Google's Latest Ad Play

I am beginning to think that Google’s business plan is to troll the blogosphere, read about something nifty that someone else is already doing, copy it and hope someone with an actual product to sell will by an ad on it. I guess the fact that approach worked out so well for search has imbedded it in Google’s corporate brain.

That, or this is the lamest attempt yet to attract users to Google Talk.

C|Net reports that Google is now offering to track the music you listen to on your computer and display it for all the world to see. Excuse me, but Last.fm and probably scads of other services do that already. Want to be anonymous, then sign up at Last.fm under the user name Antigone Tellya.

Google calls this service Google Music Trends. What’s next, Google Potty Trends (surely Charmin would advertise)? I bet Sealy Posturpedic is anxiously awaiting Google Sleeping Trends.

Of course in order to use this latest head scratcher, you have to install Google Talk. And taking a page from the Real Network book, opting in to the Google Music Trends setting on Google Talk automatically enables Google Personalized Search.

C|Net nails the true purpose behind this new service:

“One can only imagine that this new tracking would be extremely helpful to advertisers, which can target the latest CD to the people who are listening to that artist’s other work.”

One thing I’ll say about Google- it is consistent.

Is YouTube the New MTV?

One of the things I like the most about YouTube is the number of old music videos you come across there. PAgent turned me onto YouTube as a music video archive via his music video series. When I came across a live video by one of the best concert bands ever, I was hooked.

There’s even one music video of the Flying Burrito Brothers with Gram Parsons.

A long, long time ago, when the M in MTV actually mattered, I enjoyed music videos. And I’d love to be able to see some of those videos now.

It seems help may be on the horizon. Ars Technica reports that YouTube has a plan, get this, “to have every music video ever created up on YouTube.” That’s straight from the mouth of YouTube co-founder Steve Chen.

And it gets even better. The record label cartel is apparently at least somewhat interested in cooperating with YouTube. While the cartel’s involvement may ultimately lead to death by greed, the fact that it hasn’t sued YouTube and all its dead ancestors is encouraging. As is the cartel’s unusually relaxed response to the horde of YouTube lip-sinkers.

I’d sure love to have an archive of music videos.

To whet your appetite, here are a few gems available on YouTube.

The Byrds – Chestnut Mare
Leon Russell- Stranger In A Strange Land
Townes Van Zandt & Nanci Griffith – Tecumseh Valley
Son Volt – Drown

Google's New Plan: If You Can't Lick 'Em, Join 'Em

The WSJ reports today that Google’s new plan is to partner up with some old media content producers and share revenue with them.

Among the partner candidates are MTV, Fox Interactive Media and the good ol’ Associated Press. Apparently Google has pledged $900 million in minimum payments to Fox in connection with the content deal.

I found this quote, the functional equivalent of a repudiation of Google’s last new plan, interesting, inasmuch as it is basically saying “our last big idea was a bad one, but this one is a good one”:

“We can approach them (the media and entertainment firms) in a way that we can actually do business together and not screw things up,” said Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt at a press conference Wednesday.

While this is a far cry from Google’s prior attempts to index old media content without permission or payment, it still sounds a little like Google tossing a ton of money at someone in the hope of catching lightning in a bottle again- the way it did with search.

And there’s another lurking problem.

Any time you leverage off of content created by others, there is the real risk, if not inevitability, that the content producers will try to take out the middle man and keep all the loot for themselves. We found that out with message boards back in Bubble 1.0. The record label cartel is finding it out now, as it tries in vain to stuff the cat back into the bag.

It’s one thing for these Web 2.0 companies to leverage off of bookmarks and links added by its users. Bookmarks and links cost no time or money to produce and have no intrinsic value. Not so with old media content that takes time, people and money to create.

In sum, I can understand the logic of Google’s plan. And it may work for a while. As more and more old media own up to the inevitable and stick their toes in the online water, they need a trusty guide to get them past the pirates and stealers (not all of whom live in Pittsburgh). But once they settle online, the guide becomes less valuable.

In the meantime, it’s going to be expensive for Google. $900 million is a boatload of AdSense impressions.

Google better get it while they can. Because, eventually, many of the content producers will try to remove the middle man.

You can count on it.

Don't Google Google Says Google

In what Steve Rubel correctly calls “one of the worst PR moves in history,” Google has apparently sent letters to certain media asking them not to use the word google as a verb.

This is another example of the troublesome crossroads between marketing and intellectual property law. I’m sure these letters are Google’s reaction to the recent inclusion of the word google as a verb in recently released dictionary editions. It’s all about protecting the trademark. Whether or not Google cares about the use of google as a verb, if it wants to maintain control of the trademark, someone is advising Google that it needs to write these letters as a token of diligence.

Coca-cola has undoubtedly faced this problem in the past, as to many people coke is a synonym for a carbonated beverage.

