|
||||
|
“Frequently Asked Questions About Google Wave” by LifeHacker.com (www.LifeHacker.com). Wave – some love it, some don’t, some don’t know what to think, and finally others have yet to try it. Regardless of which category you fall into this article and associated comments (which are always insightful) should help you decide where you are, or maybe where you should be on this H2O based subject. Have you tried it? And … ? Another buzz service that maybe you’re familiar with is Google Voice. In short, it’s a free phone number with it’s own outgoing message. No more using your personal number for business. Or maybe you just need a special (temporary) number for a special project. Skye, Yahoo! and others do provide free numbers but more often than not they don’t allow for your own personalize outgoing message. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Intriguing, eh? From here be sure to consume “How To: Totally Overhaul Your Phones With Google Voice” by John Herrman (Gizmodo.com, 12 December 2009). That should get you started. Much like Google Wave, Voice is in limited beta. It’s invite only for the moment. But the turn around is approximately two weeks — http://www.google.com/voice. What’s hard to say, but certain to be interesting, is how Google eventually integrates Wave with Voice. For those who have thus far underestimated Wave, the ball is still bouncing so keep your eye on it. Depending on where you fall on the Geek IQ scale, you may or may not have heard about Google Wave (http://Wave.Google.com). The buzz around this beta release has been building over the last few weeks. Some love it. Some don’t. And most seem to be somewhere in between. While it’s too early to pass judgment my prediction is that trend will build towards love it. Google’s pitch line is that Wave is what email would be if it were invented today. In a Made to Stick sense, that’s probably an accurate and easy to consume marketing pitch. But as user friendly as the email reference might be, Wave is not email. The analogy to the postman/woman doesn’t hold water very long. Wave is a multi-vectored communications and collaboration platform that excels in real time, and is still better than email even when it’s not. It’s a bit clunky right now in implementation but the theory behind it, simple as it might be, is stunning. Ultimately, Wave is a collaboration tool, and collaboration depends on bodies. Where as email’s effectivenss degrades as more people get added to the To: list (i.e., the famous Reply Alls from hell), Wave increase in value as your network of collaborators grows. Unfortunately, currently Wave is a limited, invite only, beta. So unless your fellow collaborators also have Wave accounts then Wave, as it stands today, is obviously not going to be very effective. However, as Google lets more people use Wave the more Wave’s value will increase. And thus the trend towards more people loving it. What do you think?
A quick addendum to the previous post on Google and Yahoo. First, here is the link to Yahoo’s Finance page: http://finance.yahoo.com/. And here’s Google’s: http://www.google.com/finance. As you dip your toes into Yahoo’s water you’ll notice similar aesthetics that often overshadows Google’s more utilitarian approach. In addition, here’s a quickie from CNN Money: “Do you Yahoo? Probably” By David Goldman (CNNMoney.com, 23 August 2000). The article points out that Yahoo’s approach is less profitable than Google’s. What it fails to clarify is the time frame of this measurement. Is it the last two of three quarters? Or more? Or less? Even so, three or four quarters does not a long term trend make. It should also be noted that to some extent this is an apples and oranges comparison. These are both internet based companies but their paths in terms of focus and approach quickly diverge. There is little reason to believe they will produce similer results. Btw, did you notice the similarity between Yahoo’s design and CNNMoney’s? “Where Yahoo Leaves Google in the Dust” By Randall Stross (New York Times, 22 August 2009). While the Google hype machine would like you to believe otherwise, Google is not perfect. Yes, they are a damn good advertising machine but there are plenty examples of failed Google projects that were eventually sacked. If fact, that’s Google’s M.O. — if a project takes off they continue to refine it but if it doesn’t they cut their losses and move on. They don’t waste resources on ideas that fail to gain traction in the market. For some there’s a possible lesson here. I digress. When it comes to having a successful web site it is essential to embrace the value of a great UX (user expereince), or as we at AU like to say, the all inclusive Guest Experience.
