Google recently launched, "What's Popular" for iGoogle. The gadget is being touted as a Digg-clone with users being able to submit and rate articles, etc.
What's disappointing is the lack of tie ins to other services at Google. How good would this be if it was part of the blogger toolbar? Google news? Google search results? and dearest to my heart, Google Reader? What is users could just click, "Share on Google" for anything and it gets automatically entered into the Google products through intuitive tie ins? I'll keep my eye on this, but I'm not optimistic that I'll see anything soon. Most telling? The fact that the "Share this gadget" link tees up an email to friends... really?
Search Marin Modus Vivendi
Apr 28, 2009
Apr 15, 2009
Twitter Spam!
Today I was more active than I had ever been on Twitter. In particular, I got into a tweet-a-tweet with a friend about SEO, paid search and earned media. Next thing I knew, I had many more people following my account, strangers following my account. But why?
At first I thought it was because these strangers were interested in connecting with others interested in SEO and paid search. But then Reddy started to follow me.
To step back, when someone decides to follow you, it basically means that your updates appear on their screen when they login to Twitter. More importantly, an email alert gets sent to me every time someone decides to follow me. The email lets me know that someone is "following me" and provides a link back to that user's profile.
When Reddy started to follow me, I received the email from Twitter and as with the others I received, I clicked their profile link to check if they were somehow connected to me through a friend or colleague. When I arrived, I noticed that Reddy had one post only and it was a post touting a piece of search engine marketing software that I just had to have.
I then recalled that almost all my other new followers/strangers also were touting some deal or product that I needed. I did not catch it earlier because the other followers had many different posts of which many were "normal"; in other words, they appeared to be like other Twitter accounts that my friends would keep (except for the offers which I did not catch early on).
So Reddy, not being a savvy Twitter Spammer or maybe just being new to the game got me to his page, but forgot the rule of subtlety. By creating just one tweet, the jig was up and there was no chance that I would click on the offer or even worse, click to actually follow "Reddy" and receive his offers in my account on an ongoing basis.
How it works? I dont know, but I expect that Reddy has written some code to search for certain keywords in the Twitter feed and then automatically follow anyone who types in a keyword that Reddy targeted. From there, Twitter actually takes care of the rest...
At first I thought it was because these strangers were interested in connecting with others interested in SEO and paid search. But then Reddy started to follow me.
To step back, when someone decides to follow you, it basically means that your updates appear on their screen when they login to Twitter. More importantly, an email alert gets sent to me every time someone decides to follow me. The email lets me know that someone is "following me" and provides a link back to that user's profile.
When Reddy started to follow me, I received the email from Twitter and as with the others I received, I clicked their profile link to check if they were somehow connected to me through a friend or colleague. When I arrived, I noticed that Reddy had one post only and it was a post touting a piece of search engine marketing software that I just had to have.
I then recalled that almost all my other new followers/strangers also were touting some deal or product that I needed. I did not catch it earlier because the other followers had many different posts of which many were "normal"; in other words, they appeared to be like other Twitter accounts that my friends would keep (except for the offers which I did not catch early on).
So Reddy, not being a savvy Twitter Spammer or maybe just being new to the game got me to his page, but forgot the rule of subtlety. By creating just one tweet, the jig was up and there was no chance that I would click on the offer or even worse, click to actually follow "Reddy" and receive his offers in my account on an ongoing basis.
How it works? I dont know, but I expect that Reddy has written some code to search for certain keywords in the Twitter feed and then automatically follow anyone who types in a keyword that Reddy targeted. From there, Twitter actually takes care of the rest...
Apr 3, 2009
Regarding the Future of News
I updated an earlier post about short feeds vs. long feeds with an item about Rupert Murdoch investing in a mobile news reader. The post started to take a spin towards talking about news and I thought instead of adding on to that more, I should start a new thread. I responded to Andrew Sullivan's recent post a few weeks ago about the Future of News, but did not hear back... so I thought I would write down my thoughts here:
...I think that the whole presumed demise of the newspaper business can be put in parallel context with the supposed demise of the music business. The key challenge everyone is focused on is that there is a new form of distribution that is threatening the old norms of the business. Mainly, it is cheaper, faster, more efficient, etc. to distribute digital content vs. something tangible. So people are saying, well, we just need to stop giving away the content for free or we need to publicly fund news organizations or whatever.
I think this argument fails to acknowledge the other thing that is happening. The web is not just an efficient distribution mechanism. The more urgent factor affecting newsrooms (and record labels) has to be that the web provides near infinite choice for consumers. This has been broached before but always in terms of the distribution question ("I can't charge for content because my competitors don't"). But the real challenge of infinite choice for traditional media is the fact that today's savvy internet user is their own editor in chief (or A&R guy). Who needs to have content arranged and chosen for them by an editor-in-chief when you can subscribe to 50 of your favorite reporters, bloggers or columnists websites? And because the subscription to any one of those websites can be changed at any time, the user is in constant control of their experience.
Check out the top 10 most visited websites online. 80% of them are focused on allowing users to find the content or products of their choice. 50% of the next 10 do the same. This is not going to change; choice is popular.
I can honestly say that the music I listen to is much, much better than the music I was listening to 10-years ago. This is partially because my tastes have evolved, but mostly because there is so much more choice. The same holds true for my knowledge of current events, world affairs, etc. I rely on about 50 others of my choosing to guide me through the interesting topics of the day. I am more than willing to support them, the content producers, but I can no longer stomach paying for a newspaper subscription which doesn't give me what I want and provides zero choice.
So the question really is: If we can retain the reporters doing the work they do and find an efficient way to pay them what they are worth, do we really care if the distributors of news papers die?
...I think that the whole presumed demise of the newspaper business can be put in parallel context with the supposed demise of the music business. The key challenge everyone is focused on is that there is a new form of distribution that is threatening the old norms of the business. Mainly, it is cheaper, faster, more efficient, etc. to distribute digital content vs. something tangible. So people are saying, well, we just need to stop giving away the content for free or we need to publicly fund news organizations or whatever.
I think this argument fails to acknowledge the other thing that is happening. The web is not just an efficient distribution mechanism. The more urgent factor affecting newsrooms (and record labels) has to be that the web provides near infinite choice for consumers. This has been broached before but always in terms of the distribution question ("I can't charge for content because my competitors don't"). But the real challenge of infinite choice for traditional media is the fact that today's savvy internet user is their own editor in chief (or A&R guy). Who needs to have content arranged and chosen for them by an editor-in-chief when you can subscribe to 50 of your favorite reporters, bloggers or columnists websites? And because the subscription to any one of those websites can be changed at any time, the user is in constant control of their experience.
Check out the top 10 most visited websites online. 80% of them are focused on allowing users to find the content or products of their choice. 50% of the next 10 do the same. This is not going to change; choice is popular.
I can honestly say that the music I listen to is much, much better than the music I was listening to 10-years ago. This is partially because my tastes have evolved, but mostly because there is so much more choice. The same holds true for my knowledge of current events, world affairs, etc. I rely on about 50 others of my choosing to guide me through the interesting topics of the day. I am more than willing to support them, the content producers, but I can no longer stomach paying for a newspaper subscription which doesn't give me what I want and provides zero choice.
So the question really is: If we can retain the reporters doing the work they do and find an efficient way to pay them what they are worth, do we really care if the distributors of news papers die?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
