-
Kevin Fitzsimons / Comedy Central
IN A very short time, Hulu has rocketed from nothing to being one of the top video destinations on the Internet. We've all heard the years of trade-show claptrap about television-Web "convergence," but Hulu has come as close as possible to turning your computer into a TV without actually sending a tech to monkey around with the hardware and wiring.
Maybe more important, it's also shaping up as a key proving ground in the ongoing philosophical debate about what people want from Web-based entertainment.
How do you Hulu? You don't have to pay anything, download a special player or even register your name or e-mail address. The site, which went up in mid-March, is free; in exchange for watching relatively brief ads, you get access to complete high-resolution episodes of top TV series such as "24" and "30 Rock," as well as impressively cataloged clips from "Saturday Night Live" and other shows. (The movie roster is somewhat less formidable, unless you consider "The Payaso Comedy Slam" or "Snake Eater" the apex of cinematic art.)
You could spend hours rolling around in there, as I did over a few days recently, and just scratch the surface.
"We haven't hit our three-month anniversary yet, and we already have about 700 titles," Jason Kilar, Hulu's chief executive, told me last week.
Last week, Hulu began showing complete episodes of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report." The deal is important because of the corporate relationships involved. Hulu joins the forces of NBC Universal and News Corp., parent of Fox Broadcasting and other networks. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, a rival company that hasn't always been friendly toward outside websites that want to use its content.
THE MESSAGE seems clear: Viewers want online video, and studios have decided they'd better give it to them, traditional corporate strategy be damned.
Bobby Tulsiani, an analyst at Jupiter Research, told me that he thinks Hulu is "a great first start" at developing Internet sites designed for what Web folks call premium content -- that is, full-length, professionally produced TV shows and movies. What's still unknown, he added, is just how big the market is for this stuff.
Hulu delivered 63 million total streams during April, its first full month of operation, making it the No. 10 online video-streaming site, according to Nielsen Online, an audience-research company. (Yes, that's still a long way from No. 1 YouTube, Google's clip-sharing site, which logged a mind-boggling 4 billion streams.) Full Article here.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/11/business/fi-ct-hulu11
Hulu's tug of war with TV
As online TV viewership surges, media companies reconsider the wisdom of sharing their content for free.
By Dawn C. Chmielewski and Meg James
Online video site Hulu trumpeted its ascension to the media big time a few months back with a dash of sardonic humor. In its debut TV commercial, in which Alec Baldwin mocks the audience's addiction to the very shows he creates as a fictional network executive, the site calls itself "an evil plot to destroy the world."
The joke is uneasily close to the truth for some in the television business.
Once dismissed as "Clown Co." by Silicon Valley critics who scoffed at the notion that old media giants could ever harness the Internet, the website with a name that sounds like a Hawaiian dance has quickly upset the status quo. Hulu's traction with users has entrenched entertainment companies worried that the video site's runaway success could undercut the financial underpinnings of the industry.
Those companies are fighting back, and the result could mean no more free passes for many signature cable programs that appear on Hulu.
NBC Universal and News Corp. publicly launched Hulu a little more than a year ago as a gamble on television's digital future. The website allows viewers to watch thousands of episodes of TV shows for free, from current hits like "Family Guy" and "The Office" to old favorites like "WKRP in Cincinnati" and "I Dream of Jeannie." Hulu's simple design, expansive catalog and no cover charge have elevated it to one of the most popular websites for watching video.
With 42 million viewers in March -- an audience nearly twice the size of TV's most popular show, Fox's "American Idol" -- Hulu whizzed past Yahoo and Microsoft's MSN, and is now nipping at the heels of Google's YouTube.
"Hulu has certainly exceeded all of our expectations," said Jean-Briac Perrette, NBC Universal's president of digital distribution. "We've come a long way from Clown Co."
Late last month, Walt Disney Co. overcame its initial skepticism and signed on as an equity owner of Hulu, which has nearly 150 content partners. That gives the video site even more star power with the addition of ABC's "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost," and cable hits such as ABC Family's "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" and Disney Channel's "Wizards of Waverly Place."
"Our feeling is that -- and some of this is instinct, by the way -- media consumption online is growing and will continue to grow," Disney Chief Executive Robert A. Iger said in a call last week with analysts who grilled him about Hulu. "It is really important for us to establish ourselves there."
But in making a bid for the next generation of Internet- attuned viewers, Hulu's owners have strained their lucrative relationships with cable and satellite operators. Companies like Time Warner Cable Inc. and DirecTV Group Inc. pay cable networks billions of dollars each year to carry programming. Believing that they should have exclusivity because their payments support the enormous cost of producing TV shows, such companies have been pushing back against the Hulu freebies.
Investors also are wary that the media companies' embrace of the Internet-content-should-be-
"If you give away your premium content for free, you are basically hastening your own demise, signing your own death warrant," said Laura Martin, a media analyst with Soleil-Media Metrics. "There is a choice that companies have to make."
Hulu illustrates the quandary that media executives face as they weigh the potential of the Internet against their dependable, old-line businesses. If the television industry does not find a way to preserve its two pillars of revenue -- advertising and subscription fees -- the consequences could be dire. Analysts point to the rapid deterioration of newspapers, which traded paying print subscribers for the expectation of big bucks from online advertising that have not materialized.
The conflict has forced Hulu to make concessions that have hurt users who have come to expect a rich menu on the video site. In recent months, entire seasons of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" were abruptly taken off the site, along with episodes of other cable TV shows such as "In Plain Sight" and "Psych."
Hulu even blocked access to a technology that lets its users watch content on their TVs. The move provoked outrage among fans of the software, called Boxee, drawing 385 angry comments on the company's website.
"Big Media had better come out of their hole and embrace the power of Internet streaming or they'll be in big trouble down the road," wrote one poster who identified himself as Lew Ciokiewicz.
Hulu's pullback in the case of "Always Sunny," one of the site's early favorites, underscores the tug of war within established media companies over the wisdom of placing TV shows on the Internet for free.
The quirky sitcom about a group of slackers has become a signature of the FX cable channel. (FX is a division of Fox, whose parent company, News Corp., is one of Hulu's founding partners.)
Even as FX acknowledged Hulu brought it new viewers, the cable network nonetheless demanded that the video site drop three seasons from its free online offerings over fears it would undercut the show's ratings and hamper lucrative DVD sales.
"We are not going to take steps that ignore the needs of our partners," explained Hulu Chief Executive Jason Kilar.
In the summer of 2006, Hulu partners Fox and NBC were thinking primarily of their own needs. YouTube, the video site that Google Inc. would later buy for $1.65 billion, was beginning to look like the future of television. Initially designed as a platform to share homemade videos, it was quickly appropriated by users sharing TV highlights.
That terrified media executives, who feared they were about to lose control of their shows. They had cause for alarm: Consumers were gravitating toward online video at a faster clip than they had with cellphones, DVDs and even high-speed Internet service. With the lessons of music piracy and Napster freshly in mind, Hulu was launched in March 2008 as a way of keeping TV programming safely in the hands of its creators and distributors. And by making it free, it could short-circuit piracy.
It worked. Perhaps too well.
"The appetite for full-length TV shows online was larger than anyone thought or expected," said Bobby Tulsiani, Forrester Research media analyst. "And now people are starting to wonder, do we even need the cable connections?"
The country's largest cable operators aren't waiting around to find out the answer. In recent months, the operators have taken a hard line against cable networks for funneling their shows to Hulu. Some have gone so far as to stipulate that cable networks limit the number of episodes they make available online. Others have imposed an outright ban. The strictures buy time for cable operators until they can develop their own response to Hulu.
That strategy puts cable networks in a corner. They don't want to jeopardize the multimillion-dollar payments they receive from cable and satellite operators, so they are approaching the website cautiously. For example, Turner Broadcasting System Inc. refuses to give popular shows like TNT's "The Closer" to Hulu, preferring to keep a handful of episodes on its own site.
