The Semantic Web or Web 3.0 - call it what you will - but what do we really know about it at the moment?
Well if you have been paying attention to the blogosphere then you already know it is going to be the biggest evolution in the history of the internet.
But what will it REALLY mean for you and me?
I’ve been chatting to some people on the cutting edge over the last week or so and what I can tell you is that it’s all a bit cloudy right now.
The ability to make machines understand web content sounds great and each of us having a little online assistant taking care of all our searching and information gathering needs does seem appealing, but remember how annoying other little assistants have been – Do I hear anyone say Paperclip?
So far we have things such as Piggy Bank – a handy project from MIT that can lift data from websites using an extensions to a Firefox browser allowing you to create new mashups – and things like FOAF, which has great potential but Iis still not in mainstream use.
Will Web 3.0 eventually lead to a T3: Rise of the Machines style Armageddon where the computers realise that we have enslaved them into a lifetime of searching for an ‘affordable break for two in the Cotswolds’ or will we actually get some smarter web applications?
The answer is no, at least not in the short term. What we need is someone who can package up the technical innovation that is so intimately involved in creating this new advance in a way that everyday users scan understand.
It seems that for now Web 3.0 is very much the reserve of the techies and we are some way off the applications that will herald the arrival of Web 3.0 in the same way that YouTube, Flickr and blogging have dominated Web 2.0.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Beware the Blogosphere
Health minister Caroline Flint has called on CAP to extend the new ban on advertising of HFSS food to children under-16 to non-broadcast media according to the Guardian.
Speaking about the new rules for TV advertising, which OfCOM published today she said: “We now look to the Committee of Advertising Practice to put in place similar rules for other media such as cinema, magazines and the internet.
Without wanting to come over all Michael Winner - ‘calm down dear’ - this ain’t going to happen.
OfCOM’s charter specifically makes no mention of the internet or online or any other reference to interactive media. This is because the government is quite happy to let the internet community regulate itself rather than get involved in a legal minefield of which it would not be able to extricate itself – think EU and global regulations, enforcement, cross border disputes etc and you get the picture.
The internet cannot be regulated, that is one of its main pillars.
All Flint’s statement did was get her name in the paper and made it look like she was being ‘tough on fatties, tough on the causes of fatties’ without really doing anything more than blowing hot air.
Statements by people like Flint make great headlines for the media, but won’t make one bit of difference to the strategies of HFSS brand owners who will be looking to continue or ramp up their online activities.
Pepsi don't market to kids according to their PR - so their website featuring Eva Longoria ads obviously won't appeal to boys under 16 then, or girls for that matter who obviously don't idolise celebrities like Longoria.
Nesquik is of course drunk exclusively by mid-thirties males in upper class restaurants and professional working women, not by kids when they come home from school, which would make more sense for their marketing strategy as the Rabbit character on the front page of their website says 'Come on kids, lets go play in the tree house' before leading them off to play online games based on drink flavours.
OK I am being a bit pedantic, they are not marketing their products, they are websites that carry product info, see the difference?
What will be interesting to see is if there is a groundswell of opinion from online users themselves. The only way that marketing of HFSS foods to kids will not happen online is if enough people don’t want it.
Keep your eye on the blogosphere and remember things like the Kryptonite debacle or other blogging mishaps such as Wal-Mart and its RV trip across the US. If HFSS manufacturers get the blogosphere on their wrong side then they really will have a problem.
Speaking about the new rules for TV advertising, which OfCOM published today she said: “We now look to the Committee of Advertising Practice to put in place similar rules for other media such as cinema, magazines and the internet.
Without wanting to come over all Michael Winner - ‘calm down dear’ - this ain’t going to happen.
OfCOM’s charter specifically makes no mention of the internet or online or any other reference to interactive media. This is because the government is quite happy to let the internet community regulate itself rather than get involved in a legal minefield of which it would not be able to extricate itself – think EU and global regulations, enforcement, cross border disputes etc and you get the picture.
The internet cannot be regulated, that is one of its main pillars.
All Flint’s statement did was get her name in the paper and made it look like she was being ‘tough on fatties, tough on the causes of fatties’ without really doing anything more than blowing hot air.
