Bradley Howard's Blog

Views of digital media, innovation, loyalty and business in the real world

Amazed at the SOPA protests

5141959734_0d636c90e41
I watched the SOPA protests closely last week with complete amazement.

In summary, SOPA is a proposed anti-piracy law in the US which would help prohibit illegal content on websites by imposing harsh penalties on sites that host it. 

Protests were held by some of the highest traffic websites on the Internet including Google and Wikipedia and were reported by the TV news.

Remember that Google own YouTube, which allegedly hosts many videos of illegal TV broadcasts (broadcasters and content owners can upload it to YouTube if they wish).

That’s one aspect of SOPA. Another aspect is that many websites that show illegal content use advertising as a source of revenue. SOPA wants networks which provide this advertising to become liable for where they are used.

If you took the Google search algorithm and posted it online, Google would take you to court and try to shut down any sites that host the illegal content. Yet Google refuses to be held accountable for the thousands of allegedly illegal videos it hosts on YouTube. These videos are illegal because they are TV recordings and violate copyright. Either Google does, or does not respect copyright. 

Google are rumoured to be bidding for the Premier League rights. It will be interesting to see if Google win the rights and then watch their lawyers report websites which contain illegal footage. Will Google remove these websites from the search results? Will Google remove their adsense and adwords accounts?

And the same applies to Wikipedia. Whilst I’m not suggesting that you actually do this, if you set up a website tomorrow and wrote a script to copy all of Wikipedia’s comments to your site, would you expect a legal letter from Wikipedia? Of course you would, because we understand copying content without permission is illegal from our school years onwards.

The value of content has been steadily fallen and the Internet has accelerated this. I don’t want people to copy my content illegally, and I respect the US for trying to help protect content.

Photo courtesy of KierDuros on Flickr

 


 

The future of Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+

4765056835_d133b93d501
I haven’t written about social media that much recently after a few readers inside and outside of work criticised this blog for talking about it too much. Lo and behold I was in a meeting recently and asked “I don’t see where Google+ fits in with Facebook and LinkedIn, what’s Google’s strategy?”, of which the answer was worth recapping here.

Facebook background

Facebook started as a platform to link people (“friends”) together. As people used it more and more, messages became more popular, and then businesses started moving in, realising the power of recommendations between social groups.

The problem Facebook has is that everything on Facebook is (or at least feels) quite personal – not private per se, and not necessarily rude, but the kind of stuff I don’t want my business colleagues, customers or suppliers to be reading. I don’t bring in printed photo albums into meetings to share with them, so I don’t want them looking at my holiday snaps on Facebook for the last few years either.

So when I’m investigating a new website for a customer, and I see a ‘Facebook Connect’ signup process, 99% of the time I avoid using it, and fill in the forms separate to Facebook.

One final note on Facebook – we all have tens if not hundreds of “friends” on Facebook. Think about the question that if you wanted to categorise them all into groups, such as “close friends”, “acquaintances”, “work colleagues” and so on, how long would it take? Hold the answer…

LinkedIn background

LinkedIn started as a platform to connect business people together. There are two main reasons for this.

The first is as a job hunting tool; it’s a huge job board full of candidates. It’s one of those perfect balances between supply and demand – lots of people looking for a job and lots looking for a candidate. 

The second use is as a sales tool, literally to network with contacts to find out who works within a specific organisation. It’s the ultimate tool to stop the “If only you would have told me you wanted to know someone who works for Company Y, I’d have told you” conversation from happening after spending hours of cold calling.

LinkedIn has stuck to its core focus since day one. It’s remained targeting professional users and staying away from the social (traditional definition) side.

Google+ background

Google have some key advantages with their social network. On the one hand, they have a fantastically high number of users who log in – some 260 million Gmail account users.

As a quick aside – this shows how undervalued Yahoo! are, with 310 million email users. Hurry up, buy Yahoo! and convert these huge traffic figures into massive revenue.

