With all the talk of Facebook becoming the next big search engine (in the US), and Google being run out of China, leaving the ever-expanding Chinese market open to Baidu, it makes you wonder if Google has peaked?
For those that don't know what I do when I'm not writing about music or art, I'm an analyst (and currently a graduate student, too!) One company I analyzed 6 years ago was Google and how exactly it managed to takeover the search industry and dominate the market, from a "come from behind" position against the current dominant engines of the time. (For those that don't realize, doing such a thing in the Internet space is rare, usually the first into a new space becomes dominant and stays dominant -- unless they 'let' the competition run them over. ala Netscape versus Internet Explorer)
I've recently been looking at Google again, especially with their new Instant Search. Instant Search doesn't impress me, and unlike other folks analyzing it, I think it shows a Google feeling very vulnerable right now. Instant Search obviously has other reasons for being, one of which may be to promote Google in the mobile market, another might be the usual Google 'presentation' to make users think it is being somehow more innovative and unlike any other search company out there. (Actually, as you can tell from my writing, I found this 'presentation' to the public to be counter to the actual available facts.)
Recently, Google pretty much lost its confrontation with China...and I say it really didn't have a chance in the first place. Foreign American/European companies in Asia face issues they don't in America or Europe (or not as much). Now that vacuum will be filled (most likely) by Baidu or another Chinese-based search engine -- and with the majority of Chinese fully supporting the change as a point in national pride.
It's also important to note that in Japan, Google is not king, though it manages to be the secret advisor to the king. In 2008, it was Yahoo on top with Google second (http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2008/11/Japan_Search_Engine_Rankings)
and this hasn't changed in 2010, though Yahoo Japan has agreed to use the Google engine instead of the Bing engine, when offered a very, very sweet deal by Google in order to freeze Bing out. As Japan is ranked 3rd in search market size (after the US and China), this is significant. But since there are several Japanese search engines out there, from Rakuten to Goo, one has to wonder if Yahoo-Google days are numbered in Japan as well. And it also shows (potentially) a fear of Bing.
Add to that, that Google is just a blip in South Korea with Naver the dominant engine, and Russia? forget it. Google does still dominate in Western Europe. Apparently there isn't really a homegrown European search engine that can satisfy that region.
Perhaps it is business as usual, but Google's influence does not seem to be as dominate (and as automatic) as it used to be. In fact, while Google still has 65% market share of the US market, its global market share of the search arena has dropped, losing ground to Yahoo, Bing and Ask. Much of this is because of the China loss, where Baidu gained as a result, but Bing has been on a hotstreak of growth this year, something which neither Google nor Yahoo can easily claim.
Here's a map showing Google across the globe:
http://www.labnol.org/internet/google-market-share/13939/
This is actually quite serious, because unlike Microsoft (Bing), Google is heavily reliant on search money (advertisers). Google also still dominates in Enterprise level search, a subarea of search, but again, Yahoo and Bing are narrowing the gap. If Google continues to lose ground, even if it is a slow decline, you can expect the stock to peak*** and begin to slide as well, signalling that Google as a growth company is done. However, it does present great opportunities for local national seach engines to reassert their dominance in their home markets (just like Baidu did), and for new search engines (companies, or divisions of a bigger company) to take over some of Google's traditional territory or reclaim some of their own.
Anyway, thought I'd share this, especially as good search is invaluable to little companies or bands or singers or artists...so what these big players do does affect you as well. Google's new Instant Search may make it harder for the little players to get noticed, while making it easier for the big names to continue to dominate. But again, if the competitors to Google realize this, then they may turn out to be a better bet for the little guy now.
You can read more about what I do in my 'real life' here: (sort of an info site, for 'quick' summaries of some outstanding strategic/policy issues...select the Policy Analysis button. If you want to punish yourself by looking at a lot of stats -- an example of ad placement evaluation -- then click Web Analytics.)
CG's Strategy Portfolio Info Site:
http://students.washington.edu/cganders/StrategyPortfolio/
My take: Google is still dominate in the US and Western Europe, but if Yahoo and Bing are smart, especially Bing, this gap will continue to narrow. Google is either not dominant or else vulnerable elsewhere, especially Asia, and may completely lose traction in that area as local search engines assert themselves. Google has relied on how it is 'perceived' by users (and advertisers alike), but that doesn't mean longterm loyalty. So if this perception is revealed as just smoke and mirrors, and/or Google is no longer 'cool', then the slide effects could be exponential. So far, this hasn't happened, but Google is no longer an up-and-coming startup. It is a mature company now and is seeing more and more criticism of its policies, its abusive interview style and arrogance (which by reports was worse than Microsoft's in its day), its acquisitions and other things. Some of these are mainly just allegations, and some, while true, may be intermittant and not reflective of the company or the people as a whole, but all of it affects Google's 'perception' by the public and therefore its popularity with users.
And in the search market, popularity and perception matter.
Additional Note: I should add that a company (or any entity) that feels threatened, especially when it has become accustomed to a place of dominance, is very likely to become more aggressive in order to protect that status. So Google's deal with Yahoo Japan may be one example of an increased need to protect its position, and there will likely be more such bold, aggressive moves -- which for companies doing business with Google means that it may be more willing to negotiate better deals for you than it has in the past, or buyout takeovers could be more lucrative for the acquired company as Google may feel more desperate to stay ahead of the competition. However, this may lead to lower revenues for Google itself, which would negatively affect its stock price and its perception in the financial markets.
***update: my mistake in wording, I rechecked Google's stock history. The stock has already peaked once and has lost almost a third of its value in the last few years. This is expected because of the recession. What I mean to address, is post-recession, when companies should be on the rise again, Google's perception in the market, if perceived as weakening, will lead to a more permanent slide that it may not be able to recover from -- rather like many dot coms post the dot com bust.
Aha! Blogolicious! Musings and Meanings of Non-Sensical Events...and Canada? In the past, it focused on music reviews, humor and satiric editorials. Now, it will concentrate on cartoons, art, and comic strips: Hypocrisy Fleas, Time Travelin' Dogs, DC Kids (with Purple Girl) and Dark Farm.
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Friday, September 10, 2010
Friday, May 18, 2007
Why are Great Games Great? Is it the Fun factor? The Tech? The Interface?
