The current lineup of tv shows would suggest that doing most anything is easy, from home design to earning millions on a marriage. The current crop of DIY shows neatly packages home design or cooking or any other task into 30 easy minutes. As a society we are currently facing a barrage of information and media overload, all which somehow trivializes hard work and actual effort by sensationalizing those rare success stories. The saying goes "if it was easy, everyone would be doing it" and that is as true today as ever. The problem today, however, is that many people are trying to succeed and they are just not doing it well.
I was recently flipping through the website of my local newspaper. I saw an article titled "Digital Marketing 'is the tool' for Small Businesses." This caught my eye for obvious reasons, so I gave it a read. While many of the points are valid at a broad level, the article misses some key points about branding, social media, and customer service. The article implies that small business success will come running after you as soon as you send your first tweet. While social media and an online presence may cost less than a mailer or a newspaper ad, having an online presence requires its own skill and strategy to be successful.
During my senior year of college I was enrolled in a class that was designed to give us real world marketing experience. Every student in that class hoped to be assigned to a world-class client that would have an exciting challenge for the semester. My team was assigned to a sole-proprietorship; a man who made saw blades in his garage. Mark Zuckerberg barely had a driver's license at the time, but I am sure we would have recommended a social media campaign if those tools existed.
There have been several cases where social media has been a tremendous success (or a miserable failure). Because we hear these stories about the little guy making it big because of twitter and Facebook, we think that anyone can replicate that success. It's the same phenomenon that drives people to play the lottery every week; the hope of the payout drives you forward.
Many of these social media success stories leave out an important part of the equation: hard work. Creating a facebook page and a blog is the easy part. Filling those channels with relevant and accuarte information is the hard part. We hear of the social media blunders that happen almost daily, and no business owner wants to be in that spotlight. Many of those gaffes are the result of poor planning, poor execution, or both. It is for this reason that I was angered by the article I read.
Social media is just like any other marketing channel. How much stock would we put in a story that advocated a small business create its own television commercials? Would we all run out and start negotiating air time and print rates? The low cost of using social media does not imply that everyone will have success; at least some skill and business acumen is required. I am not saying that every small business needs an agency or other person to manage social media. Instead, I think it's prudent that every person wishing to use social media as a marketing tool should enter with the same strategizing, planning, and, research that would go into any other marketing initiative.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Flash in the Pan
When the first iPhone was released in 2007, one of the bigger claims was that the phone would deliver a web browsing experience identical to that of a desktop web browser. At the time this was a huge deal given the sad state of WAP browsers and web pages. The one little caveat that Steve forgot to mention, however, was that this breakthrough new experience would not support Adobe Flash. This may not seem like big news in today's HTML5 world, but at the time it was shocking that Apple would not support a technology that was on the majority of web pages in existence.
Over the years much has been said about Apple's choice to exclude Flash support. Lawsuits have been filed, pundits have expressed more than their fair share of opinions, and competitors used the fact as a unique selling point when Adobe released Mobile Flash in 2009. Today marks the end of that era with Adobe announcing the end of development for the Mobile Flash product.
This is big news in itself, as future versions of Android (and thus Android handsets) can no longer tout this as an advantage over iOS. Adobe also mentioned that it would start investing more in HTML5 development as it scales back on Mobile Flash. This little nugget of information is probably the larger news, despite it not being the main headline of the day.
With Adobe adding support for HTML5 it is essentially abandoning a flagship product that has been the underpinning of the internet for a decade or more. As Apple products have moved to the mainstream over the past few years, so has the opinion and viewpoint that Flash is an unnecessary technology. Steve Jobs famously blasted Flash in an open letter, citing HTML5 and other technologies as the successors to rich internet experiences.
This does not mean that Flash will be dead across all media. Flash is still very much alive in the regular desktop experience. With Adobe first making the move to HTML5 by creating the Adobe Edge product, and now the decision to jettison Mobile Flash, there are a lot of questions raised about the future of Flash as a whole. Add to this the monthly stats about increased mobile browser usage (and decreased desktop usage) and you can't help but wonder just how much time is left on Flash's clock?