From a marketing perspective, however, it’s hard to understand why Google would be anything less than giddy to hear someone say “I googled it on Yahoo and here’s what I found out?” I expect Yahoo would gladly consent to the substitution of yahoo as the new search verb- but only because yahoo isn’t that verb. If it were, Yahoo would probably feel compelled to toss out a similar letter in the name of trademark protection.

I don’t know beans about intellectual property law, but speaking here as a layperson, if I were Google I’d try to craft some sort of a public license for the use of google as a verb. Being the verb for the space you’re in is a mightly powerful thing.

In other words, I’d try very hard to have my cake and eat it too.

Technorati Tags: google

Google and Firefox Go to the Dark Side

Google, looking for the its first hit in a decade and hoping to avoid the oldies tour, and Firefox, perhaps wanting to ratchet down all the love it has been receiving, have joined the Bloatware 2006 Tour, headlined by none other than Real Player.

The only reason I can think of why Google and Firefox would agree to partner up with Real Networks is because Real Networks isn’t Microsoft.

Note to Google and Firefox: Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.

As of now, all of the comments to the Download Squad post linked above agree that this is a bad move for Google and Firefox. And all agree that Real Alternative should be used in lieu of Real Player.

I’ve long been on record as far as my opinion of Real Player goes.

Itchy Fingers in the Blogosphere

Amy Gahran has an interesting post today about the itchy finger syndrome- when you click the “Publish” button too quickly and post something to your blog that a moment later you wish you hadn’t.

She tells of this post by Dave Winer, which went through several post-publication edits, all of which were, for some reason, grabbed and posted by Ian Bettridge.

There’s a lesson here, as Amy suggests. But first a little related business.

I saw those earlier posts by Dave too, in my feed reader. But I didn’t save them, and I certainly wouldn’t post them. Anyone should have the right to reconsider what they write the same way they can reconsider what they say in a conversation. If I am arguing with Dave about something, I’d rather respond to what he says and agrees with than what he said and later retracted.

Back to the itchy finger.

As Amy points out, once you post something, it will get picked up by your blog’s feed. It will also often get picked up by Google and Technorati and sometimes by Techmeme and the other memetrackers. Once that happens, it is a part of the permanent record.

A related problem is that any modification to a post will generally go back into your feed as a new item. So if you do 3 edits to an original post, that post will show up in your feed 4 times.

While we all try to avoid it, everyone has to edit posts for typos, broken links, etc. from time to time, and this is viewed by most as an unavoidable part of the process.

But when you change substantive parts of your post, the original content is still out there in your feed. Amy is correct- there’s no way to get it back.

Having said that, I’m not sure that’s such a big deal in many cases. Had Dave been talking to us as opposed to posting, he very likely would have said the same sort of stuff, refining his stated position (stated being the important word there) as he thought about it and heard our reactions. He would have ended up at the same place, and we would have heard the evolution of his position.

As Amy points out, however, when you remove something because you have reconsidered your position, it’s a good idea to explain what you did and why. Having said that, I suspect Dave removed the post more out of a desire to avoid a hassle than a change of heart (I don’t want to get involved in this debate, but I will say that I did not find Dave’s original post objectionable and I think there is a marginal utility to extreme political correctness that is wholly lost to some.)

Avoiding an itchy finger is certainly a good idea when possible. But at the end of the day, blogs are about conversation. And most conversations start at once place and end at another. Even if you’re talking to yourself.

That’s not such a bad thing.

UPDATE: Amy has more thoughts about editing posts.

YouTube Wins Again

youtube Fresh from its win over MySpace in my Web 2.0 Wars championship, YouTube turns around and puts it to MySpace again with word that it has passed MySpace in the internet eyeball race, racking up a 3.9% share of internet visits compared to 3.35% for MySpace.

The GU sums it up nicely in a quote from some undoubtedly qualified guy from an almost assuredly important company (that is my tip of the hat to the gesture crowd, who can’t respond to my earlier debunking because (a) there is no valid response and (b) they would be admitting that they follow links if they did so, since they weren’t born with innate knowledge of my post any more that their readers were born with innate knowledge of their URLs):

“YouTube has a far more universal appeal, being pure entertainment with a global appeal.”

Amen, and congratulations to YouTube.

Anatomy of a Molehill

Or how you just can’t win for losing in the Web 2.0 arena.

In an era when user generated content is the soylent green for all that stuff people on the payroll used to generate, the quickest way to success is to become part of the interconnectivity infrastructure. Digg has done it. Technorati is in the process of doing it in spite of rolling indexouts that rival waves in their persistence.

YouTube has done it by becoming the central depository for online video.

And then someone tried to tried to decipher some language from its newly revised Terms and Conditions:

“[B]y submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successor’s) business including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.”

molehill It’s not so much the legal implications that are the problem. Read carefully, I don’t find these terms to be so onerous- the license terminates if you remove the video. And since the whole purpose is for YouTube to serve video to blogs and websites everywhere, it shouldn’t be criticized for asking for a license to do so. If you think I’m drinking the YouTube kool-aid, just read the sentence before the language that has been the focus of so many blog posts today:

“For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions (Emphasis theirs).