Great Games are Great Why?
Tell me!
Image, Fun, Interaction & You?
Instead of talking about a must-see band today, I decided to muse and mull something different. After all, the site's name is Musings and Meanings of Non-Sensical Events...and Canada. Well, I'm going to muse, and perhaps you can help me find some meaning. It may not be non-sensical, then again, what is sensible about many things that we, as human beings, do? As for Canada, well, this musing is international, so feel free to pipe in from whereever you are--Canada won't be an addendum to the US this time! (wink & LOL, sorry Canada, know it bothers you all when people lump you together with the USA.)
I do a lot of research into image, interaction, social identity in an online world, interface design, and other things--including what makes something 'beautiful' or 'fun' or 'innovative' or you-name-it. It's one reason this site is dedicated to music, art, dance and media issues. I find beauty here as well as innovation and that ever illusive 'fun' factor.
Those that read this blog regularly know that I often spoof Microsoft, Google, Disney and other big media players (you note I said 'media' not 'internet' as we are well beyond just 'internet' these days in our daily online lives.) They get spoofed not because of any real dislike for them, but because they are so big and powerful now that the effects they can have on the media world can be shattering. Or they can be innovative and uplifting. However, being big companies, they are about profit and loss (P&L) and if we, those without power, don't constantly remind them that we, those that purchase and use their services, want fun, innovation and usefulness, then there is the likely chance that they will stop listening all together. Customer service departments you see and market research are money sinks rather than profit centers--hence, if big companies think they can get rid of the money sinks, they will.
What has this got to do with games, image or even you? Well, beyond the obvious things of you being a consumer/user, I'm talking about quality of life. This includes quality of life online as well as offline. Fun is a big part of that. Games are often a way to understand 'fun.' Plus, how you interact with games or online spaces is a big factor as well.
As for Image, many of you...in fact ALL of you...create your image and present it to others, online or offline. If you are an artist (any genre, any form) then understanding how to create your image and how to present it to others as well as what effects it has on others will help you succeed or fail in your artistic pursuit. Why do you think big companies spend so much time and money on Branding? They know it matters in ways that are hard to measure with current, past and future customers. Human beings are wonderfully complicated and yet both similar and unique. This is why companies try to appeal to particular demographics and why different art forms, music genres, games and of course sporting events exist. We are different. We are alike. We like different things. We band together to enjoy those things. Sometimes we change our minds and like something new or go back to something old. We're fickle and we change over time. It's natural.
But if you are trying to build a fanbase for your work, then you have the same headaches those big companies have with trying to retain their customers and find new ones. Image.
Except you don't have millions to spend on branding, marketing and research, or PR spinning when you mess up, do you? So you need to think even more carefully about how you present yourself to others and whether it has the intended effect.
So back to games. I've talked about marketing issues related to image. I've talked about design tools that make it easier to create your image online (without being a programmer.) So why am I blathering on about games? Or for that matter that interaction or design thing I mentioned?
Think about your presentation online. It's not just about putting up some photos of yourself and quickie bio, is it? You customize your webpage, your MySpace page or your blog, don't you? You should be thinking not just about 'what' you say and 'what images' you put up, but also about what colors you choose for your site, what songs/music you put on your site and on a deeper level, how viewers interact with the stuff you put up.
Now MySpace and Google Blogger pretty much give you standard interfaces (buttons, comment sections and so forth) so if you think carefully about how you customize there, you won't have many problems. (I've seen some sites that didn't think first, and you can't find the buttons, or other elements sit in front of them so you can't use them.)
Figuring out that interaction is also important. If you frustrate people by making it hard to contact you, or get to options on your page or you mislead them into following some trail that turns out to be bogus, then you are going to have major image problems. Don't piss off your potential and current fan base. Know what they like and want and do that, but without being false. Be true to yourself and your image, true fans will respect you for it and it will be easier to maintain a true image, even one that is evolving through the highs and lows of being an artist.
Again, games? Why games? OK, games are innovative almost by their very nature AND they have to think about interactions with the player and the interface design AND all the creative elements (visual, audio, narrative, everything.) A great game creates an emotional connection between the game and the player. It doesn't take million dollar special effects or 1000s of man hours of programming. Production quality always helps, but like some great cult TV shows, it doesn't always matter.
Games also innovate in how we see the world. The one thing that disappoints me across the web and software industry is the lack of cool, visual design innovations. They are out there, but you rarely see them. Big companies don't like risk and consumers too often are risk aversive, too. Consumers say they want intuitive design (which is great) but then companies decide that that means don't try anything new. What do we get? We get same-old, same-old web designs based on very standardized design principles and almost always using the same 2D desktop metaphor that Windows and Mac both use.
The idea of design standards was to give designers a better understanding of GOOD design..i.e. don't make it hard to use, don't make it so that people can't understand what it's for, make it easy to make a purchase, or find a bit of information...that sort of thing. It didn't mean look exactly like your neighbor, except for the branding graphics and the link titles. It didn't mean throw out other metaphors for visual design and only, ONLY use the flat, 2D desktop model. (No, adding buttons that have a more 3D kind of look, isn't 3D...having simulated depth use via a 2D screen is 3D.)
Games go for 2D and 3D. They go for new interfaces for the players, with heads up displays, new controls, feedback systems, you name it. They are trying out new ideas everyday and it's not bleeding over into the more general online space, which disappoints me. It should also disappoint you, since you and I are the ones that are missing out on perhaps something even better than what we have now.
Games know that the competition is tough. (It's not just a question of Windows or Mac, Yahoo! or Google.) Competition for artists is tough, too! Even more than the games market, you have to find ways to stand out and get noticed. You need, like a game or website, GREAT content (i.e. your art, your music, your dance, your writing...) How you present yourself (IMAGE) goes a long way to getting people to notice you, trust you and want to learn more about you.
As for creating a fun, compelling experience for your fanbase, that's a whole other subject. I still wonder what 'fun' truly is...and what it means to different people. For example, the games I like the most, enjoy the most don't tend to be FPS (first person shooter) games like Halo or Half Life. I actually love games like Mercury, Marble Madness, F-Zero GX, Frequency, Dragon's Lair, Space Ace and Asteroids. Some of them are old games, some newer.