Should Adobe eventually abandon Flash altogether it will have a ripple effect across the entire industry. Restaurants, bars, and clubs will need to completely redo their clumsy splash-screen websites. Banner ads and rich media display ads will need to be converted to HTML5 or another new technology. Online video watching will also be drastically different as FLV goes away. It's fairly easy to see why Flash has maintained such a stronghold across the internet, but with its own creator turning a cold shoulder it looks like that fifteen minutes is dwindling down.
Over the years much has been said about Apple's choice to exclude Flash support. Lawsuits have been filed, pundits have expressed more than their fair share of opinions, and competitors used the fact as a unique selling point when Adobe released Mobile Flash in 2009. Today marks the end of that era with Adobe announcing the end of development for the Mobile Flash product.
This is big news in itself, as future versions of Android (and thus Android handsets) can no longer tout this as an advantage over iOS. Adobe also mentioned that it would start investing more in HTML5 development as it scales back on Mobile Flash. This little nugget of information is probably the larger news, despite it not being the main headline of the day.
With Adobe adding support for HTML5 it is essentially abandoning a flagship product that has been the underpinning of the internet for a decade or more. As Apple products have moved to the mainstream over the past few years, so has the opinion and viewpoint that Flash is an unnecessary technology. Steve Jobs famously blasted Flash in an open letter, citing HTML5 and other technologies as the successors to rich internet experiences.
This does not mean that Flash will be dead across all media. Flash is still very much alive in the regular desktop experience. With Adobe first making the move to HTML5 by creating the Adobe Edge product, and now the decision to jettison Mobile Flash, there are a lot of questions raised about the future of Flash as a whole. Add to this the monthly stats about increased mobile browser usage (and decreased desktop usage) and you can't help but wonder just how much time is left on Flash's clock?
Should Adobe eventually abandon Flash altogether it will have a ripple effect across the entire industry. Restaurants, bars, and clubs will need to completely redo their clumsy splash-screen websites. Banner ads and rich media display ads will need to be converted to HTML5 or another new technology. Online video watching will also be drastically different as FLV goes away. It's fairly easy to see why Flash has maintained such a stronghold across the internet, but with its own creator turning a cold shoulder it looks like that fifteen minutes is dwindling down.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
You like me. You really like me!
No one likes a beggar. We sneered at grade-grubbers in high school and college. We avoid all contact with panhandlers on the street. We change the channel when we see the latest victim of a sex scandal groveling for our forgiveness. With all of this animosity towards those who beg us for something, why are we so eager to click the "like" button just because someone asks us to?
Personally, I have never been fond of the like button. Back when you could only "like" a picture or a status update it made sense. It was your way of approving of someone; a virtual high-five. Now, however, you can "like" nearly anything on facebook (and even off facebook). The like button is so ubiquitous and has so many various meanings that it has lost just about all of its value. Perhaps this is why so many companies are having such a hard time placing dollar values on social media - one of their main success metrics just doesn't have real value any more.
Nothing irks me more than seeing a company begging for a "like" from consumers. In many cases it's almost a con: "like us to enter a contest" or "like us to learn more." Often the user will be given his instant reward and be left floundering in the digital wasteland, spending months seeing pointless updates from the brand. I have only ever "liked" one brand on facebook, and I got so tired of seeing new store openings litter my news feed that i promptly revoked my "like." Because number of likes is viewed as the ultimate success in social marketing, companies will do anything to collect likes and then never engage with these users afterwards.
Based on what I read online and various conversations I have been a part of, many client-marketers measure social media success by facebook likes and twitter followers. To me this is analogous to measuring search success by the number of keywords in your campaign. You use keywords to target and drive visitors to your site with the goal of taking some sort of action. With facebook we should be using those who "like" us as a mailing list of sorts. We should now target to these users and get them to take some form of action. Even though the "like" is mostly without value, we should reward those users who give us a digital thumbs up.
Instead of amassing "likes" that mean very little, marketers should look at the value that each of those "likes" can bring the brand. If a user has taken the time to click the like button for you, basically saying you are virtually cool, dont be a Regina George and abuse those who make you popular. Instead, take advantage of the network you have built up to speak your praises and spread your message. If you give back a little to your fans, they will return the favor exponentially.