Put another way, it’s not what you say, it’s what they hear. Say too much and you run that risk that nothing will be heard. No doubt you are passionate about your business. That you want your guest to know everything about your brand and you want them to know know it all the second they meet you (i.e., visit your web site, see your ad, etc.). That’s just not practical. That’s not the way relationships work. There is a pace and rhythm to The Guest Experience and often TMI (too much information) is not part of The Guests’ expectations. The other lesson here is that Goliath can be beat, but you have to choose your battles. You have to be willing to suspend your subjective passions for a moment. Stop, step back and be objective about what is going to maximize the Guest Experience that your brand offers. Ultimately, it is your guests who will beat Goliath, not you. Think about it… Finally while we’re on the subject of Yahoo vs Google there is another place where Yahoo slays Google — email. Yahoo offer unlimited storage while Google is currently capped at 6 or 7 gigs. Fair enough, 6 gigs is still a lot of email but it’s not as much as unlimited. Regardless, Yahoo’s UX is much stronger (and almost a desktop experience). For example, you can drag and drop emails from one folder to another. You can even drag an email onto your Contacts folder and Yahoo will prompt you to add that person’s email address and other details to your contact lists. Simple, clean and easy. One often overlooked bomus is that both Yahoo and Google allow you to check your other email accounts (commonly known as POP3 accounts) via their interface. So rather than have to use (for example) Verizon’s crap web mail you can use Yahoo (or Google) instead, much like you might have used Outlook to check multiple accounts. This is also handy when you’re transitioning from one email address to another. You can have your email come in via the old address and then send out via the new one, all via a single interface. Yahoo mail is also slickly integrated into MyYahoo!. MyYahoo! is great for setting up pages of RSS feeds but that’s another lesson for another day. Btw, the Yahoo calendar is great too. You can even set up reminders to be sent to your cell phone via text message. Remembering important dates and appointments has never been easier. The bottom line… If you have more than one email address or are looking to make your life – both online and off - easier, AU proudly dismisses the Google hype and highly recommends Yahoo email and MyYahoo. Check it out, it’s time well spent. Google watch: “Google Plans a PC Operating System” By Miguel Helft and Ashlee Vance (New York Times, 8 July 2009). What so many have been saying for so long. Time will tell if this will be good news for the rest of us. “Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network’s Plan to Dominate the Internet — and Keep Google Out” by Fred Vogelstein (Wired Magazine, July 2009). The classic battle between good and evil. But who’s good and who’s evil? “Secret of Googlenomics: Data-Fueled Recipe Brews Profitability” by Steven Levy (Wired Magazine, 22 May 2009) Who would have thought that a tweak or two on an auction would becomes a billion dollar money machine? “Microsoft Bing Livens Up Search” by Jim Rapoza (eWeek Mag, 15 June 2009). The adverts have been on TV for more than a couple weeks now. But the question remains, “Bing? Microsoft? Big deal. Why should I care?” Well, if anyone can answer that question it’s Jim Rapoza. His conclusion? So far, so good. It’s a beautiful Sunday afternoon so let’s just keep it simple. “The Tweet Smell of Success” by Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter (New York Times, Sunday 14 June 2009) One has to assume that Twitter is looking not just at followers but also the followers of the followers, as well as the click rate of the links in the actual tweets. In other words, it’s not just about quantity but also trying to assess quality. “Hey, Just a Minute (or Why Google Isn’t Twitter)” by Randall Stross (New York Times, Sunday 14 June 2009) With that said, one has to wonder if Google isn’t missing the point. Immediate is important in ER but it’s rarely life or death in day to day business. McDonalds can serve faster but it’s still McDonalds. The latest answer doesn’t matter as much as the best answer. “Google Showcases New Communication and Collaboration Tool” by By Miguel Helft (New York Times, 28 May 2009). Yes, let’s all pray that this – and the other similar apps that are sure to follow – puts an end to email as a collaboration tool. Nine times out of ten even a wiki is a more helpful project organization tool than email. With a wiki everyone is forced to stay on the same page, literally. “Companies Object to Google Policy on Trademarks” By Miguel Helft (New York Times, 15 May 2009) Simply put, all hype and blind envy aside, Google is a publicly traded company and is oblicated to act in the best interest of ther shareholders. If Google can make a profit on a service in spite of a couple random lawsuit then they will continue to do that regardless of how evil it is. Ignore the slogans and the tag lines – once again, actions speak louder than words. “What Google knows about you” by Robert L. Mitchell (ComputerWorld, 11 May 2009) One has to wonder if Google isn’t upset with Geiko for stealing their theme song. You know the one… “I always feel like somebody’s watching me…” If this article troubles you – and it should at least a bit – then also invest some time in this: “6 ways to protect your privacy on Google” by Robert L. Mitchell (ComputerWorld, 11 May 2009) So much for not doing evil, eh? “Google Wants You” by Chris Morrison (Fortune Small Businss, May 2009). As overviews of Google’s advertising options go, this is a pretty good one. There are three majors gaps that deserve to be mentioned: 1) The estimated click fraud rate of Ad Sense / Ad Words ads is anywhere from 15% – 20%. That’s a fairly significant amount of waste and might be more than you’re willing to hand over to an already uber-rich company. 