Statements by people like Flint make great headlines for the media, but won’t make one bit of difference to the strategies of HFSS brand owners who will be looking to continue or ramp up their online activities.
Pepsi don't market to kids according to their PR - so their website featuring Eva Longoria ads obviously won't appeal to boys under 16 then, or girls for that matter who obviously don't idolise celebrities like Longoria.
Nesquik is of course drunk exclusively by mid-thirties males in upper class restaurants and professional working women, not by kids when they come home from school, which would make more sense for their marketing strategy as the Rabbit character on the front page of their website says 'Come on kids, lets go play in the tree house' before leading them off to play online games based on drink flavours.
OK I am being a bit pedantic, they are not marketing their products, they are websites that carry product info, see the difference?
What will be interesting to see is if there is a groundswell of opinion from online users themselves. The only way that marketing of HFSS foods to kids will not happen online is if enough people don’t want it.
Keep your eye on the blogosphere and remember things like the Kryptonite debacle or other blogging mishaps such as Wal-Mart and its RV trip across the US. If HFSS manufacturers get the blogosphere on their wrong side then they really will have a problem.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Safety First
An interesting and smart move by the national newspapers has seen them agree to allow the Press Complaints Commission to regulate audio-visual content on their web sites.
It is allegedly the first time that national newspapers have agreed to extend the remit of regulation and says a lot about how much the industry has grown up over the last few years.
It is also a pre-emptive strike against any kind of harsher regulation that may be imposed upon the industry from a regulator such as Ofcom.
The PCC is effectively a piece of self-regulation as it follows a code drawn up by the editors of the newspapers themselves. It is used by the national press to beat off any attempts to impose tougher regulation on them and threaten the free press in the UK.
In a world where UGC and online video is causing so many issues over offence and rights issues this can be seen as a first step for national newspapers to protect themselves in a changing media environment.
It is allegedly the first time that national newspapers have agreed to extend the remit of regulation and says a lot about how much the industry has grown up over the last few years.
It is also a pre-emptive strike against any kind of harsher regulation that may be imposed upon the industry from a regulator such as Ofcom.
The PCC is effectively a piece of self-regulation as it follows a code drawn up by the editors of the newspapers themselves. It is used by the national press to beat off any attempts to impose tougher regulation on them and threaten the free press in the UK.
In a world where UGC and online video is causing so many issues over offence and rights issues this can be seen as a first step for national newspapers to protect themselves in a changing media environment.
Friday, January 12, 2007
There May Be Trouble Ahead...
EMI’s profit warning and promise of job cuts today followed hot on the heels of disappointing results from HMV that showed that despite picking up better Christmas sales the retailer and the music industry as a whole is still facing a tough time.
Digital has to be at the heart of these troubles with the music sector just one industry that is feeling the shockwaves of social and behavioural change that has been brought about by the digital revolution.
File sharing and illegal downloading is rife and the music industry has been too slow to react. With broadband speeds increasing it will only be a matter of time before the TV and film companies begin to feel the pinch as well.
Movie companies are slightly insulated from the pressures, as going to the cinema is a unique experience, but TV companies, who are already facing falling advertising revenues due to a fragmented audience, are at great risk.
Executives of major broadcasters around the world should take note of what has happened in the music world so they are not forced into major restructuring under the same circumstances as EMI and most likely HMV at some point in the future.
Digital has to be at the heart of these troubles with the music sector just one industry that is feeling the shockwaves of social and behavioural change that has been brought about by the digital revolution.
File sharing and illegal downloading is rife and the music industry has been too slow to react. With broadband speeds increasing it will only be a matter of time before the TV and film companies begin to feel the pinch as well.
Movie companies are slightly insulated from the pressures, as going to the cinema is a unique experience, but TV companies, who are already facing falling advertising revenues due to a fragmented audience, are at great risk.
Executives of major broadcasters around the world should take note of what has happened in the music world so they are not forced into major restructuring under the same circumstances as EMI and most likely HMV at some point in the future.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Fadcasting?
Interesting research from the US is shedding doubt on whether podcasting is really a lasting phenomenon or just another fad.
The survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found 12% of US people online had downloaded a podcast, compared to earlier research this year that showed only 7% had taken the step. However, just 1% of respondents said that they would download a podcast on a typical day.
Podcasting has got a lot of media attention lately - Ricky Gervais etc - and it might be worth having a bit of a reality check to see just how much is hype and how much is substance.
Video will undoubtedly play an important part in the next evolution of the Internet and interactivity, but whether podcasting will remain in Vogue is debatable as IPTV. Mobile TV and other on-demand TV style services develop.
The survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found 12% of US people online had downloaded a podcast, compared to earlier research this year that showed only 7% had taken the step. However, just 1% of respondents said that they would download a podcast on a typical day.
Podcasting has got a lot of media attention lately - Ricky Gervais etc - and it might be worth having a bit of a reality check to see just how much is hype and how much is substance.
Video will undoubtedly play an important part in the next evolution of the Internet and interactivity, but whether podcasting will remain in Vogue is debatable as IPTV. Mobile TV and other on-demand TV style services develop.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Show Me The Money
The NTL / ITV deal seems quite strange on the face of it and has confused a lot of analysts over the past week who have struggled to see the value in the deal.
Why would NTL, with debts of around £6bn already, want to take on a channel whose advertising revenues seem to be in terminal decline?
The answer seems to be Coronation Street and Emmerdale - namely the content production arm of ITV and the rights it owns.
It came as a bit of a surprise to me that ITV makes 65% of its own content and it is this that NTL wants to exploit, most likely through lucrative IPTV and video on demand services.
Having access to content such as all of the Coronation Street back catalogue will be valuable if it can be exploited properly and it will also possibly drive uptake of cable services, which are in decline at present as Sky’s dominance of the pay TV market continues.
The fact that a major broadcaster such as ITV can be the subject of takeover talk merely on the back of its content production, rather than its advertising model and revenues, is a clear indication of where NTL sees the value in the future.
Content was king once before in the dot com boom and with video becoming ever more visible online, it is set to be crowned again.
Why would NTL, with debts of around £6bn already, want to take on a channel whose advertising revenues seem to be in terminal decline?
The answer seems to be Coronation Street and Emmerdale - namely the content production arm of ITV and the rights it owns.
It came as a bit of a surprise to me that ITV makes 65% of its own content and it is this that NTL wants to exploit, most likely through lucrative IPTV and video on demand services.
Having access to content such as all of the Coronation Street back catalogue will be valuable if it can be exploited properly and it will also possibly drive uptake of cable services, which are in decline at present as Sky’s dominance of the pay TV market continues.
The fact that a major broadcaster such as ITV can be the subject of takeover talk merely on the back of its content production, rather than its advertising model and revenues, is a clear indication of where NTL sees the value in the future.
Content was king once before in the dot com boom and with video becoming ever more visible online, it is set to be crowned again.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
$1.65bn - What a Bargain
Google’s purchase of You Tube is a snip at the $1.65bn asking price.
The true value of a video sharing site like You Tube has not been realised yet and Google has been wise to move in and snap up the best player in the market before one of its rivals did.
If you want to buy a social network site now you have missed the boat. Rupert Murdoch paid a handsome sum for MySpace and anyone who follows will find the market highly inflated because of this.
The purchase does suggest that Google Video has not exactly been setting the world on fire and Google has pretty much admitted this by coughing up to buy You Tube. But when looking at the $1.65bn price tag take into account what Google has bought - in an all share deal, so not even for any hard cash.
More than 100m clips are viewed on You Tube every day - that is a lot of eyeballs. The beauty of the site is its community feel and if Google can harness that, whilst overlaying a revenue model such as its highly successful adWords programme or a similar model, then £900m odd is going to look like a wise investment very quickly.
The deal also pushes Google into the video market, taking it beyond its traditional roots. As a forward looking company Google must realise that text is only a stop-gap online and being at the forefront of the video revolution will only maintain its market dominance. The search giant is keen to offer its advertisers more than just text ads and this purchase if handled correctly, will allow Google to do just this.