I was impressed with Myst; it's visually stunning, but I tend to get frustrated on complicated, obtuse games like that, so the fun factor dropped. The game that totally immersed me and scared the daylights out of me was called Iron Helix. No blood. No gore. But it did manage to actually convince me that what was happening was real, even though I was remotely controlling a robot and couldn't get hurt. My adrenalin raced as 'something' closed in on me and I fled the space station (to save my robot.) I had to remind myself that it wasn't real. Good games just like good TV shows or films do that to you.
But what I find fun or exciting or real is likely quite different from someone else, hence, fun is hard to break down into a fixed formula and why being true to yourself in building your image is so important. Everyone is different and not everyone will like you or your stuff. It's not an insult to you. It's normal. You want to find the fans that will like your stuff and appreciate it.
How you present your image helps. So look at games you like, TV and film you like, music you like, colors you like, design you like, interactive processes you typically do (how you navigate around the web, or what you expect to find someone's website...) all this will help you figure out how to design your image.
As for games and fun, I'm going to ask you the question because I definitely want to hear from you on this one.
What games do you find fun? What music is fun? What sports? What dances? What books? Or magazines? Or comics/graphic novels? Do you play games on your phone? How do you deal with the tiny screen? How can it still be fun with a screen that small? That small screen drives me nuts! What sites do you like? And WHY? What makes them fun for your? Do you even care that all the web site designs out there tend to look alike? That all the computers tend to look alike as well?
Let me know, because I really do want to know your opinions, and this is purely informal--I just want your opinions since I'm still trying to figure this out. Afterall...We human beings are hard to understand and every little bit helps.
Have a great weekend!
CG Anderson
Tell me!
Image, Fun, Interaction & You?
Instead of talking about a must-see band today, I decided to muse and mull something different. After all, the site's name is Musings and Meanings of Non-Sensical Events...and Canada. Well, I'm going to muse, and perhaps you can help me find some meaning. It may not be non-sensical, then again, what is sensible about many things that we, as human beings, do? As for Canada, well, this musing is international, so feel free to pipe in from whereever you are--Canada won't be an addendum to the US this time! (wink & LOL, sorry Canada, know it bothers you all when people lump you together with the USA.)
I do a lot of research into image, interaction, social identity in an online world, interface design, and other things--including what makes something 'beautiful' or 'fun' or 'innovative' or you-name-it. It's one reason this site is dedicated to music, art, dance and media issues. I find beauty here as well as innovation and that ever illusive 'fun' factor.
Those that read this blog regularly know that I often spoof Microsoft, Google, Disney and other big media players (you note I said 'media' not 'internet' as we are well beyond just 'internet' these days in our daily online lives.) They get spoofed not because of any real dislike for them, but because they are so big and powerful now that the effects they can have on the media world can be shattering. Or they can be innovative and uplifting. However, being big companies, they are about profit and loss (P&L) and if we, those without power, don't constantly remind them that we, those that purchase and use their services, want fun, innovation and usefulness, then there is the likely chance that they will stop listening all together. Customer service departments you see and market research are money sinks rather than profit centers--hence, if big companies think they can get rid of the money sinks, they will.
What has this got to do with games, image or even you? Well, beyond the obvious things of you being a consumer/user, I'm talking about quality of life. This includes quality of life online as well as offline. Fun is a big part of that. Games are often a way to understand 'fun.' Plus, how you interact with games or online spaces is a big factor as well.
As for Image, many of you...in fact ALL of you...create your image and present it to others, online or offline. If you are an artist (any genre, any form) then understanding how to create your image and how to present it to others as well as what effects it has on others will help you succeed or fail in your artistic pursuit. Why do you think big companies spend so much time and money on Branding? They know it matters in ways that are hard to measure with current, past and future customers. Human beings are wonderfully complicated and yet both similar and unique. This is why companies try to appeal to particular demographics and why different art forms, music genres, games and of course sporting events exist. We are different. We are alike. We like different things. We band together to enjoy those things. Sometimes we change our minds and like something new or go back to something old. We're fickle and we change over time. It's natural.
But if you are trying to build a fanbase for your work, then you have the same headaches those big companies have with trying to retain their customers and find new ones. Image.
Except you don't have millions to spend on branding, marketing and research, or PR spinning when you mess up, do you? So you need to think even more carefully about how you present yourself to others and whether it has the intended effect.
So back to games. I've talked about marketing issues related to image. I've talked about design tools that make it easier to create your image online (without being a programmer.) So why am I blathering on about games? Or for that matter that interaction or design thing I mentioned?
Think about your presentation online. It's not just about putting up some photos of yourself and quickie bio, is it? You customize your webpage, your MySpace page or your blog, don't you? You should be thinking not just about 'what' you say and 'what images' you put up, but also about what colors you choose for your site, what songs/music you put on your site and on a deeper level, how viewers interact with the stuff you put up.
Now MySpace and Google Blogger pretty much give you standard interfaces (buttons, comment sections and so forth) so if you think carefully about how you customize there, you won't have many problems. (I've seen some sites that didn't think first, and you can't find the buttons, or other elements sit in front of them so you can't use them.)
Figuring out that interaction is also important. If you frustrate people by making it hard to contact you, or get to options on your page or you mislead them into following some trail that turns out to be bogus, then you are going to have major image problems. Don't piss off your potential and current fan base. Know what they like and want and do that, but without being false. Be true to yourself and your image, true fans will respect you for it and it will be easier to maintain a true image, even one that is evolving through the highs and lows of being an artist.
Again, games? Why games? OK, games are innovative almost by their very nature AND they have to think about interactions with the player and the interface design AND all the creative elements (visual, audio, narrative, everything.) A great game creates an emotional connection between the game and the player. It doesn't take million dollar special effects or 1000s of man hours of programming. Production quality always helps, but like some great cult TV shows, it doesn't always matter.
Games also innovate in how we see the world. The one thing that disappoints me across the web and software industry is the lack of cool, visual design innovations. They are out there, but you rarely see them. Big companies don't like risk and consumers too often are risk aversive, too. Consumers say they want intuitive design (which is great) but then companies decide that that means don't try anything new. What do we get? We get same-old, same-old web designs based on very standardized design principles and almost always using the same 2D desktop metaphor that Windows and Mac both use.
