I was pleased and excited to see this week’s launch of Public Earth’s website.  Not just because it’s the home of a small cadre of friends that I knew would build something very interesting, but because I believe in the fundamental premise underlying Public Earth.

The Twitter synopsis of Public Earth sums it up nicely.

We’re the Wiki For Places, dedicated to delivering interesting, unique, and up-to-date place information in a personalized way.

after world domination

The scale of product investment and advancement commitment from Google and Microsoft in mapping these past five years has been truly impressive.  These brands deservedly unseated MapQuest’s sleepy position by moving the ball forward on user experience, on multi-dimensional content, and on developer tools.

Fact is though, we’re still at the utilitarian consumption stage in geo-experience, and the very thing that creates their current world domination could well be what weighs down their forward progress.  The “Anchor Tenants” of the consumer geo universe, perhaps. [for fun: Google = Walmart, MapQuest = Kmart, and Microsoft so wants to be Target].

deep ruts in the road

The major map services have build their positions on consumption of maps as created and presented by them to the consumer.  While Google can legitimately point to the MyMaps success, I’d suggest that 1) this is pavlovian behavior driven by the necessity/greed/leverage of SEO, way more than it is socially energized participation, and 2) as I’ve written before, Google is so poor in social user experience, it’s just painful to watch.

The real action on the horizon inverts mapping into a paradigm of user creation and crowdsourcing the collective knowledge of places, and creating maps that are at once personal and shared.  There is a thriving new ecosystem in formation that is decidedly different and unique, and it’s natively social and participative.

Sites as deeply entrenched in consumer habit as MapQuest and Google can be severely challenged when it comes to materially morphing their brand. Orkut was indeed a fine piece of social technology.  Nuf said? 

Google’s mapping pathway seems to be driven by its dominating mastery of a fully owned and operated local advertising stack. Undoubtedly, this is core to their investments in local map content.  The route that elevated Google Maps to its front line position could very well be what holds it back from jumping the next shark.

the people’s voice recorder

Someone has to step up and power the collection of the true local voice. Yes, Google is well positioned to be aggregating this content, but (my sense) is that the developer community is 1) on to the impact of Google’s increasingly controlling hand and squashing foot, and 2) leaning forward for an open alternative. This is unlikely to be “one place” that forms this, but rather a connected collective.

The people have not yet spoken, and the businesses that unlock and turn loose this voice will indeed become major playas in the mobile/social/local ecosystem.

under the earth

Public Earth has taken a long cycle of development to do many things that are elegantly tucked behind a nice user experience.  The back office is much more interesting than the presentation, in my opinion.  To developers using their API, it presents what I consider to be a deep and well thought out geo content management system. As Google educates the world on the concept of a Place Page, Public Earth sits ready as the engine for a parallel path, powered by the people.

I’d posit that each and everyone of us has “50 maps inside” of us. You have history, you have local context, you’ve got highly tuned very personal experiences. All but a minute sliver of this has been recorded. Opening this up feels very unlike what we do in mapping services today.

In the massive collective “mother earth reclamation project”, Public Earth wants to take a lead role.  I hope it finds a place of active cooperation with Open Street Map and a dozen related open initiatives quickly gathering steam.  If it does, it will be indeed be one to watch.

It feels like everywhere I turn there is yet another media company paying writers to crank out search engine friendly content, in thinly veiled attempts to please the google bots.

I’ve spent a lot of time over the years looking into the content gaps in converting local to an informed and useful shopping experience. The quest for deeper local content is on the order of a holy grail epic challenge.

The standard by which most publishers currently seem to be approaching their content strategy is “whatever the google bot rewards”.

the inch deep dilemma

I REALLY get the business case for hiring cheap writers and blogging and writing the heck out of a category or place.  I’ve done it myself.  Having “been there” however, I also know that this kind of writing rarely drives community OR anything but transitory, tactical commerce actions.

Fact of the matter is, bots are dumb, people are smart.

For the most part, what I’ve seen scattered throughout local media sites is disingenuous and obvious content that rarely informs a consumer shopping decision.  To me, this runs a real risk that it will works against the (increasingly urgent) brand development needs of the media business. Authenticity is something consumers are seeking, and rewarding with loyalty and social media “juice”.  Conversely, gratuitous content diminishes the appeal of a site/brand.

If this is simply treated as “air cover” while a real hyper local or vertical content strategy is executed, than I’m ALL FOR IT.  However, to make this “THE content strategy” for a local media publisher is a dangerous and problematic approach.

At the end of the day, this is at the heart of a real core business identity issue for many local media companies.  It’s time to think like a consumer publisher, not (just) a traffic hungry sales channel.  Chasing consumers through the lens of a Google bot will blur your vision and stunt your growth in the long run.

