Like totally Kosmix dude

"The web organized for you"

"The web organized for you"

Sandlines is slightly green (like Kosmix’s brand colours) to learn that said new search ‘explore’ engine has secured a further $20m funding, led by Time Warner. Not bad in the current funding environment.

Kosmix, for those who’ve not come across it before, is a new launch, currently in “beta-ish”, that seeks to provide inspiration, for want of a better term, for people entering search terms who aren’t looking for a specific answer, but want something less precise.

So the results pages throw up a range of sourced answers, coming from places like Yahoo Buzz, Yahoo Answers, news sources, Google search results, ebay, Amazon, Hulu… a pretty broad spectrum.

Explore results for T-Mobile G1

Click to go to search results on Kosmix

I checked out a Google phone ‘explore’ to see what I might find – the results are quite interesting. In many ways reminiscent of Google’s own ‘Universal Search’ project, I’m not (yet) convinced that this adds anything beyond the current web capabilities. But people are fickle folk and I don’t believe Google’s near-monopoly on search is invincible or permanent.

Of course, at the moment a lot of the results are very US centric. Hulu’s inclusion (inevitable given the funding) is of course a US only answer at the moment, and the early news feeds are very US-centric. I’ll be trying to get a view from some of my trans-atlantic pals about what their thoughts on it are.

Meanwhile, if you’re interested in the future of search and the potential for where Web 3.0 might go, you should have a play. The only thing I ask is – please let us know what you think back here on Sandlines!

Rate this:
3.5 (1 person)

Social Media Marketing – part two

Facebook? No thanks.

Facebook? No thanks.

Thanks to Dylan Fuller who, over in the Local Search Summit on LinkedIn drew my attention to this article. It seems that P&G are no longer interested in running advertising on Facebook. Ted McConnell, GM of Interactive marketing over at Proctor and Gamble said:

“I have a reaction to [Facebook] as a consumer advocate and an advertiser: What in heaven’s name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?”

Now there’s a hefty dose of rhetoric about the circumstances that McConnell describes, but the point is clear: he sees Facebook (and their peers) as C2C communications, not media opportunities. He feels it is arrogant to interrupt it.

I’m unsurprised by this reaction – and I tend to agree that banners on FB are not the way forward. But it’s nothing new. After all, ad placements have funded Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, Gmail …. for years – and often quite successfully.

But it’s the placements that occur outside the composition and reading of the emails that works best – i.e. the log-on or log-off pages, or the pages that confirm an email has been sent in the old style webmail accounts. Which is logical: you’re not interrupting someone in the middle of another conversation.

Several years ago, when I was at Yahoo!, I devised a campaign for Vodafone that was deliberately designed to sit inside these types of C2C interactions. There was an obvious relevance to such a campaign that fitted with the creative tone. However, these types of campaigns have always been the exception rather than the rule.

Historically advertisers have been shy of placing brand sensitive advertising near user generated content. The risk of negative association has been deemed too great. Imagine, placing your family friendly cereal brank ad next to content that celebrates gore or porn. Not an attractive proposition.

Meanwhile the low responsiveness of such placements have made the inventory generated on UGC amongst the most commodotised online.

So what is a social network to do?

Invent a new model, is what. Old skool advertising is (Sandlines believes) never going to be the way forward for such businesses. They need to figure out a way of converting the obvious engagement they build with their user communities into a commercial proposition. And the starting point to that is to consider where the exchange of value can occur that benefits all parties: the community members, the marketer – and of course the network owner.

Simple, huh?

Rate this:
3.3 (1 person)

The other side of the line

I opened my copy of the Economist today and read yet another plea for Jerry Yang to step down as CEO of Yahoo!

I’ve rehearsed the arguments on this question before, but I’m more interested today in the subtext to this story: the extent to which Yahoo!’s reliance on display advertising is going to hurt them during the current economic difficulties.

It’s chastening to think how much of digital’s growth in revenue is purely from search – and yet that’s just the beginning of what the medium can deliver.

Search marketing words (both SEM and SEO) because it is by some distance the most effective way to introduce someone to what you are offering/saying… providing that they are already in the market for it. It’s all about steering someone toward your version of what they already know they want. Powerful, cost-effective and an essential weaon in the marketing arsenal. And almost totally transactional.

But what about the other side of the line?

For most businesses, it’s not just the first sale that matters – it’s the ongoing relationship that the first sale might lead to. This is very strongly the case with subscription-type businesses (e.g. utilities, mobile phones, satellite tv, magazines etc). It is also central to FMCG (or CPG as they call it in the US) marketing.

But it’s also the basis of what your local retail outlet hopes for. Or what your window cleaner relies on. In fact most businesses in the real world tend to prize the ongoing relationship past the first sale very highly.

So why has the digital economy been so hung up on the idea of paying Google (or their affiliate marketing partner) every time they want to conclude another transaction?

Of course, this is still very different from the display advertising model that Yahoo! and the like espouse. But it is, for me, crucial to digital marketing’s success in this recession – and to the rosier times that will sooner or later follow it.

If you haven’t already, start planning for it now! Google is NOT the only show in town.

Rate this:
2.5

What doesn’t kill Yahoo… ?

JY in happier days (this January!)

JY in happier days (this January!)

Jerry Yang is taking time out from his Microsoft flip-flopping and Google adventures to visit London. He’s been speaking today at the IAB Engage conference here. Unsurprisingly he takes the view that the current recession is going to make ‘digital’ stronger.

Sandlines agrees whole-heartedly – and I’ve been saying this for some time now.

However, I can’t help but thing it will finish Yahoo! – or at least Yang’s stewardship of the once-mighty purple monster – once and for all.

What price the offer Microsoft made earlier this year? It was $35 a share. That looked rich in the spring, but now Yahoo is trading at a few cents over $10.

Rate this:
2.5

Ya-Who? Ask your younger siblings…

Breaking up?

Breaking up?

I’ve borrowed the Ya-Who bit from AdViking… as mentioned over there (and a few other places!) the collapse of the Google/Yahoo! partnership bodes ill for the latter’s long term survival. I wonder if they’ll still be there in 5 years time.

Sandlines can’t help but wonder if Google entered the discussions in similar tone to how they entered the bidding for a wireless spectrum licence earlier this year. In Planet Google, Stross notes that a Google manager described his team’s anxiety that they might win, after placing the $4.71 billion bid: “We kept hitting the ‘refresh’ button on the browser to see if other companies had bid higher…”

Might Google have entered the deal feeling – “If it goes through, great, if it doesn’t: even better”. It certainly broke up the Microsoft / Yahoo! party and leaves Yahoo! needing a white knight. It will be interesting to see if Steve Ballmer still wants to play. If he does, it would speak to Microsoft’s despair in the battle against Google.

Rate this:
2.5

Yahoo!: fast follower? Hmm.

Yahoo!

Yahoo!: What does fast mean?

When I worked at Yahoo! during the bubble burst of 2002/3, there was much made of the outward positioning of the company as an innovator. Privately, however, key personnel would declare that, while Yahoo! was crammed with innovation (blah, blah… but defensible then), it was just as valuable to be a fast follower.

I agree.

So when I read this story over on ClickZ just now I had to go to dictionary.com and check out the definition of ‘fast’. Turns out ‘fast’ can also mean “…held or caught firmly, so as to be unable to escape or be extricated.”

I wonder if that’s what they meant… It’s certainly how they’ve looked to me this past year or two.

Rate this:
2.5