Connecting Data Seamlessly

Everyday we work to connect data types. We do it by searching on Google.

I think of something I want see, I ask Google for it, it searches it's vast database and makes suggestions. In theory, it's a simple transaction:

What's happening here, while very complex, is not entirely complicated. Google is compiling information and deciding, based on your query, what to show you. The idea is that the results are relevant. In this particular transaction, you're required to make a query.

Google compiles all the information it can get it's hands on. This is a good strategy for them and works well, but when you start to silo off that information and group it together, you get communities. These communities can be very broad, Facebook, for example, or very niche, NextNY, for example.

The information that these communities draw upon is usually called your 'profile.' This isn't to mean that all profiles are filled out by the user. It can be based on information you provide, your behavior, the data and media you create, the friends you keep, etc. These silos, by themselves, don't mean very much.

When you start connecting these silos, in intelligent ways, it starts to get interesting. This is most often done at the user's request. I know what I'm interested in, so I seek out and join communities that share my interest. It's intelligent because it's human.

Sites with existing large communities, again Facebook is a good example, are starting to find ways to suggest intelligent connections. Here are people you might know, based on them being friends with your friends. Here are topics you might be interested in, based on what you've been interested in in the past.

Suddenly unexpected, but intelligent, communities are being formed.

So what does this mean to you? Well, the great part is, you don't really have to do anything. Unlike submitting a query into Google for information, there are solutions being developed that anticipate what information you're looking for.

Most of the innovation in this particular space takes place around advertising. Send an e-mail in Gmail to a friend about your apartment search and you're bound to see ads for real estate sites. But what if, instead of seeing advertisements for various marketplaces, you were connected directly with the market?

I'm working on something that connects people who can help each other. If I have an apartment that's a good fit for what you're looking for then we belong, whether we know it or not, to the same niche community. I want us to connect. Seamlessly.

Google to Launch Another Cuecat

I was at Google's NYC HQ last night for an interesting Meetup with The Advertising Club of New York. Google's speakers included Tim Castelli, New York Sales Director; Long Ellis, Head of Sales, Television; Joseph Anastasi, Team Manager, Audio East; Sarah Carberry, Team Manager, Consumer Packaged Goods; Patrick Grandinetti, Senior Agency Lead, East Region; and Tiffany Shen Miller, Account Executive, Print Ads.

Anyway, the talked-about news of the night happened when Tiffany alluded to Google placing 'bar codes' of a sort in print ads in hopes that people would take a picture of them with their software enabled cell phones and be redirected to a website. The idea is that these bar codes would make it easier for consumers to get more information and easier for marketers to track the effectiveness of their print ads.

All I could think about was the CueCat. I had one of these things plugged into my computer for ages. I had the PS/2 version, not even USB. Anyway, at first I thought it was pretty cool that I could scan barcodes in my latest issue of Wired, but it quickly wore off. Google's taking a little bit of a different approach, using cell phones, but man, they have a long, long way to go with this one.

Good luck Tiffany.

The Pudding Media Misconception

Bloggers have a foul taste in their mouth over Pudding Media receiving $8 million in funding. The idea is, like Google reads your e-mails and search queries, Pudding Media will listen to your VOIP phone calls and serve you contextual ads around keywords they extract. The misconception is that these ads will be served by some kind of computer-voice-thing.

Pudding Media will listen to your calls and pick out keywords, but the ads are displayed on your computer, in the Pudding Media interface. At least, that's how I understand it. I don't think that's horrible. Think about using Skype for free, but it shows you ads based around what you're talking about. No biggie.

To quell your privacy woes, they don't actually record your conversations. They don't even save the keywords gathered from your conversations. Each new call starts an entirely new session - where they know nothing about you.

I think it could be quite useful, actually. Just as sponsored search results in Google are useful.

Aap!Steps Uglify Escalators

I have to say, I think this is a great idea, but damn, who knew you could make an escalator any nastier?

So what's next? Any more unused space out there?

Via AdRants.

Social Networks: How Much Is Too Much?

I read a lot of industry news everyday and the one thing I read about more than anything (because I simply can't avoid it) is social networks. If they're not announcing a new social network they're announcing that they're hiring programmers to help build a social network. So, I started to wonder, how many social networks are out there?

Turns out: a lot. Here's Wikipedia's list. It's important to note that this list does not extrapolate on smaller networks within sites like Ning and is probably missing quite a few. So, I started to wonder, how many social networks are too many?

Turns out: I have no idea. That's a tough question to answer. Heck, even Vampire Freaks, the social networks for goths, has a purported 1M+ members. So are social networks doing the same thing that newspapers figured out how to do a long time ago? Localize?