"We have to be mindful of the fact that we have a good business that works for all the players," said Andrew Heller, domestic distribution president for Turner Broadcasting. "We have to find ways to advance the business rather than cannibalize it."
Even the cable channels owned by Fox and NBC have been stingy about what they provide on Hulu. Just five episodes of cable shows like "Psych" on NBC Universal's USA Network or "Dog Whisperer" on Fox's National Geographic channel appear on the site -- usually a week after their initial television run.
Fox and NBC say there is little evidence that people are canceling their cable subscriptions because of Hulu. They contend that making shows available online provides valuable publicity, which stokes viewership on TV.
Nonetheless, the two media companies are discussing ways to adapt Hulu to preserve their relationships with cable operators, whose carriage fees help underwrite the cable networks' programming. Operators have another incentive to come to the table: They want to keep customers signed up for their high-speed Internet service, which people need to watch shows online.
NBC Universal and News Corp. are considering whether to adopt a cable industry initiative called authentication, which would require users to prove they are pay TV subscribers before they can watch current shows on Hulu.
The partners also are discussing setting up a tiered system for online video, with some shows available for free -- such as prime-time network offerings -- while others would be reserved for existing cable TV subscribers.
"Everyone is coalescing around a central area -- authentication," said Tony Vinciquerra, chief of Fox's television networks. "If we can move this in the right direction, it will be something relatively seamless to the consumer, and good for business overall."
by Allen Stern - June 26th, 2009
CovetedList is a NY-based startup that provides a fashion-specific search platform. Basically what CovetedList does is provide a way to find outfits that match you and your specific needs. They start with asking what should you were and allow you to refine with attributes based on you. Their initial target is 18-35 year old women. They have partnered with a variety of retailers including Macy's.
Their tagline is "iTunes for your closet" and they are working on social shopping similar to how friends go shopping together.
Read the rest of this entry »
I've seen a few CRAZY media pitches over the years....
I would be inclinded to create a TV show where would be creatives attempt to pitch their MEDIA PROPERTIES (FILM, TV, BOOKS, WEB SITES, GAMES) etc. The follow-up would be fascinating. Was the concept shelved, did it get picked up by a few stars, who is attaching themselves to it?
Matthew Phillips
By Hillary Canada
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/05/22/oh-the-shark-has-pretty-t...
It's hard enough to pitch a business plan to hurried venture capitalists. Try doing it on camera in front of millions of people to five wealthy business people who aren't afraid to show their pointy teeth.
That's the premise behind Shark Tank, a new reality television series from Mark Burnett coming this fall, ABC announced this week.
The concept of pitching a business to potential investors isn't all that new for reality TV. ABC ran two seasons of American Inventor, which gave entrepreneurs $50,000 to improve their products, with the shot of winning "$1,000,000 worth of business support, entrepreneurial counsel, physical resources, and prize money." And last year, VentureWire covered the launch of a whole mess of these TV shows including Wall Street Warriors, Bobby G: Adventure Capitalist, and Start-Up Junkies, all of which sought to capture the drama behind high-stakes investing. AOL even got in on the action, creating an on-line series called The StartUp.
In fact the concept for Shark Tank, like all craze-inducing franchises (think American Idol, The Office and The Beatles), originally debuted in the U.K. under the moniker Dragons' Den.
But either way, we're interested to see what Burnett, who gave the world Survivor and The Apprentice, has in store for us. If Shark Tank follows the Dragons' Den model, we're eager to see the kind of pitches fledgling business owners can give in three minutes or less. We're also looking forward to the investors fighting one another for the right to fund top-tier ideas. Would it be too much to hope for another Omarosa?
The five "Sharks" are entrepreneurs-turned multi-millionaires: Barbara Corcoran, a Manhattan real estate titan; Kevin Harrington, an infomercials producer (think Flobee and Magic Saw); Robert Herjavec, a Canadian technology executive; Daymond John, owner of clothing company FUBU The Collection; and Kevin O'Leary, a Canadian entrepreneur and investor.
Here's the link to the casting call if you want to appear on the show.
_______________________
Tuesdays get going with Burnett's "Shark Tank" reality series, where budding entrepreneurs try to talk millionaires (billionaires?) out of their money to finance bright ideas. The "Dancing" results show follows at 9 p.m. and a Jerry Bruckheimer drama about amateur detectives who try to solve the deaths of unknown victims, "The Forgotten," airs at 10 p.m.
______________________________________
UK version Dragons Den:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzcQtXA5Gc8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu0QifxOGvs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tc6-vSYIMk SPOOF
ABC orders Mark Burnett pilot
September 04, 2008 The network has handed out a pilot order to the unscripted project, an adaptation of the Japanese reality format "Dragon's Den." Sony Pictures TV is producing the show, which features aspiring entrepreneurs pitching their business ideas to moguls, aka the "Sharks," in hopes of landing investment funds. The arena of business-themed reality shows is a familiar one for Burnett, who also created and is executive producing "The Apprentice," which returns with a second celebrity edition in January.
_____________________________________________________________________________
March 29, 2009
ABC greenlights Burnett's 'Shark Tank'
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/abc-mark-burnett-shark-tank.html
"Dragon's Den,' the UK version...
ABC is teaming with Mark Burnett for a new series that offers a bailout to struggling entrepreneurs.
The network has ordered seven episodes of Burnett's "Shark Tank," an adaptation of the U.K. reality hit "Dragon's Den" in which eager entrepreneurs pitch their business ventures to five multimillionaire tycoons. The pitchmen have to convince the investors (the "sharks") to part with the requested amount of their own money, or they leave empty handed.
The format originated in Japan and has since become a worldwide success, with BBC Two's "Dragon's Den" running for six seasons and airing domestically on BBC America. "Shark Tank" marks the first collaboration between ABC and Burnett, who has popular shows on the other three major broadcast networks but has never had a series on ABC. The network and prolific producer hope the project strikes a chord with viewers given the current economic climate.
"People are looking to be entrepreneurs to get ahead, yet there's no way anybody can go into a bank right now and get a loan," said Burnett, whose company Mark Burnett Productions is producing the "Shark Tank" along with Sony Pictures Television. "For these entrepreneurs, these sharks are their last stop."
The team's creative approach to the program has shifted since its pilot was ordered last fall. At first, everybody thought the show needed to feel bigger. The BBC version has the wealthy investors and pitchmen haggling in a sparse loft space. There's no cheering audience, no graphics, no exterior footage. The drama comes from whether the entrepreneur's proposal will survive an intense inquisition, and if it does, whether the sharks will then turn on each other to snatch up the idea.
"We've been excited about the 'Dragon's Den' format for years, but we didn't go forward at first because we thought it felt too small," said Vicki Dummer, co-head of alternative at ABC.
In 2006, the network attempted a similar concept called "American Inventor," which was co-produced by one of the British stars of "Dragon's Den." But "Inventor" was an elimination competition about the process of developing an invention, whereas "Shark" is self-contained episodes that are all about the drama of pitch meetings.
Working with Burnett, the network initially tried to make the show feel like a larger event, shooting a pilot in a huge auditorium and placing the investors behind an intimidating desk, among other tweaks. But most of the changes distracted from what worked so well about the original: the interpersonal tension between ambitious entrepreneurs struggling to convince five strangers to part with their money.
"The layers we added for a big huge show we've ended up peeling back to make the show more like the original," Dummer said. "The core essence of the show works, and they've done a terrific job with it."
No air date is set, though a premiere sometime next season seems likely.
The sharks include Robert Herjavec (who made his fortune in Internet security systems), Kevin Harrington (infomercials), Barbara Corcoran (real estate), Kevin O'Leary (well-known Canadian investor) and Daymond John (FUBU sportsware).
One aspect of "Shark Tank" that will be noticeably bigger than the previous versions: the deals spawned during the pitches.