Personally, I have never been fond of the like button. Back when you could only "like" a picture or a status update it made sense. It was your way of approving of someone; a virtual high-five. Now, however, you can "like" nearly anything on facebook (and even off facebook). The like button is so ubiquitous and has so many various meanings that it has lost just about all of its value. Perhaps this is why so many companies are having such a hard time placing dollar values on social media - one of their main success metrics just doesn't have real value any more.
Nothing irks me more than seeing a company begging for a "like" from consumers. In many cases it's almost a con: "like us to enter a contest" or "like us to learn more." Often the user will be given his instant reward and be left floundering in the digital wasteland, spending months seeing pointless updates from the brand. I have only ever "liked" one brand on facebook, and I got so tired of seeing new store openings litter my news feed that i promptly revoked my "like." Because number of likes is viewed as the ultimate success in social marketing, companies will do anything to collect likes and then never engage with these users afterwards.
Based on what I read online and various conversations I have been a part of, many client-marketers measure social media success by facebook likes and twitter followers. To me this is analogous to measuring search success by the number of keywords in your campaign. You use keywords to target and drive visitors to your site with the goal of taking some sort of action. With facebook we should be using those who "like" us as a mailing list of sorts. We should now target to these users and get them to take some form of action. Even though the "like" is mostly without value, we should reward those users who give us a digital thumbs up.
Instead of amassing "likes" that mean very little, marketers should look at the value that each of those "likes" can bring the brand. If a user has taken the time to click the like button for you, basically saying you are virtually cool, dont be a Regina George and abuse those who make you popular. Instead, take advantage of the network you have built up to speak your praises and spread your message. If you give back a little to your fans, they will return the favor exponentially.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Squeaky Wheel
Over the past few years, Twitter has progressed from a novel way of blogging (microblogging) to a powerful tool for sharing and for businesses. Twitter users went from sending a few thousand tweets per day in the first year of operations to over 7,000 tweets per second during the Women's World Cup Finals. It is hard to argue that Twitter is an indispensable tool for social media and, increasingly, for business.
Over the past few years I have marveled at the companies that have made twitter a part of their success. Comcast comes to mind, turning a relatively mundane employee role into an internet celebrity via their @comcastcares account. Many airlines have also adopted social media as a platform for delivering near-time updates and handling basic customer service complaints.
Another thing that Twitter has created is the internet celebrity, as mentioned above with Frank Eliason and Comcast. These are the folks who are at the leading-edge of technology. They act as voices for their particular corner of the world, be it a tech blog or a cooking show. These are the people with crazy Klout scores and who end up with thousands of followers. They are generally respected for their opinions and are fully taking advantage of the new platform Twitter has created for them.
Of course, every transformative tool has its seedy underbelly. As people find new and different ways to interact with a new social tool, they also find ways to exploit it for their own benefit. Because Twitter has become such a powerful customer service tool for companies, it was only a matter of time before it was being exploited - especially by the aforementioned internet celebrities.
Because these "twelebs" have large numbers of followers and can make a lot of negative press in a very short time, companies are eager to bend over backwards. For example, I have observed several tech blogger personalities publicly complain to airlines about weather delays. The airlines usually respond by asking the "tweleb" to send a direct message so they can sort it out. The last time I checked, weather was not a valid customer service issue (and is clearly noted as such on the Contract of Carriage).
In some cases social media has even been used to rectify a wrong that was not actually a wrong. Delta was dragged through the social media mud by a few American soldiers after the airline imposed an extra-baggage fee on the troops. Delta was very clear on their policy, and it was revealed that the soldiers were misinformed by their orders based on the class of ticket purchased. Because the troops took to social media, however, Delta not only refunded the fees, but the airline increased the baggage allowance for troops. Other airlines followed suit, just to avoid a similar snafu.
As a country that likes to complain and receive monetary compensation for when we are wronged, it is a shame to see that social media is going this route. Yes, it makes me feel better as a consumer when I know that I can receive near-instant help with an issue I am having. Yes, it's nice to be able to have a new means of communicating with businesses. It's even nice to know that somewhere there is a real person speaking to me on behalf of a large corporation.
As many companies adopt and tweak social media policies, they may take actions that will prevent them from being the social scapegoat. As the news media continues to air stories like the Delta example noted above or the now-famous Morton's Airport story, where will companies draw the line between actual customer service and catering to the media hype machine? Will social media as a customer service tool be phased out as more companies inadvertently draw criticism for enforcing policies?