Back to Google+ again – Google has tried and failed a few times (which gives it an immediate experience advantage) to create a social network, and has now launched Google+.

And due to the maturity of the web, and especially some HTML coding techniques, has managed to create an environment which from day one allowed users to setup all their contacts into distinct groups. I asked the question above of how long it would take you to organise your “friends” into groups – and I haven’t met anyone who can be bothered to do so.

So Google has cracked the Facebook (social) and LinkedIn (professional) overlap. It’s very easy to have content which is only visible by social contacts and/or professional contacts. It also has dozens of brands committed to using the platform as well. And don’t forget – advertising agencies spend billions of pounds a year with Google’s advertising platforms. Having the agencies on board from day one is a major advantage.

Summary

In truth I think all three networks are here for the medium to long term. They are not mutually exclusive, and there are tools to link them together. I think brands should be building apps and brand pages for each of the networks –obviously adopting a different approach for LinkedIn compared to the other two.

Photo courtesy of US Embassy New Zealand on Flickr


 

How I would Yahoo!

Yahoo-logo1
So, apparently Yahoo! is up for sale, and even better, Google are willing to help fund it's resurgence. This sounds so familiar – in 1997, Apple were having serious problems and Microsoft, their once main competitor, invested $150 million in the company, and now Apple is worth more than Microsoft!

Back to Yahoo!, it’s amazing how many people are so dismissive of Yahoo!’s (that’s a lot of punctuation) value.

Here are the high level stats:

Yahoo has over 500 million unique visitors each month, around the World, in over 30 languages.

In the UK alone, adults spend over 3 hours a month just on Yahoo! Mail.

To build that audience of 500 million would cost a HUGE amount of money (and time), so in my opinion there's never been a better time to Yahoo! Stock is set at a very reasonable price, and Google are willing to invest a significant amount of money.

Here’s what I would do if I took over Yahoo! tomorrow:

Focus

  • An Internet content portal above all else. In terms of competition, Google provide mail to compete with Yahoo! Mail however there is no one with similar a traffic size which provides the level of content as Yahoo!
  • Generate a cost/revenue model for services such as Yahoo! Mail and Flickr to see if it’s worth selling these on or keeping them and reinvesting.
  • Create a cloud development service model to compete with the likes of Amazon and Microsoft - turning a cost centre into a profit centre

Analytics

 Work out where my users are coming from – is it mainly from PC manufacturer-set-browser-homepages which haven’t been updated for 5 years? In fact, I’d probably do most of my initial work on the analysis of who uses the individual Yahoo! services to ascertain the users’ value, or even try to derive an ARPU (Average Revenue Per User).

Innovation

Yahoo! strikes me as a company which is struggling to innovate. How many new services of note have their launched recently? I would look at why this has happened – have they all left to go to competitors? Internet companies need to have innovation at the centre of their philosophy, vision and corporate structure in order to keep users returning. I would reignite this passion for innovation immediately.

And finally, I think I’d rebrand Yahoo! to drop the exclamation mark! (Pun intended).

 


 

Google's new shops

61487601_bfcad8f8fc_z1
So Google have announced they will be opening retail stores, or at the very least, concessions inside IT shops.

I’ve talked about the concept of brand showrooms in the past, and Google are reconfirming this prediction.

Why are Chromebooks so expensive? The specs of a Chromebook doesn’t need to be particularly high, and the Operating System and software is available for free on Windows laptops.

Google are trying to compete with Apple on a mobile phone (iPhone v Android) and tablet (iPad v Android) level, where the competing products are becoming ever closer aligned as both sets of products mature. However on a laptop basis, the products are completely different.

Google are purely cloud focussed, with all applications HTML/ browser based and Apple users are still more than happy using downloadable native applications (think iWork/ Office and photo/ video editing applications). Even Google’s answer to photo editing, Picasa, is still a downloadable application – which raises the question of whether it will work on a Chromebook.