The idea of design standards was to give designers a better understanding of GOOD design..i.e. don't make it hard to use, don't make it so that people can't understand what it's for, make it easy to make a purchase, or find a bit of information...that sort of thing. It didn't mean look exactly like your neighbor, except for the branding graphics and the link titles. It didn't mean throw out other metaphors for visual design and only, ONLY use the flat, 2D desktop model. (No, adding buttons that have a more 3D kind of look, isn't 3D...having simulated depth use via a 2D screen is 3D.)
Games go for 2D and 3D. They go for new interfaces for the players, with heads up displays, new controls, feedback systems, you name it. They are trying out new ideas everyday and it's not bleeding over into the more general online space, which disappoints me. It should also disappoint you, since you and I are the ones that are missing out on perhaps something even better than what we have now.
Games know that the competition is tough. (It's not just a question of Windows or Mac, Yahoo! or Google.) Competition for artists is tough, too! Even more than the games market, you have to find ways to stand out and get noticed. You need, like a game or website, GREAT content (i.e. your art, your music, your dance, your writing...) How you present yourself (IMAGE) goes a long way to getting people to notice you, trust you and want to learn more about you.
As for creating a fun, compelling experience for your fanbase, that's a whole other subject. I still wonder what 'fun' truly is...and what it means to different people. For example, the games I like the most, enjoy the most don't tend to be FPS (first person shooter) games like Halo or Half Life. I actually love games like Mercury, Marble Madness, F-Zero GX, Frequency, Dragon's Lair, Space Ace and Asteroids. Some of them are old games, some newer.
I was impressed with Myst; it's visually stunning, but I tend to get frustrated on complicated, obtuse games like that, so the fun factor dropped. The game that totally immersed me and scared the daylights out of me was called Iron Helix. No blood. No gore. But it did manage to actually convince me that what was happening was real, even though I was remotely controlling a robot and couldn't get hurt. My adrenalin raced as 'something' closed in on me and I fled the space station (to save my robot.) I had to remind myself that it wasn't real. Good games just like good TV shows or films do that to you.
But what I find fun or exciting or real is likely quite different from someone else, hence, fun is hard to break down into a fixed formula and why being true to yourself in building your image is so important. Everyone is different and not everyone will like you or your stuff. It's not an insult to you. It's normal. You want to find the fans that will like your stuff and appreciate it.
How you present your image helps. So look at games you like, TV and film you like, music you like, colors you like, design you like, interactive processes you typically do (how you navigate around the web, or what you expect to find someone's website...) all this will help you figure out how to design your image.
As for games and fun, I'm going to ask you the question because I definitely want to hear from you on this one.
What games do you find fun? What music is fun? What sports? What dances? What books? Or magazines? Or comics/graphic novels? Do you play games on your phone? How do you deal with the tiny screen? How can it still be fun with a screen that small? That small screen drives me nuts! What sites do you like? And WHY? What makes them fun for your? Do you even care that all the web site designs out there tend to look alike? That all the computers tend to look alike as well?
Let me know, because I really do want to know your opinions, and this is purely informal--I just want your opinions since I'm still trying to figure this out. Afterall...We human beings are hard to understand and every little bit helps.
Have a great weekend!
CG Anderson
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Innovation and Risk: Why Google & Yahoo! Still know how and Big Brands Don't
Innovation and Risk, Why Google and Yahoo! Still Know How and Big Brands and Agencies Don't.
Canada, Culture, Hate Speech and Porn -- What's that got to do with Branding, Image, Risk and Innovation?
A recent commentary article by Jonah Bloom of Ad Age caught my eye today and I just had to get some stuff written.
The link is http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=115717 It's entitled, "Great Products, Stories Will Take These Small Companies Far.... Three Brands That Make Sure Operations and Brand Promise Are the Same Thing." I don't spend a lot of time reading blogs and online magazines. I usually run search terms in order to find relevant articles and discussions. I do occasionally (a lot if there is time) cruise Technorati, CNET, CNN, BBC, several news mags/online papers including some Canadian ones. I rely heavily on advertising and marketing related newsletters though like Ad Age and eMarketer. They come into my email box every day with headlines and teasers of the stories of the day. I don't have time to read everything I'd like to, so I find such things invaluable--both for industry trends and for insightful commentary about the state of media. (You may not be able to read the article without a subscription, but if you can, I encourage you to read it.)
Bloom's article resonated though, especially since it is in line with the things I talk about frequently (and some things I've been dealing with in the offline world lately. I'm not even doing my usual inspect-rewrite-rewrite-rewrite method with this posting. I want to get it written and out there before I lose my train of thought--hopefully, not too late already!!!) His stuff is usually insightful about the industry and encourages innovation and risk taking, harshly criticizing agencies and companies that back down the instant some lone individual cries foul. I agree with him and other critics that the so called 'leaders' of the industry aren't the ones that truly lead...it's the smaller, lesser known agencies and companies that really do the innovation and leadership. If you watch them, you have a much better idea of what is to come.
I'll give you a fair use taste of what Bloom wrote:
"The real brand heroes are so often the small guys. The guys who innovate because they can't spend; the guys who understand brand utility, because if they didn't their companies would wither before they sprouted their first bud; the guys who know their audience, because they, well, talk to them. They not only get that everything their company does has to be true to their go-to-market strategy -- but are sufficiently involved in all those things to actually make sure operations and brand promise are the same thing. Jig-a-Loo is big in Canada, and it has recently completed a $7.5 million private-equity deal to take a shot at the U.S. market. Watch out WD40. "
Small companies and unknown brands innovate because they are unknown and it's the only real way to make a big splash. Instead of just spinning the same old thing a different way, or taking an inferior product and pushing it into the light with a lot of expensive spending, they actually need to do something new, different and relevant. Innovation requires risktaking, which means you could fail. Big agencies and big companies don't want that kind of risk. They're afraid that even a single failure will somehow cause their entire world to come crashing down.
