).

Alex said that 'key ingredient in the attention game is relevancy' and what is relevant this second may not be relevant in the next as the attention span of people is really narrowing down. People 'skim' more than they 'read'. And he also explained how we are soon going to live in an 'Attention Market Place", where the customer gets to choose what he is going to look at and buy. I think the time has arrived. And Twitter Trending and What the Trend? are signs of our time. You must have already noticed that what trends on Twitter during the first half of the day does not trend during the second half.

So far it was about plain and direct 'Contextual Marketing.' Advertisements were placed based on what people searched and what people read. I think contextual marketing has come of age. As predicted by Alex, we are moving from the idea of static 'web sites' to the idea of ever changing and people participatory 'web services'. Marketing also needs to focus on what people say as they focus on what people search and read. It is more about word-of-mouth marketing, or what they call viral marketing. In other words, marketing needs to focus on where people's attention is. I think it is here a Web Service like What the Trend? or Fad.ly becomes relevant.

What the Trend? looks at what people are looking at and talking about, mostly on Twitter. It also gives you an idea about latest photos and latest news on a trending topic. One good thing about 'What the Trend?' is the fact that it gives us an idea about when the trend trended for the first time and when it trended for the last time. It also gives a space for people to say why the trend is trending. But at present it gives you only a limited picture when it comes to what is the trend elsewhere.

If you have the 'whole World Wide Web'in mind, I think fad.ly is more evolved when it comes to conceptualizing 'trending'. It claims that it was launched to become a central location for real time fads on web. Now, that is a little more comforting than 'What the trend?'s' idea of trending. But the discomforting part of the story is that when it comes to trending, even fad.ly focuses on what happens on twitter than elsewhere. Sure it has provided spaces to pull links to news, photographs and videos relevant to the topic. However, they rarely have a link to give us as it is mostly about what is trending on Twitter and not necessarily about what is trending on the World Wide Web.

I think viral marketing wiz kids can use these tools to design their campaigns 'Attention Economy' focused. I also hope someone big enough to take "What the Trend?" to the next level takes notice of Matt Mayer or Fad.ly. I would love to see what is 'trending' every second on the whole 'World Wide Web' and not just Twitter.! Till that happens, I am afraid, Google Trend is the only reliable tool marketing people are going to have to decide what drives their campaigns.

Three Reasons why your Website should Social Network!

I see an increase in the number of sites [that belong to firms and popular personalities] tweeting away to glory or having a Facebook account, lately. I also see many of them having a verified twitter account. From White House, [Yeh, your own American White House I am talking about] to Oprah, they all have verified twitter accounts. This again shows me how it mutually helps people to market themselves, both the social networks in question and the people who create an account on them.

Both Twitter and Facebook give you an opportunity to create personalized URLs. How does it help you? It helps you become visible. Most of the searches on Google about people and companies can lead one to both Twitter URLs and Facebook URLs. This visibility of course depends on how often you update your status and how often people click on your profile. Both Twitter and Facebook give you an opportunity to link your site to your profile. You can link your Facebook or Twitter Profiles to your site and show people that you regularly update your status and I guess this makes a lot of them feel that you love to be in touch with them. Even otherwise, Twitter and Facebook are growing crazy in terms of popularity and it is good to be on them. And it helps the business be noticed.

I am sure we are living at a time when direct and plain advertising, especially on web, pisses off people. I see no reason why Google permits image and video ads these days. I see no reason why Facebook makes the advertisements look like it comes from them and is a part of the entire package, trying to pretend that it is giving you what you want. Facebook does the new-age contextual marketing, a step ahead of what Google invented. People are trying to develop subtle ways of marketing. And I think Facebook and Twitter are good tools, looking at the way people are talking about them and using them. And I certainly think Search Engines and Personalized URLs can go a long way in helping businesses stay visible, without letting people notice that they are desperately trying to do so.

I think the cross linking opportunity these sites provide help businesses sound genuine. Internet is a good and bad place at the same time. And with the number of security threats and suspicious links ever increasing, it is essential for online businesses to be in the good books of internet users. Linking the business to Social Networks and regularly updating them give people a chance to see how genuine you are. Because, every crime has a loophole and it is very easy to see through frauds when we are talking about regularly updating status and relevant information. No fraud can survive on Social Community Networks for a long time and people are good at whistleblowing on-line. I think businesses should be using this opportunity to subtly market their genuineness.

I also think Social Community Networks can work as an effective tool for businesses to collect feedback from their customers. Be it a Google or Yahoo Group! Be it a Facebook or Twitter Account! Be it a Blog on Blogger or Wordpress! Staying in touch with the customer is the key. Weighing in on what people say about the product or service you offer, clarifying their queries! I think Google is a good example for this. Of course, they don't twitter or go Facebook. But they have these Blogs and Online Groups where they allow users to incessantly rant and rave about their products. I see that as one of the reasons why Google grow and surprise us forever!

Another thing is, these sites offer their services free of cost. [That shouldn't be a reason of course!] And may be you have to pay Twitter a little to get your account verified. I think it is worth the deal, isn't it?