"We have made bigger deals and more deals in our pilot than (other versions) make all season," Burnett said. "What country on earth is more entrepreneurial and risk taking than the United States of America? Here we have businesses and jobs being created, and it's a great feeling."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Enter the Sharks of "Shark Tank" -- Barbara Corcoran (Manhattan real estate titan), Kevin Harrington (king of infomercials), Robert Herjavec (technology tycoon), Daymond John (fashion mogul) and Kevin O'Leary (venture capitalist) -- five multi-millionaires who lifted themselves up by their bootstraps to make their own entrepreneurial dreams come true and turned their ideas into empires.
Each week ambitious entrepreneurs from across the country will present their breakthrough business concepts, products, properties and services to the panel of ruthless investors. Their goal is to convince these merciless moguls to invest their own dollars in the concept. Convincing real-life millionaires to part with their own money is no easy task, because when the idea is poor, the Sharks will tear into the illprepared presenters and pass on the idea with a simple, "I'm out!" -- sending them running for the exit.
But these Sharks aren't just out for blood, they too have a goal: to own a piece of the next big idea. Entrepreneurs will be asked to give up a percentage of their companies' equity to the Sharks in order to get the investment they need. But when the Sharks hear a really top-notch idea, and more than one of them wants to sink their teeth into it, a war between them will erupt. Then the once-desperate entrepreneur can rejoice when the Sharks reveal their true interest in the product and bid up the price of the investment.
DO YOU HAVE THE NEXT GREAT MONEYMAKING IDEA? We are currently on the search for entrepreneurs, inventors, businesspersons, dreamers, promoters, creators, innovators, etc. If you feel you have a lucrative business idea but just can't seem to secure the financial backing to get it off the ground then Shark Tank is just the show for you. Each episode features aspiring entrepreneurs pitching their business ideas to moguls in hopes of landing investment funds. Apply now for your chance to enter the "Shark Tank" and see if your idea survives.
IMPORTANT NOTICE - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING DO NOT APPLY:
By making an email submission, you acknowledge and agree that you are making a submission solely for purposes of being considered by Mark Burnett Productions, Inc., Sony Pictures Television, Inc., American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. and their respective affiliated or related entities (collectively "Shark Tank Entities") to be a participant on "Shark Tank" and will not receive any compensation or credit for making a submission. BY MAKING AN EMAIL SUBMISSION, YOU ARE ACCEPTING AND AGREEING TO THE ABC.COM TERMS OF USE . You understand that your email submission is not confidential nor submitted in confidence or trust and no confidential or fiduciary relationship is intended or created by making an email submission. You understand that the Shark Tank Entities are diversified companies who may possess or come to possess information similar or identical to information contained in your email submission, and you agree that any such similarity or identity shall not give rise to any claim or entitlement, whether for compensation, credit or otherwise. By making an email submission, you hereby release the Shark Tank Entities and their respective directors, officers, shareholders, employees, and licensees from any and all claims relating to your email submission, including without limitation arising from the risk of misdirection or misdelivery of your email.
Yesterday, our CEO sent me an article from Lifehacker that announced a new Google experiment, the Google Wonder Wheel. The experiment didn't actually work on my desktop but the video on YouTube demonstrated the capabilities. It's just like a mind map that allows you to drill down into deeper search results. The future is getting cooler, right?

I like how wonderwheel is starting to make search not only more 'fun but also more connected.'
Microsoft Decides It Has No Answer For The Answers Market
By Joseph Tartakoff - Mon 11 May 2009 01:59 PM PST
MSN QnA, Microsoft's rival to Yahoo Answers, is shutting down. A spokeswoman says MSN QnA is being closed "as part of our overall investment in updating and re-aligning our online services to provide customers with new ways to share their opinions and ideas." It's the latest MSN-branded service to be cut. Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) announced it was closing its MSN Encarta site in late March. But as recently as mid-February, Microsoft still seemed dedicated to the QnA service, rebranding it as MSN QnA from Live QnA and moving into the MSN organization.
The answers market has been tough for big companies to break into, with the notable exception of Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO). Microsoft launched QnA in August 2006, four months before Google (NSDQ: GOOG) decided to shut down Google Answers, which charged users to have their questions answered. In its three years in existence, Microsoft's QnA appears to have attracted about 3 million questions. Yahoo Answers measures itself not by questions but by answers-it has attracted more than 750 million answers-but it's clear that Yahoo is far more popular. LiveSide first reported the news Monday.
What if the ads we saw when watching TV were always just what we wanted to see? Well, we believe it is possible to make TV ads more relevant to viewers and to deliver more value to advertisers. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/tuning-in-to-tv-data.html
Television is becoming more like the web. Just as users click with their mouse to choose what's most relevant to them on the web, viewers send signals about what they want to see on television with clicks of the remote control.
Each week, Google analyzes data from millions of anonymized set-top boxes (STBs) to see which channels they were tuned to second by second. This data is provided by our partner, EchoStar. We're then able to use tuning metrics to provide our advertisers with next-day reports of how many televisions showed their ads nationwide and how the audience responded with their remotes.
We look at the various tuning metrics as signals from the audience about what they want to see and when. One of the metrics we've been exploring is the % Initial Audience Retained (%IAR). This is the percentage of the audience that was present at the beginning of the ad and then stayed tuned-in through the entire ad. If most viewers see an ad they like and decide to stay tuned-in, that ad would have a high %IAR.
Many factors affect audience behavior, including the nature of the programming, the time of day, the day of week, and, of course, the personality of each viewer. But ads themselves also have an impact. By identifying which factors affect tune-away, we can focus in on how the audience reacted to the ad itself.
Check out this video to learn what we found:
The chart below shows all TV commercials that aired on the Google TV Ads platform August through November 2008. Each dot represents an ad, and they are lined up from left to right in order of their %IAR as compared to what we'd expect given other factors (e.g., time of day, network, etc). The red dots on the left represent ads where more audience tuned away than expected. The green dots on the right represent ads where more of the audience stayed tuned than expected. The black dots in the middle are "normal," meaning there was no significant difference between the audience retention for those ads versus what you would expect based on historical data.

The next question we wanted to answer was how well this historical data could predict the future audience reaction. If we can use the past to predict the future, then we can get closer to putting relevant ads in front of TV viewers. So we selected one ad with relatively high audience tune-away (red dot) and one ad with relatively low tune-away (green dot) to run side-by-side on national television to test our findings. In the graph below, the diagonal line shows where audiences reacted the same to both ads. The points above that line represent airings when more of the audience stayed tuned to the ad that had previously retained audiences better. We learned audiences reacted predictably to the two ads.

Through our analysis of tuning data from millions of set-top boxes, we're getting closer to matching the right ads to the right television audience. It takes a lot of processing power to make sense of the enormous amount of data, but the insights to be gleaned are very powerful. Not only are we able to offer advertisers better measurement and more accountability for their TV campaigns, our goal is to also create a better viewing experience for TV audiences by showing viewers what they want to see.
Aardvark is a neat new service that lives in your IM client and which routes any question you might have to an Aardvark user who has the right expertise to answer your query. In return, Aardvark will also send you a few questions every day that fit your profile. You then decide to either answer the question or refer it to another friend. Of course, you can also always pass if you don't know the answer.
Aardvark will come out of its private beta during SXSW, but we have a few invites for you if you want to try it out now.
Aardvark was developed by The Mechanical Zoo, a San Francisco-based company that raised $5.25 million from August Capital and Baseline Ventures last October.
When you sign up with Aardvark, you simply add some basic information about your location, the topics you want to answer questions about, and your preferred IM client. Aaardvark supports Google Talk, AIM, and Microsoft's Live Messenger. After this, Aardvark will live in your IM client and you simply ask it whatever question you might have in plain English.

Aardvark analyzes your questions, determines what they are about, and then passes them on to the people in your Aardvark network - or, if nobody in your direct network fits the bill, it will pass it on to the rest of the Aardvark community.
Q&A
In our tests, this worked surprisingly well. We did, for example, ask Aardvark about what parties to go to at SXSW and received an answer within a few minutes. When we asked for local clothing stores in Portland, OR, a good answer came in even faster. We even got some good book recommendations through Aardvark.