Over the past few years I have marveled at the companies that have made twitter a part of their success. Comcast comes to mind, turning a relatively mundane employee role into an internet celebrity via their @comcastcares account. Many airlines have also adopted social media as a platform for delivering near-time updates and handling basic customer service complaints.
Another thing that Twitter has created is the internet celebrity, as mentioned above with Frank Eliason and Comcast. These are the folks who are at the leading-edge of technology. They act as voices for their particular corner of the world, be it a tech blog or a cooking show. These are the people with crazy Klout scores and who end up with thousands of followers. They are generally respected for their opinions and are fully taking advantage of the new platform Twitter has created for them.
Of course, every transformative tool has its seedy underbelly. As people find new and different ways to interact with a new social tool, they also find ways to exploit it for their own benefit. Because Twitter has become such a powerful customer service tool for companies, it was only a matter of time before it was being exploited - especially by the aforementioned internet celebrities.
Because these "twelebs" have large numbers of followers and can make a lot of negative press in a very short time, companies are eager to bend over backwards. For example, I have observed several tech blogger personalities publicly complain to airlines about weather delays. The airlines usually respond by asking the "tweleb" to send a direct message so they can sort it out. The last time I checked, weather was not a valid customer service issue (and is clearly noted as such on the Contract of Carriage).
In some cases social media has even been used to rectify a wrong that was not actually a wrong. Delta was dragged through the social media mud by a few American soldiers after the airline imposed an extra-baggage fee on the troops. Delta was very clear on their policy, and it was revealed that the soldiers were misinformed by their orders based on the class of ticket purchased. Because the troops took to social media, however, Delta not only refunded the fees, but the airline increased the baggage allowance for troops. Other airlines followed suit, just to avoid a similar snafu.
As a country that likes to complain and receive monetary compensation for when we are wronged, it is a shame to see that social media is going this route. Yes, it makes me feel better as a consumer when I know that I can receive near-instant help with an issue I am having. Yes, it's nice to be able to have a new means of communicating with businesses. It's even nice to know that somewhere there is a real person speaking to me on behalf of a large corporation.
As many companies adopt and tweak social media policies, they may take actions that will prevent them from being the social scapegoat. As the news media continues to air stories like the Delta example noted above or the now-famous Morton's Airport story, where will companies draw the line between actual customer service and catering to the media hype machine? Will social media as a customer service tool be phased out as more companies inadvertently draw criticism for enforcing policies?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Why Facebook Metrics may be BS
A graph surfaced this past week, that showed US Share of Time Spent Online for major web properties. This chart began in Q3 2006 and is current through Q3 2011. The graph illustrates that Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft properties have seen a decrease in time spent online, Google showed a slow and steady increase, and Facebook illustrates the classic and elusive hockey stick. Twitter, Google+, and the internet in general seemed to think that this graph signaled the demise of Google and society in general. Be warned, however, that this graph is crap.
A few weeks back I was contacted by a client about a campaign that recently ended. He noted that his impressions from standard reporting were much lower than what Facebook was saying his fan page views should be. After digging around for a while we uncovered that Facebook counted any view by any person at any time. Standard reporting was only counting users who were logged in and who liked the page. While Facebook's reporting was not wrong, it wasn't presenting the data in the most accurate manner (their inability to slice and dice data by active users/likes is a different story entirely).
As soon as I saw this hockey-stick graph I immediately thought about my previous experience with Facebook data. Looking at the web properties listed, they all serve different functions. Facebook is a social network with photos, games, and chat. Yahoo is a portal with news and fantasy football. Google is a search engine with email. While it is certainly important to note that more time overall is being spent on Facebook, that's not the entire story.
Some have argued that this increase in time spent is due to Mafia Wars and Farmville. Others have noted that almost every web page is connected to the social graph which may be counted as "time spent on Facebook." As I noticed with my client, what exactly do these numbers mean? More importantly, what do these numbers mean for the other companies on the graph and the industry as a whole?
As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the resultant commentary on this graph suggests that Google should be shaking in its boots. I honestly do not see this to be the case. While Facebook has become a powerful site with many uses and purposes, it serves no real utility. Facebook does not let you communicate with people outside of its ecosystem. Facebook won't let you share documents with friends, family, or colleagues. Facebook cannot give you directions to the new Thai restaurant that just opened, and Facebook does not allow you to keep and share a calendar of personal events. For all of the things that Facebook does, and all of the things we use Facebook for, it serves no real purpose.