Newspapers survive because they create content relevant to their local readers. According to eMarketer local online advertising spending in 2006 was $2.1B, in 2007 it's on track to be $2.9B and they are projecting $7.8B by 2011.

My belief is, if advertisers are spending money in a sector, that sector is working. The same trend is found in social networks. People with a particular interest are drawn to social networks that cater to that interest.

So, maybe the question shouldn't be how many social networks are too many, but how many special interests exist? Turns out: it's probably quite a few.

Giving In

I suppose I've been giving in a lot lately. I caved on the iPhone and now, after jumping off my high horse, I've caved on Facebook. Yes, I now use Facebook. Feel free to look me up.

I gave up on MySpace several months ago, citing the horrible design and completely overbearing ads. MySpace isn't really in trouble because of Facebook and, while they may loose a number of users to Facebook, I don't think they're going away anytime soon. They may be in trouble, however, if they don't start cleaning up their act when it comes to user experience.

People have told me over and over that the user experience on Facebook is a dream. That it's smart, easy and intuitive. I didn't really buy it until I started using it. It's awesome. They built this entire platform with us, the users, in mind. It really is nice. And, to be honest, I don't mind the occasional sponsored post in my news feed. Nor do I mind Facebook's move to include profiles in Google (et al) search results. Isn't the point of a social network for people to be able to find you?

I firmly believe that MySpace will continue, for a long time, to be a major player in social networking. They have one thing that FaceBook doesn't currently have and that's an uncommon friendliness to advertisers. As long as there are celebrity and movie and band and book and other product profiles people who are interested in those products will stick around. Period.

Used correctly advertisers can create campaigns that are highly targeted to the "short tail." Their key customers, the ones who really care about their product, will continue to patronize MySpace landing pages. It's not for me, but people have proven time after time that they respond to professionally created campaigns. That's not going to just go away.

So, high-give to Facebook. High-give to MySpace. And damn, seriously, high-give to the iPhone.

The Clog

AdAge publisher Scott Donaton posted on his blog today, When Trains Fly, the concept of The Clog. The Clog stands for The Column Blog (which I suppose would further translate to The Column Web Log). Basically, Scott is bucking the argument that bloggers must constantly post, at least once a day, to keep readers. He argues that this leads to posts of, let's say, lower quality.

Scott's plan is to combine the idea of a magazine column with a blog. I think he came up with a great name; it's funny because, really, the aim is to unclog the blog. However, I don't think this is anything new. While it's true that the most successful blogs (Engadget, Mashable) have heavy post volume, others, like AdAge, use the blog platform as a publishing technology, but aren't really blogging in the traditional sense.

My point is, just because you're using a blog platform to facilitate posting, doesn't automatically mean that you have to be a blog or conform to the "blogger's code."

The Husky Network: "a big static pop up on your page with a hole in the middle"

Online Video Watch is reporting that Heavy.com will be launching a new ad network called The Husky Network. The network consists of branded player skins sold on a CPM basis. I just love Online Video Watch's description as, "Heavy will be dropping a big static pop up on your page with a hole in the middle for the video to play in."

Over at The Husky Network site there are examples of what the skins look line. Fittingly, they are both heavy and husky. These things are huge, ugly and intrusive.

Brandframe Takes Product Placement Online

I ran across an interesting company today called Brandframe. I don't know anything about them or how successful they are (if you know, let me know), but I thought I'd share anyway. From what I understand Brandframe has created a marketplace where content producers and advertisers can link up and make offers to place products within video.

This is interesting because there are currently so many companies trying to figure out the best way to advertise against online video. ClickZ reported on an OPA study citing that 30 second ads are much more effective than 15 second ads. 30% on ad relevance and 23% on brand awareness, to be exact. So, what does this mean for product placement?

Obviously the goals of product placement are very different from other ad models. For one thing, product placement offers no direct response. The effectiveness is very difficult to measure and can usually only work for very recognizable brands.

One great thing about the Brandframe platform is its ablilty to open up that dialog between producers and brands. This will probably lead to very targeted placement - who knows the viewer better than the producer themselves? Hopefully this means that viewers will only see products they are actually interested in.

But back to the OPA study; if a 15 second ad is ~30% less effective than a 30 second ad, how effective is a few fleeting seconds of a product? Especially without any call to action. Is this a fair comparison or are we talking apples and oranges here?

It would be great to see Brandframe, or others, build a platform that matches product placement up with surrounding advertising. For example, if I'm watching a video of someone eating a Snickers, there should be a Snickers ad on the page and near the player. This is being done to come extent with contextual marketing, but I think this could be a profitable add-on service for Brandframe.