Aaardvark features a number of simple commands that allow you to interact with the service and that are always explained in your conversations with Aardvark. When you get an answer, for example, you can simply type 'thanks' to send a thank-you note, or, whenever you feel like answering questions, just type in 'try' and Aardvark will look for a question that fits your expertise.
Better Than Twitter?
In our internal tests, we realized that a lot of the answers often rivaled those we received when asking our Twitter network. Thanks to the fact that Aardvark automatically routed our questions to people with the right expertise, all the answers we received so far were top-notch. In case you didn't like the answer (or if it was obscene), you can flag it and rate it on the service's website.
Overall, we think this is a great service and it is definitely one of the coolest products in this space that we have tested in the last couple of months.
Invites
Aardvark is scheduled to launch during SXSW, but we will send out an invite to the first 25 commenters on this post. Note: if you use your Facebook Connect or OpenID credentials to comment here, we won't see your email address!
Building Complementary Services: A Powerful Long-Term Social Media Marketing Strategy
A fundamental aspect of marketing is to gain the attention of a target audience and engage or redirect it in a way which fulfills specific objectives, such as a positive increase in reputation, legitimacy, mindshare, exposure (visitor traffic), sales and captured leads (subscribers, users, clients etc).
In terms of online marketing, social media channels offer many opportunities. Some webmasters focus on setting up profiles with self-serving user generated content only for backlinks and traffic. Other savvy brands or individuals actively interact with online communities while moderating the impulse to 'spam', in order to build legitimacy, authority and a better reputation in the specific field.
And then there are a few that adopt a particularly powerful social media marketing strategy that consistently extracts attention with ease. A way that reaches out to every new and future member of a social community automatically with minimal effort. A tactic that markets continuously as long as the social channel exists and grows, without end or interruption.
Introducing the Method

Image Credit: Mick Ø
You might have heard about Dell earning $1 million in revenue from posting product offers on their Twitter account. So they're using Twitter like email, as a sales alert system. Not a big deal really. But they've also recently started posting exclusive 'Twitter-only' discount offers on their Twitter profile (Over 100K followers!). Exclusive to Twitter. Those are the magic words. Exclusive to Myspace users. Exclusive to Bebo users. Exclusives, exclusives.
When a social media channel (like Twitter) becomes large enough, it's time to think about devoting serious attention to leveraging the size and reach of the userbase. Marketing doesn't need to only target the lucky demographic you manage to data-mine and filter out from the online crowd. Sure, its more 'targeted' but why limit yourself to just that? Why not reach everyone and let the interested few fall through the net themselves? Move the masses. Not just the few. No market segmentation needed. No need to selectively pitch and sell.
Exclusive product or service offers for users of a specific social website are only the beginning. There are a lot more ways to deeply tap into and gain the favor of large social communities. But first of all you'll need to understand the mentality of social media users. People will consciously or subconsciously self-identify as members of a particular online social tribe. "I'm a Digg user. I'm a Facebook junkie. I love being a Youtuber."
Put aside your demographic notions of gender, age and location for a moment. People are more than all that when they are online. They create identities, behavioral patterns and personas based on the community they most frequently use. This constructed online identity is a proxy that can be used to not only engage these users but develop a favorable impression of your brand. Tap into their love or hate for the service and reach from there.
Image Credit: myspace is for losers
A powerful social media marketing strategy is to create a service, tool, system which perfectly complements, faciliates and improves each individual users experience of the specific social website. Think of the features that unite them and the problems that frustrate them. This creation must be almost indispensable and extremely useful to a very broad audience. They must be able to pick it up easily and integrate it into their daily routine.
It must be highly customizable and relevant to the different ways one can participate in the social community. A powerful long-term strategy would be to invest time and money on creating free complementary services for large and growing online social communities. Each new or future user is drawn towards to your tools naturally because they help them to better enjoy the social channel. They will gravitate towards you and pull other users along.
The Twitter Example
I'll use Twitter to illustrate my point again but note that what is said here applies to most social media communities. Twitter is not exceptional in this regard. All large social media communities online operate in a similar manner: they all have devoted users who love ways to improve their experience of the community or service.
Many popular blogs (like Mashable) and other websites have a huge Twitter fetish. Whenever a new and interesting app/service is released, they'll write about it immediately. Twitter users will often tweet and retweet a new app because its relevant or interesting to them. So what's the end result when you create an exceptional tool for Twitter users?
A large influx of traffic and links that'll flow towards your service's webpage, which can easily to funneled to your Twitter profile, other websites and business. The large influx of new users is continually exposed to your brand (indirectly via the service). You're essentially appealing to a guaranteed audience that'll always be there.
If your tool/service appeals to a broad enough market, it'll develop a userbase. Work at it and soon enough it'll grow itself. People will recommend it to friends, new users and the general public even withou any direct incentives from your end. Why? Because it is genuinely helpful. There is minimal trace of self-serving marketing and little effort or cost at your end to continually leverage a community that is all too willing to promote you.
Reaching the Peak of this Marketing Strategy
When someone asks for a good non-mobile way of using Twitter, the names of popular desktop clients like Tweetdeck and Twhirl often come up. They are considered essential tools for a better user experience. They are near the peak of our social media marketing strategy.
The pinnacle is reached when your service achieves great recognition and mindshare within the community. At this point you can easily expect an endless flow of user recommendations, backlinks, referral traffic and support from a community interested in evangelizing their favorite social media channel and inadvertently, the value of your brand.
This may even lead to the specific social media channel directly recommending your service as a worthy addon to what they offer. For instance, Twitter is very explicit about what third-party tools it endorses: the Apps page feature Twhirl/Tweetdeck amongst other tools and its one of the first few pages that is pushed to a new user when he/she signs up.
Even if you do not reach this level of achievement for a single service, you can create many diverse services to fulfill different needs. Don't release them all at once. Spread them out and launch over a certain timespan so links and traffic can stream in consistently from blogs that monitor news about the social website. Be sure to interlink and promote your previous tools/services. This is another way of gaining attention and building influence over time.
Alternatively, you can sponsor and fund creative web developers who have a knack for creating addons for the specific social community. You don't always have to build them yourself, you just need to strongly associate them with your brand.
Publicity is Giving Someone a Reason to Talk about You

Image Credit: speech bubble
Why would a popular tech industry blog like Techcrunch write about an unknown web designer in Toronto? Or a freelance writer in Tokyo? Because these two people did something interesting. Something relevant to Techcrunch's blog and topic focus. Publicity is easy to get when your target is content-hungry publishers in a news cycle that loves novelty.
Many people encounter problems marketing online. You can't get mentioned in a popular blog that sends a lot of visitors. Because you're not relevant. So the solution is simple: make yourself compatible via an action, association or proxy. Build/do something that people in a specific field will talk about. The social media marketing strategy we are talking about is a publicity funnel. It gives you attention you can redirect to grow your core business or brand.
In the long run, you always should aim to build excellent authority services that grab a big chunk of user mindshare but should you fail in that aspect, there are short term advantages to using this marketing strategy. It can be a cyclical tactic to leverage news publishers for free traffic. Build a system, launch and promote. Grow users. Update with new features, send out news alerts. Build another service, launch and promote. Interlink systems, cross-promote. Grow users. Update features. It's a way to get free traffic and links over and over again.
It's kinda like linkbait on a mullet page but this is a lot more effective. You don't just become a flavor of the day on Digg but an actual service with registered users. Attention isn't given to you for the duration of a funny article but everyday when someone returns to re-use your service. Over time, user loyalty can develop into hardcore evangelism.
Monetization Won't Be a Problem When You Command Attention
In general, monetization comes easy if you're willing to work hard to develop your service's reputation and value amongst the community of social media users. Remember Ashley Qualls? She's a 18 year old high school dropout who created a website for Myspace layouts early on.
Most new Myspace users want to customize their layouts so layout providers were in hot demand. Her popular website was widely embraced by the community and it made $70K and more in revenue every month (back in 2007). While Facebook's popularity has eclipsed MySpace, there's still a guaranteed user audience for established providers like Ashley.