Likely it won't but that appears to be the mindset. FEAR. Everyone wants sure things, yet everyone knows that there is no such thing as a 'sure thing.' But still, too often the bigger companies (or bigger names in terms of artists) think that if they throw money at it, then they can force something to be a sure thing. (Look at all the copycat TV programs or films...and all the remakes of remakes of remakes...rather than new innovative shows that might offend someone somewhere in someway or that might really take off and become the next big thing.) Or they will buy into any agency or promoter that promises them a 'sure thing.' Kind of sounds gullible doesn't it? Yet, these are the big boys and girls with the big money? Why would they act so stupid? aka...FEAR...it makes you stupid and willing to believe anybody that tells you what you want to hear.
Diet books and schemes that promise 'eat anything and still lose weight' or gurus that tell you that with enough money or being 'thin' enough, you will be happy. Doesn't work, doesn't happen. Need I say more?
So innovation happens because there isn't any choice--no easy answers, no easy 'sure things'--and thus, the risk becomes acceptable. The up side is that we get new companies, new groups, new people taking those risks and giving us great new things to use or listen to or watch. That's why I spend so much time surfing MySpace looking for emerging talent and (when I do review them) am often disappointed with established big names.
It's also why I'm so often disappointed with a culture and society that accepts this kind of attitude that prefers cheap imitation over real quality. Following your dreams, your passion is all about taking risks--as those that do already know. Following others, imitating them, thinking that doing the same will make you successful, is not...but if you imitate rather than blaze new trails, you aren't alone. Billion dollar companies--that got that successful usually by starting as a small but risk taking company--live the imitation life every day now.
Some don't. Both Google and Yahoo! come immediately to mind, both have seen setbacks and criticizms, but both have never stopped taking risks and trying to find new ways to innovate and succeed. They are both internet companies, but while that may help them understand the fast-paced, snooze-you-lose attitude that is the Internet and Web, it doesn't automatically imply success. (Remember Netscape?)
However, both Google and Yahoo! are constantly trying to find new ways to reach people and entertain them. Yes, entertain. After all, if it doesn't engage you, if it isn't 'fun' in some way, even something like 'search,' then you aren't going to bother using some new site or program, are you? And if it requires a learning curve of some kind, why bother if it isn't relevant to your needs anyway? Some companies never seem to get that part about new products or services.
Like I said, both have had ups and downs. I even joke around by calling Google the New Evil Empire, meaning they have immense influence and power now. Are these companies evil? No. Are they angels? No. Google has come under attack for their China policy as well as allegations that their advertising only business model allows disreputable sites to operate, well, disreputably--while Google turns a blind eye. Do they? I don't know. I do know that the companies complaining the loudest are Google's competitors and also are the same ones declaring that Google's business model is unsound. It must really bug them that the textbooks seem to be wrong on this one and Google just keeps succeeding in spite of their 'unsound, shaky, can't last' business model.
And yes, if Google were encouraging grey or black hat SEO tactics, I would be screaming very loudly and angrily. Black/Grey hat SEO (Search Engine Optimization) are methods that use luring keywords, mislabeled content, false updated sites and so forth to raise the search list status (ie.. to get closer to the top of the list so that you, the searcher, will click on them.) Porn sites, especially illegal ones (child porn), or violent racial hatred sites are notorious for this kind of behavior--they especially try to lure the very young to their sites, to expose them to vulgar, violent and illegal images or hateful, bigoted views that encourage violence.
I've done a lot of research on predators (online and offline types), pornography effects, child porn and abuse, hate speech and social identity in the online space. I've seen and read things that I won't discuss here. I care a lot about these subjects and so applaud shows like Dateline's To Catch a Predator that bring the subject, in only a portion of its true horror, to a larger audience. If I thought Google were a part of that, believe me, I'd be screaming pretty loudly. So far, what I've learned is that while Google will play political games (China) in order to penetrate a market, like everybody else, they deal pretty severely with illegal activities and black or gray hat activities. Same with Yahoo!
If you are curious about some of my extensive academic research, a lot of it is still online (for a while...until I need the space)...the online stuff is meant to be online and presented in a online (visual, aural and kinetic) way--trying to both entertain and enlighten. Go to my main website and click on the Old Academic link. http://www.myuw.net/cganders (And yes, every child porn site I tracked down I reported to reputable agencies--problem usually is that these sites move around a lot or are hosted in countries that are unwilling to take action against them, or against local predators.) You'll understand then why I hate Larry Flynt and Hustler and don't think of Hustler as 'free speech in action.' You'll get why I like Canadian culture and their views of Hate Speech as illegal rather than the U.S. view of it as 'free speech.' Why I believe that pornography incites violence toward women, toward children and in general toward everyone, especially in a culture that already worships violence, accepts bigotry subconsciously and secretly needs to subjegate someone in order to feel powerful.
There are powerful social institutions at play involved here. That research effort, along with a related look at the Mai Lai massacre and the misleading, inaccurate and self-serving Bowling for Columbine movie, aren't online but were offline projects. Women, children and (if government approved) ethnic and so-called 'racial' groups are usually the easiest targets. The problems are all related and go back to cultural institutions, insider/outsider tribal patterns and social identity theory.
Sounds intimidating, I know, but it's true--and yes, I really do do that kind of background research on things. Cultural problems are complex and quick fixes need not apply. It also applies to marketing research and customer insight and media trends, believe it or not. {smile and wink inserted here!}
I may not do negative reviews on this site, but commentary is a different matter entirely. This stuff pushes my buttons, especially when I see companies, groups or politicos trying to trivialize such matters.
You may be able to throw money at your problems in the offline world and stave off your competitors, but on the Web, Innovation and Risk are the name of the game. The digital media world can do anything the old media world can do--and what's more, is gradually displacing it more and more. The marketing/ad mix models don't work the same on the Net. Content control doesn't work the same. Mass media doesn't work the same. Gate Keeping is gone. Time control is gone (and hence channel marketing, drive times and so forth.) Tracking ad/marketing/media effects is actually just as hard as it is in the offline world but also easier in some ways (unlike the offline media world.)
However, agencies and companies haven't adjusted yet to the new metaphors and hence still see it as more difficult rather than easier--and marketing dollars only flow when such individuals think they will get something 'risk-free.' It's not risk free in the offline world, but they grew up in that world and learned their trade in that world--they know that world and don't even recognize how shaky that world and its preconceived notions really are. That world is familiar and so seems more understandable and stable to them. A world that requires them to constantly innovate and take risks is frightening, especially since in the digital world, lack of control is more common than hierarchical control.