 

It’s interesting how the likes of successful Internet retailers such as Amazon and ASOS have steered away from physical outlets, and whether they are watching technology consumer brands such as Apple and now Google (not sure they have ever been classed as that before) to see how long before whether they shut down their super trendy stores in the near future.

Photo courtesy of ping ping on Flickr.


 

Holiday news

6070249129_3bebb307141
This week I've returned from a fortnight's holiday and for what was always considered a 'quiet period', there was a lot of news in the technology world:

  • Apple's Steve Jobs stepped down. Earlier this year I read the book 'From Good to Great' where one of the requirements of a great company over a good, high performing company, is that the former is able to lose key individuals and still grow successfully. There have been many good companies but when a key person has left, the company has lost it's way. Apple is currently the best of the good companies, and only time will tell whether it's one of the greats. 
  • Eric Schmidt gave a great speech highlighting two key factors - the UK has invented so many high tech products, yet has been unable to commercialise them, and secondly the dwindling number of students studying maths and science. Both are sad positions to be in, and the second one is the worrying trend which needs to be addressed.
  • HP have bought Autonomy. I've never come across a company that so few people know what they do (Autonomy, not HP). 30,000 people a week probably sit in White Hart Lane wondering what their shirt sponsor does. As for the actual aquisition, I agree with Tech Market View that it's another sad day for British enterprise, and Eric Schmidt's words above simply echo our lack of commercialisation - why can't the UK create companies that buy US companies?
  • Google buying Motorola was a complete shock. The cynic in me thinks that Google bought the cheaper company, to spark Microsoft's interest in buying Nokia, which would eat up a huge amount of Microsoft's cash reserve and put it in a weaker position. Quite why any company would want to buy a handset provider - customers are extremely fickle and disloyal in the mobile market, and Apple are going from strength to strength. Oh, and there's the subject of huge investment required to knock the iPad off the top perch. 

There was some good news while I was away though, I finished reading Lance Armstrong's autobiography and whilst I won't do a full book review like usual, I thoroughly recommend it. I couldn't put the book down and ended up reading it in four days - not an easy task when you go on holiday with four kids.


 

The future of consumerisation

Capture
One of the major shifts in the last five years has been the “consumerisation” of technology. Consumerisation is a swanky word for technology moving outside of the office/professional life into personal lives, and then moving back into the office in a different guise.

The shift started with broadband Internet. Once staff had broadband installed at home, they checked their email from home. They stopped taking laptops home with them and used their home computer.

Smartphones have accelerated the amount of consumerisation. You definitely know some people who have been provided a mobile phone from their employer, and the same individuals also have a smartphone on a personal contract. They will then use their personal phone to check their work email because they prefer their personal device.

This grey area of using personally-paid-for devices is a real issue for IT departments at the moment because of lack of standardisation (having to support iPhones, Android, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc.) and security risks.

Consumerisation isn’t limited to hardware either. I use Outlook 2010 at work, and mainly Google Mail for personal email. New features on Google Mail are appearing regularly. One of my favourites is if you type “I have attached the document” inside a GMail email and press send before attaching a file, Google gives you an alert to ask if you want to attach a document. Brilliant. I wish Microsoft had built the same functionality to prevent me forgetting to attach a file in Outlook.

In fact Google understands consumerisation on a new level. GMail and Google Docs started their lives as consumer tools and then became available as white labeled enterprise tools (a matter of opinion) for businesses. And there's recently been a lot of commentary about Google refusing to let businesses on to their new social networks - they want end users on there first.

Technology is continuing to become more consumer-focussed, which means we’ll use more of our personally-paid-for technology in our working lives. As my post earlier this week demonstrated, once we start checking our work calendar on our bathroom sink as soon as we wake up, the grey line will been very broad indeed.

 


 

Why Internet scams are becoming harder to detect

Internet scams are becoming more and more elaborate and easier to fall for, according to the Howard household. Here are two scams that we've experienced in the last couple of months:

Trial products

Mrs H signed up for a trial product which arrived quickly and was good value at £29.95. The next month we noticed a number of significant transactions on our credit card (we always use the credit card for Internet purchases so that we can appeal to the credit card company, rather than having to claim back money into our own debit account).