There's always a way to make money when you have people flowing into your site on a daily basis via the proxy that you've set up for a particular social media channel. In the end, what you've created is another notch in your resume and can be used in many ways to demonstrate competence or expertise. Apart from monetizing via display ads or premium service plans, you can heavily promote your core business or offer B2B consultancy programs.
But don't spend all your money and time only creating hit-or-miss services. When it comes down to it, a strategy like this must only be an add-on to your core business model or income system. Until it becomes a massive success, never mistake the means for the end.
What Social Media Sites Should You Target?
This particular method works best with very large and well known social media communities because you're relying on their popularity and the size of the userbase to get attention. If you're unfamiliar with what's hot nowadays, the Alexa Top 500 gives a rough listing of the heavily trafficked social media sites both globally and in each country.
Focus on them but always keep an eye on other growing social communities. Read sites that report on new startups and be in the loop for news about specific social sites, especially the ones that appear to be growing fast. The key is to look out for problems faced by users, while enhancing features which are the main draw of the specific social service.
Keep trust-worthy programmers/coders and designers close by so you can materialize ideas as fast as possible. It also helps to be an active user in the specific social media community so you can develop an instinctive understanding of its architecture, usability and possibilities.
Sounds like a Lot of Effort Doesn't it? But it Works.
If you're feeling tired just by reading this article, this tactic is probably not for you. If you're really excited (with wheels turning in your head), you're on the right track to success. There has to be some enthusiasm for you to see this method through. And one last important tip: always build relationships with key influencers, way before you begin to pitch. Trust me, it helps a lot.
To get new tips on social media and marketing, subscribe to dosh dosh today (It's free!).
Branded Content Matchmaker PlaceVine Gets $500k Seed Round
By David Kaplan - Wed 25 Feb 2009 01:11 PM PST
Branded entertainment sites like Bud.tv and Honeyshed have bit the dust, but the push for product integration hasn't shown any signs of dying. PlaceVine, a company that runs a site focused on matching agencies and marketers with producers, has raised roughly $500,000 in a seed round, according to sources close to the company. The funding was provided by NYCSeed, a public-private organ that was created with help from Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office last June during Internet Week.
As for PlaceVine, which has offices in New York and Los Angeles, the company began offering its online services last October. Since then, the company says it has signed up 300 producers and 200 brands and agencies. Marketer licenses start at $145 per month. The company didn't specifically say what it plans to use the seed round for, aside from general "growth building."
Release
(1) BeatMyPrice - Community powered price comparison site that helps you find the best price on products. You enter product details, price and the URL where you found the item. If someone finds the same item for less, you are offered the result, otherwise your link is saved as the cheapest one. Read more: BeatMyPrice - Find the Best Price Online.
- Find the best price you can online
- Visit beatmyprice.com
- Enter the details
- See if someone has found it cheaper elsewhere
- Save! (otherwise your price becomes the one to beat)
(2) Blist - Create comprehensive lists, be it a simple personal list or an advanced database. You could embed things like images, pdf files, word docs right beside a name in a spreadsheet etc. Read more: Blist - Create And Share Comprehensive Lists On The Web.
Looking over http://www.xplane.com and http://www.duarte.com for strategy design, my question in who is doing this for books? I love this stuff, since reading "Serious Play" by Dr. Michael Schrage years ago.
Strategy by Design
It's remarkable how often business strategy, the purpose of which is to direct action toward a desired outcome, leads to just the opposite: stasis and confusion. Strategy should bring clarity to an organization; it should be a signpost for showing people where you, as their leader, are taking them -- and what they need to do to get there. But the tools executives traditionally use to communicate strategy -- spreadsheets and PowerPoint decks -- are woefully inadequate for the task. You have to be a supremely engaging storyteller if you rely only on words, and there aren't enough of those people out there. What's more, words are highly open to interpretation -- words mean different things to different people, especially when they're sitting in different parts of the organization. The result: In an effort to be relevant to a large, complicated company, strategy often gets mired in abstractions.
People need to have a visceral understanding -- an image in their minds -- of why you've chosen a certain strategy and what you're attempting to create with it. Design is ideally suited to this endeavor. It can't help but create tangible, real outcomes.
Because it's pictorial, design describes the world in a way that's not open to many interpretations. Designers, by making a film, scenario, or prototype, can help people emotionally experience the thing that the strategy seeks to describe. If, say, Motorola unveils a plan to create products that have never existed before, everyone in the organization will have a different idea of what that means. But if Motorola creates a video so people can see those products, or makes prototypes so people can touch them, everyone has the same view.
Unfortunately, many people continue to think of design in very narrow terms. Industrial products and graphics are outcomes of the design process, but they do not begin to describe the boundaries of design's playing field. Software is engineered, but it is also designed -- someone must come up with the concept of what it is going to do. Logistics systems, the Internet, organizations, and yes, even strategy -- all of these are tangible outcomes of design thinking. In fact, many people in many organizations are engaged in design thinking without being aware of it. The result is that we don't focus very much on making it better.
If you dig into business history, you see that the same thing occurred with the quality movement. As business strategist Gary Hamel has pointed out, there was a time when people didn't know what quality manufacturing was and therefore didn't think about it. Nevertheless, they were engaged with quality -- they created products of good or bad durability and reliability. Then thinkers such as W. Edwards Deming deconstructed quality -- they figured out what it was and how to improve it. As soon as people became conscious of it, manufactured goods improved dramatically.
The same thing needs to happen with design. Organizations need to take design thinking seriously. We need to spend more time making people conscious of design thinking -- not because design is wondrous or magical, but simply because by focusing on it, we'll make it better. And that's an imperative for any business, because design thinking is indisputably a catalyst for innovation productivity. That is, it can increase the rate at which you generate good ideas and bring them to market. Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems. When you bring design thinking into that strategic discussion, you join a powerful tool with the purpose of the entire endeavor, which is to grow. Here is Ideo's five-point model for strategizing by design.
Hit the Streets
Any real-world strategy starts with having fresh, original insights about your market and your customers. Those insights come only when you observe directly what's happening in your market. As Jane Fulton Suri, who directs our human-factors group, notes in her book Thoughtless Acts? (Chronicle Books, 2005), "Directly witnessing and experiencing aspects of behavior in the real world is a proven way of inspiring and informing [new] ideas. The insights that emerge from careful observation of people's behavior . . . uncover all kinds of opportunities that were not previously evident."
Very often, you can build an entire strategy based on the experiences your customers go through in their interactions with your organization. Service brands have a horrible habit of focusing on the one interaction where they think they make money. If you're running an airline, there's an awful temptation to focus all of your attention on what it's like to fly a particular route on a particular aircraft. In fact, you can track backward and forward a whole series of interactions that consumers have with you that are very relevant. If you start to map out that entire journey, you begin to understand how you might innovate to create a much more robust customer experience.
Recruit T-Shaped People
Regardless of whether your goal is to innovate around a product, service, or business opportunity, you get good insights by having an observant and empathetic view of the world. You can't just stand in your own shoes; you've got to be able to stand in the shoes of others. Empathy allows you to have original insights about the world. It also enables you to build better teams.
"We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they're willing to try to do what you do."
We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they're willing to try to do what you do. We call them "T-shaped people." They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T -- they're mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That's what you're after at this point -- patterns that yield ideas.
These teams operate in a highly experiential manner. You don't put them in bland conference rooms and ask them to generate great ideas. You send them out into the world, and they return with many artifacts -- notes, photos, maybe even recordings of what they've seen and heard. The walls of their project rooms are soon plastered with imagery, diagrams, flow charts, and other ephemera. The entire team is engaged in collective idea-making: They explore observations very quickly and build on one another's insights. In this way, they generate richer, stronger ideas that are hardwired to the marketplace, because all of their observations come directly from the real world.
Build to Think
"Design thinking is inherently a prototyping process. Once you spot a promising idea, you build it. In a sense, we build to think."