Cable took a lot of control away from broadcast TV, but you still have heads of broadcast companies not recognizing that a big part of getting a 20 or 30 share in the past was because of 'scarcity.' Three channels means three choices, period. Five hundred means less control, less loyalty and more choice. It also means better demographic segmentation but fewer dollars per channel. Fewer dollars and greater fear to spend (since it's less bang per buck now) means less original content, not more...which means less interest by viewers, which means less effectiveness for advertisers, leading to less money spent on that medium, which means less money spent on original content and so on. Downward spiral.
A newer medium (Net) is at least 'new' which implies interest (for a time.) How the Net will develop 'content-wise' is still to be seen, but develop it will.
By the by, social networking and viral marketing (i.e. a place like MySpace or YouTube and the way a cool vid, story or picture travels around the Net and gets seen by thousands to millions) are just another form of word-of-mouth marketing, a very effective and very old marketing method from the offline world. Still difficult to track but still probably the most effective (read targeted with great results) method there is. Thus, the offline world and online world are using similar methods, just different names sometimes. It also explains the intense interest by marketing and advertising folks in social networking and viral campaigns. The problem crops up because they don't want to relinquish control of the message and trust the online community--they want it risk free.
In the end, what does this mean to you as an individual, as a company or as an artist? Quite simply, it means stay true to your core beliefs (as long as they don't involve hurting other people in order to make you feel important--that's not a core belief, that's something much darker) and don't be afraid to push boundaries and follow your heart. Be willing to take the risks and risk failure. Don't follow every trend just because it's there (like all the big stars trying to be rappers or do hip hop because they think that's the hot trend right now.)
Naturally, you don't want to turn off your fans (or customer base) but don't let that fear overwhelm you. Your fans were attracted to you because you were you, not some cheap imitation (hopefully!) So IMAGE matters. If you've made your image true to yourself and NOT let someone else (company, agency, agent, music exec, TV exec, etc.) do it for you, giving you a fake image (Whitney Houston comes to mind)...then if you've defined a true you, then as you change and grow into a maturing artist, your fans will perceive that it is still genuine and should be willing to accept the changes. (David Bowie comes to mind.)
If your image was fake or faddish, even a gimic or part of some socio/political agenda, then the fans (or customers) still following you aren't true fans. They (like you, following the fad) are just there because they think it's the cool thing to do and that it (and you) will make them look better somehow. When the fad ends, you're dropped as fast as a squid sandwich. If they stay, it's hard to tell why they did. At its worst, you get obsessed fans that have tied up their worth with your identity, rather than their own self worth. (That, at its worst, can be deadly...but luckily, isn't as common as the headline/ratings hungry media makes out.) Just remember, that that is their identity problem...not yours! You just concentrate on being the best you possible--so push those boundaries, take those risks and change the world just by being...you.
So be true to yourself, as the saying goes. In this case, the saying gets it just right.
Keep in mind, these are my comments and my opinions. That said, they are also based on a helluva lot of research. (If you can't tell from the above stuff, I have a research/insight background to go along with all the tech and art) and I've delved a lot into social identity theory, insider/outsider (stranger or Other) research findings about group behavior, porn/childporn/violence and media research. So it's at least an informed opinion, even if big brands and media heads don't want to hear it and would rather dismiss it (and the changes to the media world) as just one person's opinion. It's why I write science fiction, thriller fiction and literary fiction...and why I did website projects that weren't dry and informational but tried to demonstrate the principles as well, making an emotional connection and creating a visceral experience...all are easier to use as a way of conveying social commentary than the whole lecture/complain/sound like a shrill idiot method or even the pontificating bastard format common to politics. :)
Still, every now and then, the whole commentary in a direct method way, is fun to do. ;)
CG Anderson
Little Dogs Media
Aha! Blogolicious!
Canada, Culture, Hate Speech and Porn -- What's that got to do with Branding, Image, Risk and Innovation?
A recent commentary article by Jonah Bloom of Ad Age caught my eye today and I just had to get some stuff written.
The link is http://adage.com/columns/article?article_id=115717 It's entitled, "Great Products, Stories Will Take These Small Companies Far.... Three Brands That Make Sure Operations and Brand Promise Are the Same Thing." I don't spend a lot of time reading blogs and online magazines. I usually run search terms in order to find relevant articles and discussions. I do occasionally (a lot if there is time) cruise Technorati, CNET, CNN, BBC, several news mags/online papers including some Canadian ones. I rely heavily on advertising and marketing related newsletters though like Ad Age and eMarketer. They come into my email box every day with headlines and teasers of the stories of the day. I don't have time to read everything I'd like to, so I find such things invaluable--both for industry trends and for insightful commentary about the state of media. (You may not be able to read the article without a subscription, but if you can, I encourage you to read it.)
Bloom's article resonated though, especially since it is in line with the things I talk about frequently (and some things I've been dealing with in the offline world lately. I'm not even doing my usual inspect-rewrite-rewrite-rewrite method with this posting. I want to get it written and out there before I lose my train of thought--hopefully, not too late already!!!) His stuff is usually insightful about the industry and encourages innovation and risk taking, harshly criticizing agencies and companies that back down the instant some lone individual cries foul. I agree with him and other critics that the so called 'leaders' of the industry aren't the ones that truly lead...it's the smaller, lesser known agencies and companies that really do the innovation and leadership. If you watch them, you have a much better idea of what is to come.
I'll give you a fair use taste of what Bloom wrote:
"The real brand heroes are so often the small guys. The guys who innovate because they can't spend; the guys who understand brand utility, because if they didn't their companies would wither before they sprouted their first bud; the guys who know their audience, because they, well, talk to them. They not only get that everything their company does has to be true to their go-to-market strategy -- but are sufficiently involved in all those things to actually make sure operations and brand promise are the same thing. Jig-a-Loo is big in Canada, and it has recently completed a $7.5 million private-equity deal to take a shot at the U.S. market. Watch out WD40. "
Small companies and unknown brands innovate because they are unknown and it's the only real way to make a big splash. Instead of just spinning the same old thing a different way, or taking an inferior product and pushing it into the light with a lot of expensive spending, they actually need to do something new, different and relevant. Innovation requires risktaking, which means you could fail. Big agencies and big companies don't want that kind of risk. They're afraid that even a single failure will somehow cause their entire world to come crashing down.