Google does face some hurdles and comparisons have already been made between You Tube and Napster in the early days of music online. The difference is that the TV and film industry has witnessed the distress that was caused to the music industry as it resisted technological change rather than embracing it. You Tube has already struck licensing deals with numerous entertainment companies such as Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group to allow people to watch videos on the site and advertising deals will not be far away.
The test of the deal be how Google handles the company that it has just bought. Murdoch is realising that buying a social network and being lauded as forward thinking is easy, but integrating it into a commercial organisation is a very different game. I feel that Google is going to have much less trouble with You Tube, especially as the public is used to video content carrying ads and its competitors such as MSN and Yahoo! can only be fuming at today’s news and wishing their pockets were as deep as Larry and Sergey’s.
The true value of a video sharing site like You Tube has not been realised yet and Google has been wise to move in and snap up the best player in the market before one of its rivals did.
If you want to buy a social network site now you have missed the boat. Rupert Murdoch paid a handsome sum for MySpace and anyone who follows will find the market highly inflated because of this.
The purchase does suggest that Google Video has not exactly been setting the world on fire and Google has pretty much admitted this by coughing up to buy You Tube. But when looking at the $1.65bn price tag take into account what Google has bought - in an all share deal, so not even for any hard cash.
More than 100m clips are viewed on You Tube every day - that is a lot of eyeballs. The beauty of the site is its community feel and if Google can harness that, whilst overlaying a revenue model such as its highly successful adWords programme or a similar model, then £900m odd is going to look like a wise investment very quickly.
The deal also pushes Google into the video market, taking it beyond its traditional roots. As a forward looking company Google must realise that text is only a stop-gap online and being at the forefront of the video revolution will only maintain its market dominance. The search giant is keen to offer its advertisers more than just text ads and this purchase if handled correctly, will allow Google to do just this.
Google does face some hurdles and comparisons have already been made between You Tube and Napster in the early days of music online. The difference is that the TV and film industry has witnessed the distress that was caused to the music industry as it resisted technological change rather than embracing it. You Tube has already struck licensing deals with numerous entertainment companies such as Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group to allow people to watch videos on the site and advertising deals will not be far away.
The test of the deal be how Google handles the company that it has just bought. Murdoch is realising that buying a social network and being lauded as forward thinking is easy, but integrating it into a commercial organisation is a very different game. I feel that Google is going to have much less trouble with You Tube, especially as the public is used to video content carrying ads and its competitors such as MSN and Yahoo! can only be fuming at today’s news and wishing their pockets were as deep as Larry and Sergey’s.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A 3G Chritmas at Last?
Following on from yesterdays post about the mobile Internet, it is interesting to read on Reuters this morning that Vodafone is to supply the UK market with own-branded low cost 3G handsets.
The company has struck the deal with a Chinese manufacturer to supply the handsets, which will be customised to provide access to Vodafone’s 3G offering.
It’s an interesting solution to the problem of increasing the penetration of 3G phones in the UK and will no doubt be accompanied by a raft of cheap tariffs to get people to adopt 3G services.
I wonder if they will get them to market before Christmas?
The company has struck the deal with a Chinese manufacturer to supply the handsets, which will be customised to provide access to Vodafone’s 3G offering.
It’s an interesting solution to the problem of increasing the penetration of 3G phones in the UK and will no doubt be accompanied by a raft of cheap tariffs to get people to adopt 3G services.
I wonder if they will get them to market before Christmas?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Will .Mobi Make Any Difference?
Brands have until 3pm today to register their own .mobi domain names before the cyber-squatters move in.
The new domain name is being touted as one of the drivers for the mobile Internet in the UK, but to be honest I think there are a few more serious issues that need to be overcome first.
Pricing and confidence are the main two.
It is simply too expensive to browse the mobile Internet at present and many consumers are wary of using data services as the charging models are unclear. Operators need to address this problem if the mobile Internet is to take off and if you speak to them they will tell you that they are, because their future business models will require the success of the mobile Internet – but I am not so sure. At the very least the operators seem to be dragging their feet as a move to off-portal services will hit their revenues. Only T-Mobile has a pricing model that seems to fit the bill at the moment – ‘Web ‘n’ Walk’.
Confidence in data services also has to be built up before the mobile Internet will be a big success. WAP has provided a wholly unexciting experience so far for the majority of users and the mobile Internet needs to deliver just what it says – the Internet on a mobile.