Design thinking is inherently a prototyping process. Once you spot a promising idea, you build it. The prototype is typically a drawing, model, or film that describes a product, system, or service. We build these models very quickly; they're rough, ready, and not at all elegant, but they work. The goal isn't to create a close approximation of the finished product or process; the goal is to elicit feedback that helps us work through the problem we're trying to solve. In a sense, we build to think.
When you rapidly prototype, you're actually beginning to build the strategy itself. And you're doing so very early in the innovation cycle. This enables you to unlock one of your organization's most valuable assets: people's intuitions. When you sit down with your senior team and show them prototypes of the products and services you want to put out in two years' time, you get their intuitive feel for whether you're headed in the right direction. It's a process of enlightened trial and error: Observe the world, identify patterns of behavior, generate ideas, get feedback, repeat the process, and keep refining until you're ready to bring the thing to market.
Not long ago, we worked with a large food-processing company on the possibility of incorporating RFID technology into its supply chain. After many rounds of prototyping and getting feedback, we made a three-minute video that described a very complex interaction of suppliers, customers, logistics, weather, geography, and a host of other real-world conditions that showed how RFID might work. The video rapidly accelerated the development of a potential RFID-based strategy, because the company could instantly give us even sharper feedback and help us refine it. Rapid prototyping helps you test your progress in a very tangible way and ultimately makes your strategic thinking more powerful.
The Prototype Tells a Story
Prototyping is simultaneously an evaluative process -- it generates feedback and enables you to make midflight corrections -- and a storytelling process. It's a way of visually and viscerally describing your strategy.
Some years ago, a startup called Vocera came to us with a new technology based on the Star Trek communicator -- that "Beam me up, Scotty" device. They had worked out the technology -- an elegant device the size of a cigarette lighter that you could wear around your neck and use to connect instantly with anyone on the network. But the team had no way to describe why people would need the thing. We made a five-minute film that played out a scenario where everyone in the company had these gadgets. The storyline followed how one person used the communicator to rapidly assemble a crisis team dispersed across an office campus. The film showed that while fixed communications and mobile phones are very good for expected interactions, this device was ideal for reacting to the unexpected.
The team used the film to tell their story; it helped them raise VC funding and it acted as the guiding framework for the development and marketing of the product, which is called the Vocera Communications Badge. But there's an interesting twist to this tale. We thought the badge would work best on big office campuses. The market thought otherwise. Vocera's two largest markets are hospitals and big-box retail stores.
In the end, it didn't really matter that the market opportunity morphed into something different. Because you're testing and refining your strategy early and often in the design process, the strategy continually evolves. When the market changes, as it did with Vocera, the strategy can change along with it. This gives you a big jump start over abstract, word-based forms of strategy, in which the first time you get to test the strategy's outcome is when you actually roll it out. You can't gauge the strategy's effectiveness until you achieve the end result and do your postmortem. I don't see why that's useful. By building your strategy early on, in a sense you're doing a premortem: You're giving yourself a chance to uncover problems and fix them in real time, as the strategy unfolds.
Design Is Never Done
Even after you've rolled out your new product, service, or process, you're just getting started. In almost every case, you move on to the next version, which is going to be better because you've had more time to think about it. The basic idea for the notebook computer came out of Ideo some 20 years ago: Ideo cofounder Bill Moggridge is listed on the patent for the design that lets you fold a screen over a keyboard. Since then, the laptop has been redesigned -- and greatly improved -- hundreds of times, because design is never done. The same goes for strategy. The market is always changing; your strategy needs to change with it. Since design thinking is inherently rooted in the world, it is ideally suited to helping your strategy evolve.
It all comes back to the fact that in order to really raise innovation productivity within organizations, at the strategic level and everywhere else, you have to increase the amount of design thinking inside organizations. Doing so helps you get to clarity faster, helps your organization understand where you're taking it, helps you figure out whether you're on the right track, and enables you to adapt quickly to change. Those are pretty valuable survival skills.
Some companies already understand this and are working design thinking into their organizations. It's not such a hard thing to do. The toughest part is taking that first step -- breaking away from your habitual way of working and getting out into the world.
Tim Brown is the CEO and president of Ideo, one of the world's leading product-design firms.
Live Poker for iPhone: Time Wasters Are Rising!
13 11 2008
Zynga's Live Poker for the iPhone (via TechCrunch and Mashable). Texas Hold 'Em for Facebook is my original Facebook application time waster; the application for iPhone seems even better. Of note is that it's also the first iPhone app to use Facebook Connect.
Jason Calacanis also mentioned a category of startups that provide free, lasting entertainment that will do very well in this prolonged recession. Live Poker and Zynga will certainly fall into that category.
Jason also mentions that the days of $3,000 bottle service in New York and Los Angeles are gone, not only for financial reasons but because you look like a jackass doing it. As such, the entirety of high-end nightlife predicated largely on real estate windfalls and a strong(er) economy is a particularly hard trodden space.
There's a very special category of entertainment that will also do especially well today, and that's social entertainment with lasting entertainment value. These I think will do well even if there's a high price attached to them. Guitar Hero, Rock Band and Wii Sports are three easy examples. They'd do well anyway because they're fun as hell - they'll do better as people look to stay home but still want the fun company of others.
The days of excess are gone, boys and girls.
THE TV OF TOMORROW SHOW 2009
To purchase tickets at the special Winter Discount price, please click
http://www.itvt.com
The event is attracting attendees from technology vendors, broadcast
networks, cable, satellite and IPTV operators, broadband video operators,
advertising agencies, social media providers, and other US and international
companies.
For more information about the TV of Tomorrow Show, please go to:
http://www.thetvoftomorrowshow.com
Have questions? Contact us: 415-824-5806 or swedlow@itvt.com
SPEAKERS
We are assembling a first-class line-up of speakers and we will be announcing
details shortly. Speakers who have confirmed to date hail from: Accedo Broadband,
ActiveVideo Networks, Alcatel-Lucent, BIAP, BitGravity, BlackArrow, CableLabs,
Cablevision, Canaan Partners, Canoe Ventures, Comcast Media Center,
Denuo--A Publicis Groupe Company, DISH Network, Ensequence, Fox Broadcasting,
Hand Eye Technologies, HSN, Integra5, INVIDI, itaas, iWidgets, Lauder Partners, Move
Networks, MySpaceTV, NDS, Opportunity Management Company, Overlay.TV,
Sabaan Ventures, Schematic, Sezmi, Softel Group, Starz, Sun Microsystems,
TAG Networks, Time Warner Cable, TubeMogul, USC Entertainment Technology
Center, Verizon FiOS TV, VisibleWorld, Watercooler, Yahoo Inc., and Zodiac Interactive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWfjXt668no&eurl=http://www.crunchgear.co...
Who would have thought that one of the coolest things we've seen at CES would be hidden in a 10×10 booth at the very back of the South Hall? Like a diamond in the rough, there sat the PQ Labs iTablet.
They've essentially taken the idea behind the Microsoft Surface and have done it better in every way. It's cheaper, it's gorgeous, and perhaps most notably, it's not a hulking monster.
Two of the most notable features of the Surface are its multitouch capabilities and the availability of a development SDK, both of which PQ Labs has matched (or, in the case of the SDK, plan to match soon). The number of fingers detected by the multitouch sensor is limited only by the individual software designer's desire - the hardware itself supports as many simultaneous prods as you can throw at it.
Contrary to its iCliche name, the iTable runs Windows XP rather than on OS X or some proprietary system. The last bit is good news for developers - if you've already got an app ready to go, you don't need to rewrite it from scratch for compatibility. Just call in the proper APIs for mapping input, and you're good to go. They're pitching this pretty hard as a "big iPhone" (hence the name) - it's probably not the best way to market it (as it's not, you know, a cellphone), but it really does feel similar to the iPhone; the feel of the glass, the way multitouch behaves, it's all very similar.