We’ve all done it, we’ve googled our name.  And, in the process, we’ve found all the other Perry Evans’ of the world.  There’s Perry Evans in Hollywood, Perry Evans the gospel singer (my favorite alter ego) and Perry Evans the family practice physician in Cleveland, and so on.  This practice has even been the subject of an indie documentary film named, appropriately “Google Me“.  Problem is, all name matches are “correct search answers”, but the consumer isn’t well served for meaningful people search on today’s Google.

This week, Google launched “Google Me”, a new feature that let’s you claim your profile, which will then be integrated into the search results for matches to your name.  It’s the first time individual consumers have really been able to have any control over any placement on the SERP.  Yes, your photo and summary info will show up in a special new Google Profiles section (currently) located at the bottom of the first page results.

it’s natural

As many have pointed out, the consumer pull of such a concept is compelling. It’s a very safe bet that this will become a mass participation model, if for no other reason than the implicit feeling of having some control over the black box of Google search.  In today’s world of identity fear and loathing, consumers naturally gravitate in these directions. Thus, by default, Google is placing itself more squarely into the forefront of personal identity.  By default or by design?

fear factor

ReadWriteWeb nicely captures the big brother issue – should you stop and think before giving Google even more personal context? Will their artful data miners convert this into all sorts of ingenious models of “improving your personal search experience” by applying this deep profile content?

Of course you don’t have to fill out anything, and when you claim your profile, it can be a simple name, rank and serial number.  However, being the naive social beasts that we are, the average joe will probably continue to fill in Google’s profile form with all sorts of interesting nuggets of interests, personal links (think of the derivative deeper mining!).  Copied from the RWW article, this is the form. Think about the marketing value that can be derived from parsing this content AND the content on the personal links you provide, and perhaps a few things they may already know from your search history and DoubleClick’s asset trove.

who, me?

On the surface, this is a smart search quality move.  It improves the people search value of Google.  Not the best time to be in the people search business, I’d suggest.  It’s also an ingenious method for Google to put themselves into the middle of personal profile collection.  Given Google’s rabid focus on personalized search, this feels like a carefully contemplated move in that chess game.

As quoted in RWW, Google’s Joe Kraus responsed on this bigger picture issue, attempting to dispel the notion of a bigger agenda.

“Google doesn’t do a lot of forward looking things; we serve our users’ needs and then we iterate.”

Gimme a break, Joe, this kind of BS really backfires.  Own up to the treasure trove you’re building, and be transparent about how you intend to use it.  Anything less just adds to the growing pile of reasons for consumers to begin fearing the brand as an opaque, too-powerful monolith.

twitter: much (much) more than “what am I doing now”

image credit

It’s too easy to be dismissive of Twitter as simply an extraction of the “status update” that became the backbone of social interaction at Facebook. While the concept originated with this, it has rapidly evolved into THE place where an increasing flock of consumers AND publishers post real-time information (over 6 million users, currently).  More importantly, it’s the place where consumers congregate to consume and converse around this eclectic treasure trove of real-time information. It’s a noisy, disorganized commons, yet it feels very much the place to be.

Increasingly, you’re seeing Twitter capturing a pivotal role in content distribution, threatening to siphon the traffic position of consumer portals, newspaper websites and RSS feed readers in consumer’s news consumption habits.  Most major publishers and bloggers now immediately push content updates to Twitter as soon as the information goes live.

Might this become as impactful as to challenge Google’s dominance in Search?  Pfft, of course not.  However, as John Battelle suggests with his analogy of YouTube – it’s capturing a new dimension of consumer content consumption and participation that is drawing very real momentum.  Google doesn’t capture real-time content of any scale today, and it certainly does not feel like a conversational medium capable of engaging the consumer-consumer conversational thread.

Like YouTube, Twitter’s underlying financial model is yet to be demonstrated.  I suspect, like all conversational applications (Chat, IM, Facebook,…) ads running alongside conversations will appear as distractions, and under-perform compared to commercial search.  However, also like YouTube, Twitter’s position seems to be forming into a critical new dimension of the media landscape. Undoubtedly, the big boys are onto this, and are actively considering “taking it out” before it gets snapped up by someone else. The synthesis and leverage of the growing “conversational knowledge base” is definitely a part of the appeal of Twitter’s position.