That is no mean feat, but until phone data services reach a level where they become useful, relevant and easy to access as well as instilling consumer confidence, the mobile Internet will not flourish whether it has its own domain name or not.
The new domain name is being touted as one of the drivers for the mobile Internet in the UK, but to be honest I think there are a few more serious issues that need to be overcome first.
Pricing and confidence are the main two.
It is simply too expensive to browse the mobile Internet at present and many consumers are wary of using data services as the charging models are unclear. Operators need to address this problem if the mobile Internet is to take off and if you speak to them they will tell you that they are, because their future business models will require the success of the mobile Internet – but I am not so sure. At the very least the operators seem to be dragging their feet as a move to off-portal services will hit their revenues. Only T-Mobile has a pricing model that seems to fit the bill at the moment – ‘Web ‘n’ Walk’.
Confidence in data services also has to be built up before the mobile Internet will be a big success. WAP has provided a wholly unexciting experience so far for the majority of users and the mobile Internet needs to deliver just what it says – the Internet on a mobile.
That is no mean feat, but until phone data services reach a level where they become useful, relevant and easy to access as well as instilling consumer confidence, the mobile Internet will not flourish whether it has its own domain name or not.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Is the End Nigh for MSN?
Microsoft’s new Web 2.0 play – Soapbox – is yet another example of how the software giant is changing its model.
There has been a realisation at Microsoft over the last couple of years that Web services will be the powerful tools in people’s lives for the next decade, just as the PC has been for the previous ten years.
What Microsoft now has to prove is that it is as capable at building market share for services such as Soapbox, as it is in designing PC-based tools. It will also be interesting to see how the software giant manoeuvres its brand in an age when it is becoming more connected with its customers.
The Soapbox service is being launched under the MSN Video brand but increasingly Microsoft is launching Web services under its own brand, bringing into question what will become of MSN.
MSN Search is powered by Windows Live on the MSN.co.uk homepage and a Google search for MSN search brings up the Live Search homepage first. The new search advertising service being offered across MSN Search is part of Microsoft adCenter –which encompasses ad opportunities across the whole of Microsoft.
Soapbox is a purely consumer play and it will be interesting to see what if any Microsoft branding it carries. If Microsoft continues to pursue its new strategy of launching Web services for consumers under its own or the Windows brand it will only be a question of time before the MSN brand comes under serious pressure.
There has been a realisation at Microsoft over the last couple of years that Web services will be the powerful tools in people’s lives for the next decade, just as the PC has been for the previous ten years.
What Microsoft now has to prove is that it is as capable at building market share for services such as Soapbox, as it is in designing PC-based tools. It will also be interesting to see how the software giant manoeuvres its brand in an age when it is becoming more connected with its customers.
The Soapbox service is being launched under the MSN Video brand but increasingly Microsoft is launching Web services under its own brand, bringing into question what will become of MSN.
MSN Search is powered by Windows Live on the MSN.co.uk homepage and a Google search for MSN search brings up the Live Search homepage first. The new search advertising service being offered across MSN Search is part of Microsoft adCenter –which encompasses ad opportunities across the whole of Microsoft.
Soapbox is a purely consumer play and it will be interesting to see what if any Microsoft branding it carries. If Microsoft continues to pursue its new strategy of launching Web services for consumers under its own or the Windows brand it will only be a question of time before the MSN brand comes under serious pressure.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Mystery Solved?
It's been ages since my last post, so apologies, but I have been unbelievably busy with work and have not had the time to empty my mind onto my blog for a while.
Just a quick thought on the MySpace announcement that it will allow unsigned bands to sell their music as downloads. A nice PR story for the social network, and followed by the Arctic Monkey's winning the Mercury Prize I am sure there will be a rush for the service. However, without any kind of DRM, which I am not sure is being added in, and with the record industry finally getting it together with DRM and pay for downloads for more reasonable prices, a deal like this seems a little like a step back.
Yes it may be initially a good source of revenue for unsigned bands, but it will not make the big-boys happy to see such a big site not using DRM and they certainly won't get involved. Still, it might finally put to bed all the questions over whether bands that are 'discovered' on MySpace are already backed by record companies or not.