Should Facebook disappear overnight, many of the things we use it for exist elsewhere. We can share pictures on Picasa. We can check-in to places on Foursquare. We can connect with friends and colleagues on any number of websites. While Facebook is a powerful platform, it is not indispensable. Maybe Google should be concerned that Facebook has seen a meteoric rise in time spent on its services. At the same time, Facebook should be equally concerned.
There is no question that Facebook has gained serious momentum in its short existence. With nearly 800 million users there is also no question that Facebook is a popular service. How is Facebook going to continue to build and retain its user base? How is Facebook going to fend off the growing number of people who are "over it?" Most importantly, how is Facebook going to stay relevant and keep from going the way of Myspace?
A few weeks back I was contacted by a client about a campaign that recently ended. He noted that his impressions from standard reporting were much lower than what Facebook was saying his fan page views should be. After digging around for a while we uncovered that Facebook counted any view by any person at any time. Standard reporting was only counting users who were logged in and who liked the page. While Facebook's reporting was not wrong, it wasn't presenting the data in the most accurate manner (their inability to slice and dice data by active users/likes is a different story entirely).
As soon as I saw this hockey-stick graph I immediately thought about my previous experience with Facebook data. Looking at the web properties listed, they all serve different functions. Facebook is a social network with photos, games, and chat. Yahoo is a portal with news and fantasy football. Google is a search engine with email. While it is certainly important to note that more time overall is being spent on Facebook, that's not the entire story.
Some have argued that this increase in time spent is due to Mafia Wars and Farmville. Others have noted that almost every web page is connected to the social graph which may be counted as "time spent on Facebook." As I noticed with my client, what exactly do these numbers mean? More importantly, what do these numbers mean for the other companies on the graph and the industry as a whole?
As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the resultant commentary on this graph suggests that Google should be shaking in its boots. I honestly do not see this to be the case. While Facebook has become a powerful site with many uses and purposes, it serves no real utility. Facebook does not let you communicate with people outside of its ecosystem. Facebook won't let you share documents with friends, family, or colleagues. Facebook cannot give you directions to the new Thai restaurant that just opened, and Facebook does not allow you to keep and share a calendar of personal events. For all of the things that Facebook does, and all of the things we use Facebook for, it serves no real purpose.
Should Facebook disappear overnight, many of the things we use it for exist elsewhere. We can share pictures on Picasa. We can check-in to places on Foursquare. We can connect with friends and colleagues on any number of websites. While Facebook is a powerful platform, it is not indispensable. Maybe Google should be concerned that Facebook has seen a meteoric rise in time spent on its services. At the same time, Facebook should be equally concerned.
There is no question that Facebook has gained serious momentum in its short existence. With nearly 800 million users there is also no question that Facebook is a popular service. How is Facebook going to continue to build and retain its user base? How is Facebook going to fend off the growing number of people who are "over it?" Most importantly, how is Facebook going to stay relevant and keep from going the way of Myspace?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The Future of Shopping Online
Earlier this week, many a nerd saw that a dream might be coming true; Nike announced it was going to sell a limited number of "Back to the Future" shoes. For those not in-the-know, these are the shoes that Marty McFly wears in the second installment of the series. What makes these futuristic Nikes so nerd-worthy is that they mold and adjust to the wearer's feet with the touch of a button. How cool is that? While the version released this week still requires lacing "the old way," it still brings us one step closer to the 'future' we all pictured in that movie.
As we move closer to a future filled with re-hydrators and self-lacing shoes, I wonder how we will obtain those items. Will we go to a store in a mall? Will we order them online and have them delivered? Will we be able to shop from our TV? Maybe we will just be able to think about the item and it will show up the next day. Regardless of how shopping will look in the future, it's pretty evident that shopping today is in dire need of a makeover.
At the start of the 20th century, downtown areas were the prime shopping venue. Department stores were massive buildings that contained everything from shovels to stockings to sofas. Smaller boutiques dotted the streets, window dressings enticing the passersby. After the war, the automobile not only decreased foot traffic in urban cores, it also decreased the population as families fled to suburbia. Another 20 years brought shopping malls and strip malls, and another 20 years beyond that brought the big-box-megaplex.