Likely it won't but that appears to be the mindset. FEAR. Everyone wants sure things, yet everyone knows that there is no such thing as a 'sure thing.' But still, too often the bigger companies (or bigger names in terms of artists) think that if they throw money at it, then they can force something to be a sure thing. (Look at all the copycat TV programs or films...and all the remakes of remakes of remakes...rather than new innovative shows that might offend someone somewhere in someway or that might really take off and become the next big thing.) Or they will buy into any agency or promoter that promises them a 'sure thing.' Kind of sounds gullible doesn't it? Yet, these are the big boys and girls with the big money? Why would they act so stupid? aka...FEAR...it makes you stupid and willing to believe anybody that tells you what you want to hear.
Diet books and schemes that promise 'eat anything and still lose weight' or gurus that tell you that with enough money or being 'thin' enough, you will be happy. Doesn't work, doesn't happen. Need I say more?
So innovation happens because there isn't any choice--no easy answers, no easy 'sure things'--and thus, the risk becomes acceptable. The up side is that we get new companies, new groups, new people taking those risks and giving us great new things to use or listen to or watch. That's why I spend so much time surfing MySpace looking for emerging talent and (when I do review them) am often disappointed with established big names.
It's also why I'm so often disappointed with a culture and society that accepts this kind of attitude that prefers cheap imitation over real quality. Following your dreams, your passion is all about taking risks--as those that do already know. Following others, imitating them, thinking that doing the same will make you successful, is not...but if you imitate rather than blaze new trails, you aren't alone. Billion dollar companies--that got that successful usually by starting as a small but risk taking company--live the imitation life every day now.
Some don't. Both Google and Yahoo! come immediately to mind, both have seen setbacks and criticizms, but both have never stopped taking risks and trying to find new ways to innovate and succeed. They are both internet companies, but while that may help them understand the fast-paced, snooze-you-lose attitude that is the Internet and Web, it doesn't automatically imply success. (Remember Netscape?)
However, both Google and Yahoo! are constantly trying to find new ways to reach people and entertain them. Yes, entertain. After all, if it doesn't engage you, if it isn't 'fun' in some way, even something like 'search,' then you aren't going to bother using some new site or program, are you? And if it requires a learning curve of some kind, why bother if it isn't relevant to your needs anyway? Some companies never seem to get that part about new products or services.
Like I said, both have had ups and downs. I even joke around by calling Google the New Evil Empire, meaning they have immense influence and power now. Are these companies evil? No. Are they angels? No. Google has come under attack for their China policy as well as allegations that their advertising only business model allows disreputable sites to operate, well, disreputably--while Google turns a blind eye. Do they? I don't know. I do know that the companies complaining the loudest are Google's competitors and also are the same ones declaring that Google's business model is unsound. It must really bug them that the textbooks seem to be wrong on this one and Google just keeps succeeding in spite of their 'unsound, shaky, can't last' business model.
And yes, if Google were encouraging grey or black hat SEO tactics, I would be screaming very loudly and angrily. Black/Grey hat SEO (Search Engine Optimization) are methods that use luring keywords, mislabeled content, false updated sites and so forth to raise the search list status (ie.. to get closer to the top of the list so that you, the searcher, will click on them.) Porn sites, especially illegal ones (child porn), or violent racial hatred sites are notorious for this kind of behavior--they especially try to lure the very young to their sites, to expose them to vulgar, violent and illegal images or hateful, bigoted views that encourage violence.
I've done a lot of research on predators (online and offline types), pornography effects, child porn and abuse, hate speech and social identity in the online space. I've seen and read things that I won't discuss here. I care a lot about these subjects and so applaud shows like Dateline's To Catch a Predator that bring the subject, in only a portion of its true horror, to a larger audience. If I thought Google were a part of that, believe me, I'd be screaming pretty loudly. So far, what I've learned is that while Google will play political games (China) in order to penetrate a market, like everybody else, they deal pretty severely with illegal activities and black or gray hat activities. Same with Yahoo!
If you are curious about some of my extensive academic research, a lot of it is still online (for a while...until I need the space)...the online stuff is meant to be online and presented in a online (visual, aural and kinetic) way--trying to both entertain and enlighten. Go to my main website and click on the Old Academic link. http://www.myuw.net/cganders (And yes, every child porn site I tracked down I reported to reputable agencies--problem usually is that these sites move around a lot or are hosted in countries that are unwilling to take action against them, or against local predators.) You'll understand then why I hate Larry Flynt and Hustler and don't think of Hustler as 'free speech in action.' You'll get why I like Canadian culture and their views of Hate Speech as illegal rather than the U.S. view of it as 'free speech.' Why I believe that pornography incites violence toward women, toward children and in general toward everyone, especially in a culture that already worships violence, accepts bigotry subconsciously and secretly needs to subjegate someone in order to feel powerful.
There are powerful social institutions at play involved here. That research effort, along with a related look at the Mai Lai massacre and the misleading, inaccurate and self-serving Bowling for Columbine movie, aren't online but were offline projects. Women, children and (if government approved) ethnic and so-called 'racial' groups are usually the easiest targets. The problems are all related and go back to cultural institutions, insider/outsider tribal patterns and social identity theory.
Sounds intimidating, I know, but it's true--and yes, I really do do that kind of background research on things. Cultural problems are complex and quick fixes need not apply. It also applies to marketing research and customer insight and media trends, believe it or not. {smile and wink inserted here!}
I may not do negative reviews on this site, but commentary is a different matter entirely. This stuff pushes my buttons, especially when I see companies, groups or politicos trying to trivialize such matters.
You may be able to throw money at your problems in the offline world and stave off your competitors, but on the Web, Innovation and Risk are the name of the game. The digital media world can do anything the old media world can do--and what's more, is gradually displacing it more and more. The marketing/ad mix models don't work the same on the Net. Content control doesn't work the same. Mass media doesn't work the same. Gate Keeping is gone. Time control is gone (and hence channel marketing, drive times and so forth.) Tracking ad/marketing/media effects is actually just as hard as it is in the offline world but also easier in some ways (unlike the offline media world.)