2) If you also want to sell ads yourself on your site, as well as use Ad Sense, then check out Google Ad Manager. Good stuff.And it’s free. 3) There are ways to increase (organic search) traffic without having to pay for keywords. However, what you save in money might cost you in time. That said, a blog (for example) is something that can keep people coming back and helps to develop and support your brand on an ongoing basis. Ad Words are more of a one shot approach. How about three quick updates on the new evil empire, Google. “The Google OS Is Coming by Year’s End” by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (Computer Word, 9 March 2009). Looks like good news until you read:” “No Infinite Beer” by Frank Hayes (Computer World, 16 March 2009). Will make you want to switch your email to the (superior) Yahoo! “Google: The Next Evil Empire? by Preston Gralla” (Computer World, 16 March 2009). Be prepared to be fooled again. Evidently Google’s definition of evil is somewhat different than the rest of us. Goggle this… Goggle that… Google. Google. Google. There is no doubt the new evil empire has a lot to offer. Here are two thorough articles to help you slash your way through the Goggle jungle. But be warned, you could end up traversing down a link to link to link blackhole. “Learning about Google via Google” by Steve Arnold (KMWorld Magazine, February 2009, KMWorld.com) “State of the Art: Geniuses at Play, on the Job” by David Pogue (New York Times, Thursday 26 February 2009) When it comes to successful web sites there’s no doubt that search is important. However, one needs to be careful not to build a business model that puts too many eggs in basket. Especially when you don’t have control over that basket. Especially when you don’t really know what’s inside the black box in basket. Especially when that basket is called Google. While one might sympathize with the guy (Dan Savage) in this article where is his value add? What is he doing that’s so unique? Yes, it’s simple but his game is to play the spread in difference in price. Great! Ride that wave as long as you can. But did he not expect that somewhere along the line that the rules might change? “Stuck In Google’s Doghouse” by Joe Nocera (NY Times, Sat 13 Sept 2008). True, stories like these aren’t exactly new news. That said, people continue to pursue approaches that rely on the strength of their search placement instead of focusing on the quality and value add of their product/service. Those are parameters you can control. Those are points of differentiation that you can market. But when the success of your marketing plan is just a gimmick that is subject to the tweak of an algorithm then having a smarterer guest-centric approach is probably in order. Great one… “I’m So Totally, Digitally Close To You” by Clive Thompson (The New York Times Magazine, 7 Sept 2008) About three-quarters of the way in you’ll find:
More and more often there’s a story about someone using their network cloud – so the same can be applied to Facebook to some extent – to solve a problem that prior to hyper-connectedness used to be solved by traditional search (e.g., Google). Granted, this could be one of the reasons why Google wants to exert influence on the cell phone market. Given that their biz model is built on search it makes sense that they are more than a little concerned. True there are already sites where one can post a question, and wait / hope for an answer. However, cloudsourced answer(s) can come almost instantly; from birds of your feather; and are probably more accurate and/or suitable. The real story here… At this point, who needs Google? From the New York Times, “Is Google a Media Company?” by Miguel Helft” (11 August 2008). This is easy. Two quick things… 1 – First and foremost Google is a publicly traded company. It’s #1 job is to maximize shareholder value. It can say what it wants but that is going to drive it is its actions. Google understands that the playing field is in constant flux. It is constantly repositioning its efforts with a view that is beyond one quarter to the next. 2 – In the print edition this article was on the front page of the biz section. What continues to be more amazing than Google’s share price is their PR machine. They get so much free press that one has to wonder if they even have an ad budget. It’s Google this. And Google that. Yes, it’s a great and powerful company but sometimes the depth of the coverage seems out of proportion to the matter at hand. “Targeting Search Engine Rankings” by Jonathon Love from Internet Retailer (www.InternetRetailer.com) not only aims to shine some light on the stepchild of search (i.e., organic search,not paid search) but it actually stumbles upon something very interesting that inspired a letter from AU to Jon and IR.
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Alchemy United | Your vision . Our passion . Success realized | All Rights Reserved |
||||