The iTable product comes in a variety of flavors, depending how complete of a system you're looking for. The cheapest way to get in on the fun is the Multi-Touch G², a 32″ LCD overlay that goes for $2,399. Beyond that is where the "Table" part of the "iTable" name comes in - a few grand more (the $5000-$7000 was thrown around in conversation) nets you a table with the sensors incorporated into the display, and roughly $10,000 gets you the aforementioned table with a beast of a computer pre-configured ready to go. It may seem pricey, but with the 30″ surface going for $12,500, it's relatively cheap.
The company is a recent startup, so they don't quite have the resources to throw around that Microsoft does. As such, they operating without a warehouse, so these things are being built per order and they're currently only selling units to businesses.
Local review site Yelp
is not going to sit around and let competitor CitySearch
have even a day to celebrate their new beta launch.
CEO Jeremy Stopellman
, noticing our Comscore comparison of the services - "According to comScore, Citysearch brought in 14.6 million unique visitors in the U.S in October, compared to 143 million uniques across its ad network. (Yelp, by the way, did 6 million uniques)" - emailed us with some of their internal traffic numbers and stats.
Yelp's Google Analytics stats for the past thirty days show 15.8 million unique visitors, way above the six million Comscore records. And Yelp also shows other interesting stats in the chart below: 4 million reviews, with 34% restaurants, 23% shopping, 8% beauty and fitness, etc. Users are 51% male and 49% female, and 65% have a college degree.
Not bad for a company that was born just four years ago.
When reviews first started showing up in the local segment there was a debate about whether they would alienate advertisers and whether they were optional or mandatory from a consumer standpoint. Over the course of the past three years that question has been answered many times: yes they're mandatory and yes they're challenging from an advertiser POV (though most SMBs have a positive view of reviews).
Here's relevant online consumer data that Nielsen put out in December (n=1,000):
- 81% of online shoppers have read product or retailer reviews by other customers when doing their holiday shopping this year
- 71% agree that consumer reviews make them more comfortable that they are buying the right product
- 63% of online shoppers indicated that it was important to have multiple reviews for each product
- 14 % looked for reviews from an established source
- 3% sought out reviews by people they knew personally
Here are some of the charts (all Nielsen created):




Note in Table 3 that people are doing price comparisons and inventory checks to the extent they can before visiting the store. And 12% said they ordered online and picked up in store (see Krillion, NearbyNow).
Also, in Table 4 note the role of trust/brand in the decision of which sites to visit (direct navigation). Search followed probably after a generic product search (e.g., "All Clad 14 inch pan").
Today comScore released its Top 50 sites and more shopping related traffic data. (Thanks Greg)Here are two charts that are noteworthy:

The chart above shows that branded retailer sites are gaining strongly. This is mostly "local" traffic - people looking at products and then largely going into stores to buy. Accordingly the ShopLocal content is generally about deals in local stores (content that appears in newspaper circulars). In addition, the table below shows how, as a category, coupons have become enormously popular in this bad economy.

See also: The New Coupon Chic.
It's Not TV, It's Web TV A scene from the 25-episode Web series "Stephen King's N."
Correction Appended
When I think about Web series, I tend to think: Well, I can go to Hulu.com and watch "Lou Grant" free. Why would I watch "Ask a Ninja" or "Hardly Working"?
Links to Web Series
- Gemini Division (nbc.com)
- Stephen King's N (cbs.com)
- Get Hit (ifc.com)
- Sorority Forever (thewb.com)
Justin Hartley and Rosario Dawson in "Gemini Division," which unfolds in short chunks.
That's grossly unfair and reflects, unflatteringly, my age and generally mainstream taste. It's also true. If someone were making "Seinfeld" right now and putting it online a week at a time, I'd be there. (If I somehow stumbled onto its existence.)
But as my colleague Virginia Heffernan pointed out in The New York Times Magazine on Aug. 24, serialized Web shows are popping up faster than ever, partly as a result of the recent writers' strike. (She has posted a handy list of current series at her blog, themedium.blogs.nytimes.com.) And the television industry, hedging its bets, is heavily involved in the format, even if the most notable results so far - remember "quarterlife"? - won't remind anyone of "Seinfeld" or "Lou Grant."
Many "original" series on network Web sites are simply marketing tools for television shows. And a look at a few current, more truly original Web series with television connections demonstrates that if you're not packaging "Big Brother" outtakes, it helps to have an independent revenue stream. Nielsen isn't covering these things yet.
Hence "Gemini Division," the first four episodes of which can be found at nbc.com or more easily at geminidivision.com. It's a generic science-fiction thriller, in three-to-five-minute chunks, starring Rosario Dawson as a New York cop on vacation with her boyfriend, a vacation that goes bad in so far not very interesting ways. It's also a series of ads for Microsoft's Windows Mobile operating system, a futuristic version of which opens each episode, locating Ms. Dawson's character on a 3-D map of Paris.
"Gemini Division" is the work of Brent Friedman and Stan Rogow, the executive producers of a more established sci-fi Web serial, the creepy "Afterworld" (afterworld.tv). They have some interesting visual ideas (which you can see them talk about in the many "Gemini Division" behind-the-scenes extras) having to do with recreating the feel of comic books on screen.
But perhaps because of the cost of hiring a known actress like Ms. Dawson, the execution is lacking. The actors are pasted on top of static photo images of hotel rooms and Paris landmarks, and very little animation has been done beyond the annoying use of graphics to indicate that we're actually watching video transmissions from Ms. Dawson to a friend back home. It's like watching "Sin City" or "300" without the digital effects, which - need I say? - were just about the only reasons to watch those movies.
Over at cbs.com the product placement is the product in "Stephen King's N.," a 25-episode series that serves as a teaser for a new short-story collection from Mr. King. (A combined effort of CBS, Simon & Schuster and Marvel Entertainment, it's available on a bunch of Web sites, including nishere.com.)
"N." is entirely animated, and it's great to look at, as you'd expect from the comic-book artists Alex Maleev ("Daredevil," "The Crow") and José Villarrubia ("Promethea," "X-Factor"). For aesthetic or financial reasons, or both, their naturalistic, autumnal drawings don't move; instead the camera slowly pans over or zooms in on them. This isn't a problem, given the episodes' roughly two-minute running time, but it gets tiring if you watch 20-some episodes in a sitting, as I did.
(Oddly enough, waiting through the commercials at the beginning of each snippet didn't bother me. I could have avoided them by going to YouTube, but the lower video quality and ugly viewing environment there - still insulting after all these years - made the ads at the CBS site seem palatable.)
What "N." really demonstrates is that the Internet could use more Stephen King. The story, involving therapy, obsessive-compulsive disorder and an evil presence trapped in a New England field, is C-grade King. (It was adapted for the serial by Marc Guggenheim, a creator of "Eli Stone.") But it still has enough narrative pull to drag you from snippet to snippet, even when there's less than a minute of new material.
The Web series are less promotional and more plentiful at the Independent Film Channel (ifc.com), where "Web series" is the first button at the top of the home page. The sensibility here is a lot closer to that of sites like funnyordie.com and collegehumor.com than it is to prime time's. One of the current serials, "Get Hit" (ifc.com/gethit), has a cleverly nonsensical premise: it's a six-part, step-by-step primer on how to make a successful viral video, presented by the creators of a (fictional) crotch-kicking video that drew 1.6 trillion hits.
The comedy duo of Peter Blomquist and Jeff Wiens bring a surprising level of commitment to their video-geek roles, and it's endearing somehow to watch this sort of sophomorically funny material done without the winking condescension it usually receives. In one of the better jokes they fawn over the YouTube star Liam Sullivan, who then dismisses them as losers. When the auteur of "Shoes" (19.6 million views and counting) calls you a loser, should you consider it an insult or a compliment? The question is wisely left unanswered.
There's a lot more where these serials come from, and even more on the way, as television networks join other media companies in throwing things at the Web wall to see what sticks. Mr. Blomquist and Mr. Wiens have already done a follow-up to "Get Hit" called "Watching Web TV," which will be shown on ifc.com.