The problem is that too many Web 2.0 users want it all three ways. They want stuff to be free, they want these companies to be treated like real businesses, and they freak out when they act like real businesses.

Let’s not forget that YouTube is free. Trying to make money off of user generated content is the Web 2.0 mantra.

As Valleywag helpfully points out, the termination provision makes it impossible for YouTube to sell DVDs with your content on them. About the most it could do is create some sort of premium service that gives users additional features for a fee.

In sum, this is the biggest much ado about nothing since Y2K.

Planes, Trains and Medical Bills

While the braintrust at Google fight over their Boing 767 “party plane,” Mathew Ingram brings us news of Google’s latest vision by proxy.

Unable come up with enough “me too” applications and ad-based business ventures here in Bubble 2.0, it seems that Google has plucked a gem from Bubble 1.0 and plans to team up with WebMD (while it seems such, apparently this is not a joke) and do some sort of a healthcare medical records storage and organization service. Maybe Exodus and JDS Uniphase can get in on this deal?

I bet DrKoop.Com is really jealous.

Trying to drag myself out of the surreal haze that this news has spawned, I think Matthew hit one of the many available nails on the head when he says:

“[A]re consumers prepared to have a Web giant like Google track and maintain their entire health records? I think health information and tax data are the two hotspots for many people, and it’s a bit of a stretch to think that they would want to send all that over the Web just because Google says it’s going to add value to it somehow.”

There’s that, and the fact that this little venture is almost certainly going to generate any revenue solely from ads.

Sometimes I think my RSS feeds are controlled by the producers of The Joe Schmo Show, and I’m the new schmo. In the words of Matt Kennedy Gould (and Marvin Gaye), what’s going on?

Has Google Had Its Last Original Idea?

For some reason it makes me a little sad every time I read that Google has tossed out yet another me-too service aimed at nibbling at the market share of entrenched rivals who got there first. It’s like watching a once unbeatable fighter staggering around hoping to land a wild punch in a vain effort to regain his former glory.

And it reeks of vision by proxy.

The latest me-too service tossed up by Google is Google Checkout, which optimistically hopes to compete with market leader Paypal. Google, trying to be at least a Web 1.5 company, weaves some advertising pixie dust into the service by associating AdWords ads into the equation. If a business is registered with Google Checkout, its AdWords ads will have a shopping cart icon, which arguably makes them stand out from the competition. Of course to be registered with Google Checkout requires a Google account.

Google Checkout has lower fees than Paypal and while competition is a good thing for the consumer, this seems to me like another example of Google using its money to hurt its rivals more than help itself. Will there be another secondary offering soon so Google can open a bookstore and sell books below cost just to cause a little pain to Amazon?

Of course most people use Paypal in connection with auctions and online stores for individuals and small businesses. If I were the head bottle washer at Google, the fact that eBay owns both Paypal and the online auction and store market would be enough to deep six this idea. That doesn’t seem to bother Google. Rumor has it that Google is going to enter another mature market by trying to compete for the auction market. Great.

BusinessWeek Online has an interesting article about Google’s struggles in this “me-too” world.

Originally, when Google announced a new service, rivals, users and the press would jump to attention and wait for the Google product to change the landscape. Recall the loud buzz that accompanied the release of Google Talk, Google’s instant messaging system? After the initial hoopla, Google Talk promptly faded only to suffer relentless CPR at the hands of its cousin Gmail. Google Talk is currently the number 10 IM service. I can name around 5 IM services, which means that some I can’t even name are ahead of Google Talk, notwithstanding Gmail’s persistent life-saving operations. It’s like those TV shows where a passionate (or job-insecure) doctor keeps putting the paddles to a patient who is long gone.

Google Finance, which also got a lot of buzz, is the 40th most visited financial site. I doubt it has a bullet.

All the fear rivals once felt upon the release of a new Google application is slowly being replaced by anticipation of the crash and burn.

The Business Week article is a must read. Here is the part that sums up my biggest concern:

“[T]he company’s struggles with expansion raise long-term questions about whether it can eventually diversify revenue away from the small text-based ads that now constitute 99% of sales. ‘This is still a company that derives almost all of its revenues from one business,’ says Scott Kessler, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s.”

Read that again. That is an amazing and frightening fact. It is exhibit number one in the argument that we have found our way back to the bubble. The people who think they are going to make some greater fool money before it pops don’t want to talk about it, but yonder stands the bubble. And it’s getting bigger all the time.

Google has had some success with non-search products. Gmail has some market share and Google Maps, while in need of more customization features, is my map service of choice.

But like an aging rock band, the hits are not as easy to come by these days. Too much of Google’s work seems to be based on following and not leading. Perhaps the fact that Google followed the pack into the search space and won has resulted in a corporate belief that the same thing can happen elsewhere. I don’t think it’s going to be that easy.

There is no recipe for timing and luck.

I want to see an original idea from Google.

I just wonder if they have any left?