We called the company we'd bought the trial from, and they asked us to look at the terms and conditions of the trial.

How often do you check the terms and conditions on ecommerce sites? How often do you even click through to the terms and conditions page?

On this site, number one term was "the cost of the product will be £200 from the second month".

The second term was that we would be automatically registered and charged for other products.

Luckily, the person on the phone was extremely rude and ended up putting the phone down on us. I called the credit card company who, as soon as I said I think we've fallen for a scam, they said "Is it xxxxxxx company, because we've had a number of complaints about them, however they are adamant they are not hiding anything, it's all in the terms and conditions. It's morally wrong, but not illegal."

I then wrote an email to the company and focussed on the rude phone support rather than the product, and they agreed to refund the additional items and the second month's "full" cost.

The trust had already been broken and I asked the credit card company to reinssue our cards with new numbers, so there was no way we could be charged at a later point.

A few key lessons from this:

  1. Read the terms and conditions. Even if it's a quick glance, it's important to read them.
  2. Always use a credit card and not your debit card for Internet purchases.
  3. If you regularly buy from Internet sites, I think it's worth changing your card number from time to time (even if it's every couple of years).

Viruses

We haven't had a virus on our home PC for several years. I make sure our anti-virus software is regularly up to date and configured correctly. The kids also have parental controls on their accounts, which prevents them going to many sites.

This morning Mrs H woke me up and called me over the computer to show me the screenshot below:

Capture

At first glance, I looked at it and agreed that it looked like we had a virus. I paused, and thought "Why is this screen inside Internet Explorer?" and then I realised it was just an elaborate web page.

Mrs H had been looking for a photo to use on a birthday card (she'd searched on Google Images) and when she clicked on a site, this came up.

I've seen a number of virus warning ads and websites over the years, but this one was the most accurate-looking of them all.

A few key lessons if you see a virus warning:

  1. Take a screenshot (just press the Print Screen button, and email it to yourself in Gmail/ Hotmail). You might need this evidence later.
  2. Close all windows and applications.
  3. Open anti-virus, and run a scan. Only follow instructions from your anti-virus program, nothing else.

 

How fickle the Digital Media industry can be

Fickle
Today Facebook held a live session to announce their integration with Skype to enable video calling between users, presumably as a quick retaliation against Google+'s advanced video calling technology.

There were a few twists in the online session (around 54,000 people were simultaneously watching) delivered by Mark Zuckerberg and Tony Bates (CEO of Skype):

  • Half of all Skype traffic is video. This is misleading because video traffic is about 50 times the size of audio traffic (the number of kilobytes across the network). It would be more interesting to know how many calls are video calls compared to audio calls.
  • Facebook chose to partner with Skype because companies are only good at what they focus on, rather than being able to do everything. A direct strike against Google. The first question after the presentation was about Google+ (just someone trying to be smart - it really wasn't a clever or memorable question) and Zuckerberg just answered that Skype would enable hundreds of millions of users to video call one another.
  • The integration with Facebook is... unknown. When asked how Facebook will look when someone tries video calling you, Zuckerberg answered "you go to the page and something pops up". Hmmmmm.
  • When asked what's the financial incentive for Skype, Bates dodged the question and just answered that he wants a billion people on Skype. That's useless if none of them are paying anything though.

When the camera panned to the audience - all the audience were on their laptops, presumably tweeting. And nothing annoys me more than people who constantly tweet at conferences. How do they listen to (and understand) what is going on?

Mark Zuckerberg is one of the most influential people over the course of the Internet, and his live audience in the room weren't even looking at him - see the photo above. Six months ago when Mark Zuckerberg spoke, the room paid him 100% attention and thought he was the greatest thing since the Google search engine.


 

What’s good and not so good about Google+?