As the internet evolved from educational information sharing to public use, companies were quick to capitalize on the extra exposure. It was thought that creating electronic versions of a mall was a smart move. But how else can you be certain to get the best deal? Comparison shopping engines - view one product at all the stores online where you can buy it. Since then we have seen familiar stores open up digital storefronts, as well as mobile sites and other innovations keeping pace with technology.
The one area where all of this technology is lagging, however, is bridging the gap between site and store. Walmart offers a service that lets a customer order a product online and pick it up in a local store. Nordstrom offers a similar service that will search the entire national inventory to display in the ecommerce site. These are fantastic ways to close the gap, and it seems that many of the pieces already exist. The challenge now is how to connect all of the pieces for a seamless experience.
For the near future, I envision a more connected experience for shopping. Store inventory will be available to the customer on the website. If I choose to go pick it up at a store, I will know that the product will be waiting for me. If I want the product delivered, it will be sent to me regardless of where it lives in the store's supply. If I search for the product on Google Shopping or PriceGrabber, the inventory will be real time, avoiding any consumers being misled by outdated product feed inventory and pricing.
Taking this one step further, smartphones will play an increasingly important part in the shopping process. Google Goggles technology can be advanced to assist with finding products online (perhaps this is why Google purchased Like.com). Product searches can return Local Search results in stores nearby, preferably only showing those stores with inventory in stock. Perhaps technology can be advanced and integrated to the point that you can make the purchase from your phone and then go pick it up in-store by waving your phone at the cash register to call up your receipt.
Technology is not only changing the experience for shoppers, it is also changing the entire nature of the way companies do business. The internet gives equal footing to companies of varying sizes. In addition to shopping advancements many technologies are changing on the payment side of the equation as well. Google is dipping its toes into the near-field-communication arena with Google Wallet. Several companies are experimenting with alternatives to credit card processing. American Express even developed its own PayPal-like service. In brick-and-mortar stores, small businesses are already embracing some of these payment technologies such as Square and LevelUp. Google is already experimenting with inventory values in Product Search. As these enhancements converge and morph, it will be very interesting to see just how many of these "futuristic" ideas become as real as the "Back to the Future" shoes.
As we move closer to a future filled with re-hydrators and self-lacing shoes, I wonder how we will obtain those items. Will we go to a store in a mall? Will we order them online and have them delivered? Will we be able to shop from our TV? Maybe we will just be able to think about the item and it will show up the next day. Regardless of how shopping will look in the future, it's pretty evident that shopping today is in dire need of a makeover.
At the start of the 20th century, downtown areas were the prime shopping venue. Department stores were massive buildings that contained everything from shovels to stockings to sofas. Smaller boutiques dotted the streets, window dressings enticing the passersby. After the war, the automobile not only decreased foot traffic in urban cores, it also decreased the population as families fled to suburbia. Another 20 years brought shopping malls and strip malls, and another 20 years beyond that brought the big-box-megaplex.
As the internet evolved from educational information sharing to public use, companies were quick to capitalize on the extra exposure. It was thought that creating electronic versions of a mall was a smart move. But how else can you be certain to get the best deal? Comparison shopping engines - view one product at all the stores online where you can buy it. Since then we have seen familiar stores open up digital storefronts, as well as mobile sites and other innovations keeping pace with technology.
The one area where all of this technology is lagging, however, is bridging the gap between site and store. Walmart offers a service that lets a customer order a product online and pick it up in a local store. Nordstrom offers a similar service that will search the entire national inventory to display in the ecommerce site. These are fantastic ways to close the gap, and it seems that many of the pieces already exist. The challenge now is how to connect all of the pieces for a seamless experience.
For the near future, I envision a more connected experience for shopping. Store inventory will be available to the customer on the website. If I choose to go pick it up at a store, I will know that the product will be waiting for me. If I want the product delivered, it will be sent to me regardless of where it lives in the store's supply. If I search for the product on Google Shopping or PriceGrabber, the inventory will be real time, avoiding any consumers being misled by outdated product feed inventory and pricing.