The debate over the underlying revenue model of Twitter is driving a feeding frenzy of blogger speculation, and even triggering open competitions for the best proposal.  The founders promise it’s around the corner, and the outcome of this will be very instructive as to “where might Twitter go?”.

twitter and local media

Greg Sterling makes an interesting case for Twitter as a working example of  “social directory assistance“. Essentially, the concept is to ask a question of your followers, and receive near real-time opinions from your circle of friends.  Unlike Facebook, where your “friends” are a filtered and approved list, Twitter differentiates itself by the fact that anyone can become an interloper into your postings.  I’d guess that I probably only know 20% of the people who follow me on Twitter, versus 100% of FB friends. We are seeing very dramatic follower volumes with celebrities and celebrity VC’s. To me, extrapolating the virtues of this real time “answers from your tribe” model works “for them but not me”.  While Twitter helps you build a larger tribe, the trust factor of “near strangers” is to be questioned. Most of my followers do not live/consume in the same locale as I do, so this leverage is further limited in local value. Very few consumers have the “tribe pull” to get anything but spotty answers to many local questions in this model, I’d posit.

Bridging the gap between “friends and neighbors” you’re seeing new Twitter-like services emerge with interesting potential, such as BrightKite (the product of a couple of Local Matters’ alumni!). This expanded tribe model perhaps makes the social directory assistance model more achievable.

Twitter zealots (hey, when your blog is called MrTweet, you know it’s a fan boy thing!) point to increasing anecdotal evidence of Twitter being employed by local businesses to drive tangible growth, such as this local coffee shop story. Added participation by merchants and a growing cadre of “coupon tweet” start-ups are fueling this buzz.

I certainly am a big believer that the world of real time promotions will be reinvented in the next decade, and it will be founded on social and conversational media. However, whether this logically fits into the Twitter delivery model it a very big TBD.

ginzu steak knife or swiss army tool?

Today, the tech world is granting Twitter the birthright to a world of possibilities.  However, as succinctly pointed out by Tim O’Reilly, the simplicity of Twitter is a very key ingredient to it’s success. The bright shiny world of possibilities most commonly buckle under the real life challenges of morphing from simple products to major ecosystem players.

Perilous navigation is definitely ahead, as Twitter expands into the search dimension of real time conversations, deals with the overwhelming noise of commercial models and choking spam, and contemplates a platform role.  Wherever it ends up, it’s the deserved poster child in one of the most important dimensions of online consumer behavior.

Twitter demands careful attention and active participation.

]]> http://www.evansink.com/2009/03/twitter-the-new-thing/feed/ 0 http://www.evansink.com/2009/02/is-google-the-conversational-nerd/ http://www.evansink.com/2009/02/is-google-the-conversational-nerd/#comments Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:08:03 +0000 perry http://www.evansink.com/?p=232

The more I immerse myself into the world of conversational technology, the more clear it seems to me that it best exists on a different plane from Search.  I’m increasingly convinced that Google wants to treat conversations as a means of parsing and ingesting conversational questions into a search answer. Converting right-brain exploration into left-brain challenges of synthesis and order – as if the entire point of a conversation is to derive an answer to a question.

Perhaps we have the proverbial nail-hammer mindset in action.  I’ve characterized Google in the past as the awkward nerd at a party.  You know the type.  A tad desperate to fit in socially, invariably trying too hard to win over the guests with encyclopedic interjections.   The conversational nerd rarely fits in, as he tries to complete every conversation with a “best answer” completion of a dialog, versus a participatory comment.

The beauty in conversations revolves around serendipity and discovery – free-wheeling dialog where questions are often answered that were never really asked.  A tremendous amount of knowledge is developed through collaborative discovery; conversational technology seems to hold the unique promise to ignite this knowledge development.  However, the phraseology of search seems ill-fitted to the party. It’s damn frustrating for someone who generally knows more to step back and let a conversation meander.

Yet, how often does the conversational nerd get invited back?

After just reading a GoogleBlog post from the SVP of Product Management, I couldn’t help but to add-on to this post, with a few select quotes that continue to build a profile of how Google looks at conversations.  I’m not one to quote ValleyWag, but their title “The Height of Google’s Hubris” seems very fitting.

From this “state of the world” posting from Google Senior Management.

…We won’t (and shouldn’t) try to stop the faceless scribes of drivel, but we can move them to the back row of the arena….

…No one argues the value of free speech, but the vast majority of stuff we find on the web is useless. The clamor of junk threatens to drown out voices of quality….

…Putting the power to publish and consume content into the hands of more people in more places enables everyone to start conversations with facts. With facts, negotiations can become less about who yells louder, but about who has the stronger data. They can also be an equalizer that enables better decisions and more civil discourse….

To me, this seems to reinforce the way Google views mainstream conversational media: the majority of what everyday people have to say is “drivel” that deserves to be sent to the “back row of the arena” while “voices of quality” are pushed forward.  Pretty illuminating commentary from the guy in charge of products.