Google
On Friday I received an invite to Google's new social networking platform, Google+. This spread through the Endava office like wildfire, and previously planned productivity nosedived whilst we all played with the latest website phenomena.

As a general rule, I try not to write about mainstream topics on this blog. There are plenty of other websites out there which cover these mainstream areas better than I can. I try to review the latest happenings, or to record opinions that I have been asked during the day which have caused some debate with a client or colleague, or both. In fact if you've never experienced our corporate culture of having debates in front of clients, I would highly recommend it. However three days on, a lifetime in Digital Media, the reviews of Google+ on the web are appalling, and focus on the wrong areas. So I’m breaking my own rule and covering Google+ as a record.

What is Google+?

Firstly, what is Google+? Most people in the press and blogosphere over the last few days have been touting Google+ as Google’s answer to Facebook. Google have tried launching social networks before. Orkut was a fully-fledged social network; OpenID was Facebook Connect – a single sign in across the web; Google Friend Connect was a bunch of widgets for website owners to use which was ‘convert’ their own sites into a social network; Buzz was as close to Twitter as you could possibly get; and there are probably a few more initiatives out there.

So it’s clear that Google have wanted to build a social network for a while – and I’ll come back to this point later.

Google+ is a giant sharing platform. On Google+, you can share pretty much anything from your Search results, webpages, photos and videos, thoughts and so on.

The key difference with Google+ and Facebook though, is that Google have realised that the one major problem with Facebook is that most users don’t want to share the same thing with their friends as they do with work colleagues. And you probably want to separate your friends into friends, acquaintances and the people you go to Church with. Think of the times that you’ve said to someone “I share this with people on Facebook and that with people on LinkedIn”. Google calls these different groups ‘Circles’ – and you can setup any number of these Circles very easily.

What’s good about Google+?

The first thing that hits users on Google+ is the speed. It’s as fast as using an installed application (e.g. Word) on my computer. There are some new types of interactivity on the user interface – lots of dragging and dropping – so the iPad gets a very standard mobile interface. And it’s all very, very fast at loading and using.

Talking of the interface, it’s nice. It’s also identical to Facebook. Absolutely identical. Toolbar along the top, chat on the left, recommendations on the right, activity in the middle. Lots of white space. A rigid template. Lightboxes for images and video. Well done to Facebook for the usability – it’s so good no one can improve it.

The whole Google+ experience is about sharing. On Facebook, when you update your status, it’s like making a quick diary entry and that’s it. You don’t consciously or even sub-consciously think “my friend Fred is going to see this” or “my boss is going to see that”. You write the status and move on. The same happens when you comment on someone else’s photo or status. On Google+ though, everything you do needs to be proactively shared with a someone/ a group of people. If you don’t actively say who you want to share it with, you can’t update your status.

Google+ is also setting a new level of functionality for Internet video. You can now make group video calls using Google+. You can do this in Skype, as a premium (paid for) function. On Google+, it works inside the browser for free. It’s very clever technology, and this will be a key function for signing up new users to the platform.

One of the main things I like about Google+ is how it links together all your activities on Google’s products – from +1 to PicasaWeb into one interface.

Other fringe points – the entire application uses SSL (HTTPS), to head off major security concerns from the start.

What’s not so good about Google+?

For a start, it looks and feels identical to Facebook. I showed Google+ to my nephew, who like all 15 year olds is a Facebook Power User. He asked why he’d want to use Google+. He didn’t see anything obvious jump out at him that Facebook doesn’t do.

Google have so many products, that some of them that you would expect to integrate with Google+ have been left behind. I use Google Docs quite a lot with friends and work because of the collaboration/ sharing functionality. But Google Docs’ sharing functionality hasn’t changed, i.e. sharing a document doesn’t offer you the same Circles you setup in Google+.

Whilst Circles is a key function of Google+, and it makes sense to choose who to share your latest status with, it doesn’t feel right. Anyone who runs an e-commerce business knows that for every additional step you ask the user to do, it reduces the goal completion by x%. So site owners reduce the number of steps and increase the conversion rate. Google+ does the opposite – it requires an additional step – “Who will I share this with?” for everything, and you start thinking twice about making the update.