Taking this one step further, smartphones will play an increasingly important part in the shopping process. Google Goggles technology can be advanced to assist with finding products online (perhaps this is why Google purchased Like.com). Product searches can return Local Search results in stores nearby, preferably only showing those stores with inventory in stock. Perhaps technology can be advanced and integrated to the point that you can make the purchase from your phone and then go pick it up in-store by waving your phone at the cash register to call up your receipt.
Technology is not only changing the experience for shoppers, it is also changing the entire nature of the way companies do business. The internet gives equal footing to companies of varying sizes. In addition to shopping advancements many technologies are changing on the payment side of the equation as well. Google is dipping its toes into the near-field-communication arena with Google Wallet. Several companies are experimenting with alternatives to credit card processing. American Express even developed its own PayPal-like service. In brick-and-mortar stores, small businesses are already embracing some of these payment technologies such as Square and LevelUp. Google is already experimenting with inventory values in Product Search. As these enhancements converge and morph, it will be very interesting to see just how many of these "futuristic" ideas become as real as the "Back to the Future" shoes.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
What's For Dinner?
Before Yelp came along, Zagat was one of the most revered restaurant review guides. The premise of Zagat's guides is simple; customers fill out reviews which are aggregated both as a small blurb and as an average of scores in several categories. While Zagat was never as prestigious as a Michelin rating, it certainly influenced many a dining decision over the years.
One of the main goals of the Zagat guide, as stated by the founders, is to collect and organize reviews to enable customers to make informed decisions. Zagat has grown from one guide for restaurants in New York to over 70 cities, covering food, lodging, travel, and entertainment. It's almost like Zagat was the original social network - they even distribute stickers for merchants to place on their doors just like Yelp and Foursquare do now.
Yesterday, Google announced that they intend to purchase Zagat. While this announcement seemingly comes out of left field, it actually makes so much sense it is a wonder that it didn't happen sooner. Google's mission statement is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." While restaurant reviews in NYC is a much smaller scope, the original intent of the Zagat guide was also to organize information and make it useful.
Even more importantly, however, is Google's increasing reliance on user reviews to power Local Search and Shopping. Google used to rely on third party sources to provide these reviews. As social networking and peer interactions became the way of web 2.0, Google started to cultivate their own database of user reviews. These reviews became more important in how local search results and shopping results would rank.
It only makes sense then that instead of slowly and methodically imploring users to write reviews, Google essentially purchased that content. In doing so, Google has filled in a large gap in their library of reviews. Google now has the ability to take some of the most trusted user reviews in the industry and spread that content to every corner of the internet.
It will be interesting to see how Google uses this new content aside from just adding to the Places and Maps listings. Will it help with rankings? Will it help with organic listings? Only time will tell what Google has in store for Zagat, but it's safe to say that this was definitely a smart acquisition that actually makes sense for Google's business model.
One of the main goals of the Zagat guide, as stated by the founders, is to collect and organize reviews to enable customers to make informed decisions. Zagat has grown from one guide for restaurants in New York to over 70 cities, covering food, lodging, travel, and entertainment. It's almost like Zagat was the original social network - they even distribute stickers for merchants to place on their doors just like Yelp and Foursquare do now.
Yesterday, Google announced that they intend to purchase Zagat. While this announcement seemingly comes out of left field, it actually makes so much sense it is a wonder that it didn't happen sooner. Google's mission statement is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." While restaurant reviews in NYC is a much smaller scope, the original intent of the Zagat guide was also to organize information and make it useful.
Even more importantly, however, is Google's increasing reliance on user reviews to power Local Search and Shopping. Google used to rely on third party sources to provide these reviews. As social networking and peer interactions became the way of web 2.0, Google started to cultivate their own database of user reviews. These reviews became more important in how local search results and shopping results would rank.
It only makes sense then that instead of slowly and methodically imploring users to write reviews, Google essentially purchased that content. In doing so, Google has filled in a large gap in their library of reviews. Google now has the ability to take some of the most trusted user reviews in the industry and spread that content to every corner of the internet.
It will be interesting to see how Google uses this new content aside from just adding to the Places and Maps listings. Will it help with rankings? Will it help with organic listings? Only time will tell what Google has in store for Zagat, but it's safe to say that this was definitely a smart acquisition that actually makes sense for Google's business model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)