However, agencies and companies haven't adjusted yet to the new metaphors and hence still see it as more difficult rather than easier--and marketing dollars only flow when such individuals think they will get something 'risk-free.' It's not risk free in the offline world, but they grew up in that world and learned their trade in that world--they know that world and don't even recognize how shaky that world and its preconceived notions really are. That world is familiar and so seems more understandable and stable to them. A world that requires them to constantly innovate and take risks is frightening, especially since in the digital world, lack of control is more common than hierarchical control.
Cable took a lot of control away from broadcast TV, but you still have heads of broadcast companies not recognizing that a big part of getting a 20 or 30 share in the past was because of 'scarcity.' Three channels means three choices, period. Five hundred means less control, less loyalty and more choice. It also means better demographic segmentation but fewer dollars per channel. Fewer dollars and greater fear to spend (since it's less bang per buck now) means less original content, not more...which means less interest by viewers, which means less effectiveness for advertisers, leading to less money spent on that medium, which means less money spent on original content and so on. Downward spiral.
A newer medium (Net) is at least 'new' which implies interest (for a time.) How the Net will develop 'content-wise' is still to be seen, but develop it will.
By the by, social networking and viral marketing (i.e. a place like MySpace or YouTube and the way a cool vid, story or picture travels around the Net and gets seen by thousands to millions) are just another form of word-of-mouth marketing, a very effective and very old marketing method from the offline world. Still difficult to track but still probably the most effective (read targeted with great results) method there is. Thus, the offline world and online world are using similar methods, just different names sometimes. It also explains the intense interest by marketing and advertising folks in social networking and viral campaigns. The problem crops up because they don't want to relinquish control of the message and trust the online community--they want it risk free.
In the end, what does this mean to you as an individual, as a company or as an artist? Quite simply, it means stay true to your core beliefs (as long as they don't involve hurting other people in order to make you feel important--that's not a core belief, that's something much darker) and don't be afraid to push boundaries and follow your heart. Be willing to take the risks and risk failure. Don't follow every trend just because it's there (like all the big stars trying to be rappers or do hip hop because they think that's the hot trend right now.)
Naturally, you don't want to turn off your fans (or customer base) but don't let that fear overwhelm you. Your fans were attracted to you because you were you, not some cheap imitation (hopefully!) So IMAGE matters. If you've made your image true to yourself and NOT let someone else (company, agency, agent, music exec, TV exec, etc.) do it for you, giving you a fake image (Whitney Houston comes to mind)...then if you've defined a true you, then as you change and grow into a maturing artist, your fans will perceive that it is still genuine and should be willing to accept the changes. (David Bowie comes to mind.)
If your image was fake or faddish, even a gimic or part of some socio/political agenda, then the fans (or customers) still following you aren't true fans. They (like you, following the fad) are just there because they think it's the cool thing to do and that it (and you) will make them look better somehow. When the fad ends, you're dropped as fast as a squid sandwich. If they stay, it's hard to tell why they did. At its worst, you get obsessed fans that have tied up their worth with your identity, rather than their own self worth. (That, at its worst, can be deadly...but luckily, isn't as common as the headline/ratings hungry media makes out.) Just remember, that that is their identity problem...not yours! You just concentrate on being the best you possible--so push those boundaries, take those risks and change the world just by being...you.
So be true to yourself, as the saying goes. In this case, the saying gets it just right.
Keep in mind, these are my comments and my opinions. That said, they are also based on a helluva lot of research. (If you can't tell from the above stuff, I have a research/insight background to go along with all the tech and art) and I've delved a lot into social identity theory, insider/outsider (stranger or Other) research findings about group behavior, porn/childporn/violence and media research. So it's at least an informed opinion, even if big brands and media heads don't want to hear it and would rather dismiss it (and the changes to the media world) as just one person's opinion. It's why I write science fiction, thriller fiction and literary fiction...and why I did website projects that weren't dry and informational but tried to demonstrate the principles as well, making an emotional connection and creating a visceral experience...all are easier to use as a way of conveying social commentary than the whole lecture/complain/sound like a shrill idiot method or even the pontificating bastard format common to politics. :)
Still, every now and then, the whole commentary in a direct method way, is fun to do. ;)
CG Anderson
Little Dogs Media
Aha! Blogolicious!
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Google DeathRay destroys Washington, D.C., JibJab escapes unscathed!
World Leaders Thrilled, Microsoft disappointed, Google embarrassed!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
By Offun D. Cuff
Apparently, the goliath decided to take matters into their own hands to prevent such an embarrassing contesting of their absolute power and unleashed their infamous and always legally deniable Space Satellite DeathRay (bought for a song at a government Star Wars surplus auction last year.)
Unfortunately, to the company's embarrassment, their intelligence was in error on the location of the famous JibJab brothers, Gregg and Evan Spiridellis. Google bigwigs assumed that JibJab would be located in
We were unable to reach JibJab for comment.
According to O.N. Wannabenot, a foreign correspondent with the always reputable news agency, The Onion, when other countries heard about the tragic loss of the D.C. area and all of its inhabitants, they were thrilled. When it was revealed later that President Bush and most of his cabinet were not in residence at the time, but were in fact in
In retaliation for the attack, the
When asked, Microsoft reported that it was thrilled, but later changed from that euphoria when they realized that it simply meant more free press for Google—and when they realized that even more than 50% (the previous penetration number quoted for Google) of internet connected devices out there were being infected by the Google Virus.
Not even a Microsoft targeted virus ever made that kind of dent in the market, experts say! Microsoft exec's promised that they would continue their campaign to regain their Evil Empire status, so that they could regain their "most favored software company" status with virus writers everywhere.
Note: No Republicans were actually barbequed at the President's BBQ. (A few democrats were though—and they were considered a leaner cut than their fat cat opponents and a therefore, much healthier choice among the calorie conscious.)
This is a satirical spoof, meaning, don't take it seriously.
Blog site: http://ahablogolicious.blogspot.com/
URL: http://home.myuw.net/cganders/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)