Summary

Firstly, if I was a competitor, I’d be more worried if I owned Delicious than Facebook. I can’t see people lowering their use of Facebook, where over 400 million people are already part of a huge network. I still see new friends from the past appearing because they’ve tagged me on one of those embarrassing school photos, and we have a quick chat on Facebook.

I don’t think I’ll be using Delicious for much longer though. It’s just so easy to save a web page by +1’ing it (much easier than saving a bookmark to Delicious) and then sharing it with a few people.

I find it interesting watching Google’s roadmap unfold. Every year we look at Google and the description of the company changes. First it was only a (bloody good) search engine; Gmail made it one of the web’s preferred email applications; by releasing Google Docs it became a personal IT organisation which backed up all your files for you; YouTube made it the number one video website; Google Chrome made it the preferred browser for millions of people – quickly knocking out Firefox; Google Maps is the defacto mapping application for millions of people, and has even replaced paper maps in many households; Google AdWords and AdSense is still the ultimate advertising platform – brings advertising opportunities to the masses, whether you want to spend a pound a day promoting your song, or millions of pounds a day advertising on the YouTube homepage for your latest video game. And I still haven’t covered Google’s other products such as phones, cars, checkout, groups, sites, news and a couple of dozen more!

Google+ is the 2011 release to demonstrate Google can produce pretty much anything.

I think Google+ will be a major hit with users because of how it will bring together so many of Google’s products. I think it’s a natural progression from Google’s search engine – to share the places on the web that you visit after using the search engine. And with Google still owning such a massive market share of search, even a small percentage of search users that adopt Google+ will make Google+ a hit.


 

Digital Media pace accelerating

The pace of Digital Media is still accelerating in what has always been a fast moving industry.

This week’s highlights (and it's only Wednesday!):

  1. New Google styling across their apps (basically it’s all gone darker and neater - it now looks like it’s been designed as a suite of tools, rather than cobbled together by a developer who has a passing interest in web design). I suspect the new styling is all part of the preparation of the Google Chromebooks
  2. And while talking of Google, Google+ has been launched. And they've also launched What Do You Love – a mashup of different Google Searches. WDYL is nice, but it's not immediately obvious how I'll use it usefully
  3. Zynga has announced it will IPO for around $2 billion, valuing the company at $15 billion. Zynga produce a number of online games including the hugely popular Farmville. $15b is a huge amount of money, however Zynga’s revenue is already $850m and as a parent of young children, I can see the industry has got lots more potential
  4. GoDaddy.com, of Domain Name fame is just about to be sold for $2 billion. GoDaddy were also going to go the IPO route a couple of years ago on revenues of $800m but have preferred the route of private investment companies

In other news:

  1. The clocks are ticking for a number of high street retailers with Thornton’s, Carpetright, Jane Norman and TJ Hughes all either making some massive cutbacks or shutting down altogether. Carpetright are blaming the recession – that people don’t want to buy big ticket items at the moment, but that wouldn’t apply to Thornton’s or TJ Hughes and Jane Norman who are clothing retailers. I think it’s more to do with customer’s shopping habits because clothing website ASOS is growing at the same time that the others are shutting down tens of shops. 
  2. National Insurance cards are going to be phased out. From now on we’ll get a letter instead. What were the cards ever used for anyway? And why not replace the cards with emails or a mobile app? It’s about time the government hired a CIO from industry and let loose with a clear remit on improving ROI.
I’ve been asked by some other sites to write some blog posts – check out Technorati and Endava's new posts, and I’ll let you know when Sitecore and CMSWatch both publish my articles too.

 


 

Bradley Howard

Head of Digital Media at Endava, although all the views in this blog are purely mine and not necessarily those of Endava.

 

Subscribe to my RSS feed

 

 

Other ways to find me:
TwitterBuzzLinkedInDelicious