Even defunct networks are getting into the act. The WB may be dead but thewb.com was reborn last week and will carry a serial called "Sorority Forever," beginning on Sept. 8. Produced by the big-deal filmmaker McG it stars a familiar face from the short history of Web serials: Jessica Rose. In the compact timeline of the Internet, "lonelygirl15" has already become Ms. Rose's Schwab's drugstore.
http://www.goldstar.com/ free and discounted tickets with e-mail address.
www.Laist.com pencil this in and get out.
www.LAOKAY.com Free places to go.
www.tvtickets.com | Audiences Unlimited
Thanks Rich Demuro for listing these on www.KCAL9.com
The most innovative, entrepreneurial minds in journalism have focused their efforts on collaboration
Will Algorithms Make Human Editors Obselete? Not If Journalists Collaborate
That's the brilliance of Google - it's actually driven by human judgment, by the judgment that someone producing a website makes every time they link to something. Rather than replacing human judgment, Google is actually co-opting it. But Google isn't co-opting the judgment of most journalists and news orgs - because so many of them still don't link to anything. (Notable exceptions notwithstanding.)
From ReadWriteWeb
Mahalo popularized the term "human powered search" when they launched just over a year ago. Many of the pitches we get still use that term as part of their positioning. Many of them are bootstrapped, so the price of entry is clearly low. But the upside has not yet been established. In this post we look at the pros and cons of human powered search engines in general, look at some differentiating strategies and ask "what is the future for Human Powered Search?"
Old Wine In New Bottles?
When Mahalo first launched, my instinctive reaction (which I recorded on my personal Blog) was that this was "old wine in new bottles". Traditional publishers have been doing "human powered search" even BI (Before Internet) but these went by boring names like Directory. Human editors work great in well defined niches, always have done and always will. Human editors produce the expert content that Google finds for you. This is long tail publishing. This is Business Media and Enthusiast Media, large but slow growth traditional publishing segments of the media industry.
But an Internet scale venture powered by humans rather than software? We look at three reasons why this might work and two reasons why it won't work.
Three Pros And Two Cons
Most ventures in this space highlight three things that a human editor can always do better than a software program. These are the three Pros:
1. Spam control. Humans can easily spot even the most ingenious spam .
2. Duplicate control. 10 articles that all say virtually the same thing are just a waste of time.
3. Disambiguation. Computers need an awful lot of expensive programming to always spot the difference between "apple" as a fruit, a consumer electronics company or a record label. Humans can do it in a flash.
The two Cons:
1. You cannot persuade people to break their Google habit until your searches are better than Google for most cases (not just the few cases where you specialize). This massive hurdle is true for all search engines.
2. You cannot win as a destination site if you are general purpose. You go to the sites that specialize in the areas that interest you. If you don't know what sites to go to, Google will find those sites for you.
So, do three Pros beat two Cons? Not in this case. The Pros are three relatively minor irritants that human powered search fixes. The Cons are total showstoppers.
Pay People To Write Content?
Mahalo pays people to create content. That means they can predict the quality of the results. Paying people requires lots of funding. Mahalo has plenty of funding and it is unlikely anybody else will get funded with the same model. So Mahalo has a fairly long and clear runway before take-off. Mahalo is private company so we don't know how long it will take them to get to profitability or even if the basic economics make profitability feasible at all. In today's climate, nobody will buy Mahalo without a clear path to profitability.
Are you Bullish or Bearish on Mahalo? Cast your vote in our Company Index (powered by TradeVibes). My vote was Bearish and I was in the majority at the time I cast my vote (80% Bullish vs 20% Bearish). The sample size on that vote was too low to be meaningful (40), so the more votes the better.
The Elephant In The Community Generated Content Room
Most other ventures get "the community" to create the content. The elephant in this room is of course Wikipedia. How on earth do you get general knowledge content that is better at scale than Wikipedia? How do you motivate people to create content if, unlike Mahalo, you are not paying their salaries? Google's answer with Knol was to pay them indirectly via Adsense revenue. The market jury on Knol is still out. If Google cannot win, how can any other start-up without their brand power? If the Knol competitor also monetizes through Adsense, their margin is even less.
About The Players
The other well funded venture that wears the human powered search label is Wikia. Founded by Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia fame, this looks like the largest pure Wiki style venture. Content is community generated, but it appears that they have editors/moderators/curators on payroll.
Squidoo looks like a bootstrapped venture. It is hard to tell if it has traction. Looking at Squidoo's page on TradeVibes will point to many other inexpensive Wiki style ventures. The basic technology of Wikis is now a total commodity.
One of the earliest ventures, About.com, is now owned by the New York Times. On my survey of one, About is the one site other than Wikipedia that surfaces a lot in general knowledge type searches. At the scale they operate, it may well be profitable. So Mahalo, Wiki and other human powered search engines may have a bright future.
What do you think? Can general purpose human powered search engines scale and make money? Or will they either fail or move into small niches? What new ventures have a fundamentally differentiated approach to this market?
Social software is proliferating online, but many of the most common Internet tools, such as search engines, are still used in isolation. "These tools are designed for a single person, working alone by him or herself, but that's not always the way that we work," says Meredith Morris, a researcher in the Adaptive Systems and Interaction group at Microsoft Research. People planning travel with their spouses, she says, or students working on research projects with classmates all too often find themselves repeating work others have done or fail to find sites that others have identified. Morris is designing a tool that could begin to help with this problem.
Called SearchTogether, the tool is meant to help groups whose members are working on different computers, whether they're all logged in simultaneously or one at a time. The tool is a plug-in for Internet Explorer 7 and requires a Windows Live ID to use. Once all the users have the tool installed, Morris explains, if one of them wants to initiate a Web search, she can invite the others to join her. The tool tracks the work done by the group, making it easier for the initiator to assign tasks and for group members to keep track of what they've done.
Before designing the tool, Morris conducted a survey to find out what problems plagued people trying to search as a group online. Among the problems she identified were redundant effort and inefficient communication about results.
SearchTogether is designed to reduce these problems by storing all the queries group members have entered, Morris says, and by tracking comments they make about the pages they find. The search initiator can also use the tool to divide work among group members. For example, the initiator could send half of the top 25 results of a query to one user and half to another. The users can then investigate the results without duplicating each other's efforts. If the search becomes relevant to someone else in the future--for example, if a family member wants to take the same trip that a group previously planned--new users can be invited to the project, where they see the stored queries and comments.
If users are searching simultaneously, they can use SearchTogether's "peek and follow" feature to view the pages others are looking at and to write each other instant messages as they explore the results of their queries.
Morris says that she's interested in adding features that could give users more-sophisticated sorting capabilities. For example, if a doctor and a layperson are searching together for information about a health problem, the tool might automatically send all highly technical results to the doctor.
Madhu Reddy, an assistant professor of information services and technology at Pennsylvania State University, says that in his studies of collaborative information seeking, he's observed that the search problems Morris has identified are very common. Many groups struggle to split up search tasks effectively, to keep all their members aware of what the others are doing, and to bring their results together at the end. A particular challenge, Reddy says, is that a lot of group interactions in the real world are gesture based. A good collaborative search tool, he says, would compensate for the loss of gesture--when, for example, a group member wanted to point out a single item on a Web page. Reddy also sees a need for tools that allow users to tap into others' expertise in navigating different pockets of online information.
Reddy says that one factor to take into consideration is "that we really don't know how people collaborate; we're still starting to develop the empirical research." He says that tools will need to be designed to support different types of searches. "You can envision anonymous users working together across continents," he says, "which is very different from teams working together in organizations to solve problems." Morris's tool, Reddy says, seems well-suited to general users working together over a distance. Reddy's own team is also developing a multiuser search engine.
Morris's interest in collaborative search extends beyond SearchTogether. She has also worked on designing a tool that helps multiple users of the same computer search as a team. An early version of SearchTogether will be released this spring.
Copyright Technology Review 2008.