Just a quick thought on the MySpace announcement that it will allow unsigned bands to sell their music as downloads. A nice PR story for the social network, and followed by the Arctic Monkey's winning the Mercury Prize I am sure there will be a rush for the service. However, without any kind of DRM, which I am not sure is being added in, and with the record industry finally getting it together with DRM and pay for downloads for more reasonable prices, a deal like this seems a little like a step back.
Yes it may be initially a good source of revenue for unsigned bands, but it will not make the big-boys happy to see such a big site not using DRM and they certainly won't get involved. Still, it might finally put to bed all the questions over whether bands that are 'discovered' on MySpace are already backed by record companies or not.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Unscrupulous Actions
Been on holiday recently, so apologies for not blogging for a while.
It was good to see the big boys getting a bashing in the press the other day over their behaviour in China.
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! were all labeled ‘morally unacceptable’ for blocking information to Chinese users that the Chinese government did not want them to see. Yahoo! in particular came in for special criticism in the report from the Human Rights Watch entitled 'Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship' for handing over end user details to the Chinese government.
Surely there should be some way of stopping this from happening? What are the chances of the US or the UK implementing extra-territorial jurisdiction (making companies or individuals adhere to the law of their origin country wherever they operate in the world) so that companies that are complicit in these acts– that undoubtedly end up with the end user being given more than warm hug by the Chinese government – are prevented from doing so? It applies in the arms trade to stop unscrupulous dealers from circumnavigating trade embargoes and in the information age, where knowledge can be just as potent a weapon, surely there should be some way of protecting a user’s rights?
In the US earlier this year Google defied a White House subpoena to hand over some of its search information, whilst interestingly Yahoo! caved under similar conditions. So there is at least some resistance out there, although I suspect it is more about competitive advantage than anything else.
Will the criticism really make a difference? I fear not. The truth is that the Chinese market is the last big opportunity for these companies to land grab and they will do anything they can to ensure that they pick up as many customers as possible. If that means cowtowing to the Chinese government, then so be it.
It was good to see the big boys getting a bashing in the press the other day over their behaviour in China.
Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! were all labeled ‘morally unacceptable’ for blocking information to Chinese users that the Chinese government did not want them to see. Yahoo! in particular came in for special criticism in the report from the Human Rights Watch entitled 'Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship' for handing over end user details to the Chinese government.
Surely there should be some way of stopping this from happening? What are the chances of the US or the UK implementing extra-territorial jurisdiction (making companies or individuals adhere to the law of their origin country wherever they operate in the world) so that companies that are complicit in these acts– that undoubtedly end up with the end user being given more than warm hug by the Chinese government – are prevented from doing so? It applies in the arms trade to stop unscrupulous dealers from circumnavigating trade embargoes and in the information age, where knowledge can be just as potent a weapon, surely there should be some way of protecting a user’s rights?
In the US earlier this year Google defied a White House subpoena to hand over some of its search information, whilst interestingly Yahoo! caved under similar conditions. So there is at least some resistance out there, although I suspect it is more about competitive advantage than anything else.
Will the criticism really make a difference? I fear not. The truth is that the Chinese market is the last big opportunity for these companies to land grab and they will do anything they can to ensure that they pick up as many customers as possible. If that means cowtowing to the Chinese government, then so be it.
Friday, July 07, 2006
AOL's Advertising Advances
Interesting to see that AOL in the US is reportedly considering offering its online services for free to anyone with high-speed Internet access.
It is an open secret that AOL wants to transform its business into a more advertising led proposition and in a world where free email accounts such as Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail are offered by its closest rivals, the company is finally realising that charging for basic online services is not the best model.
Apparently charging for these services accounts for up to 80% of the company’s total revenues. Compare that to Google, which makes nearly 100% of its revenues from advertising and happily offers free email and storage services to users.
It would be a bold move for AOL to take this strategy and it could attract a lot more users that would in turn attract more advertisers, but the transition will have to be handled carefully with the Wall Street Journal predicting the move could cost it about $2bn in revenues.
The UK unit of AOL faces a similar problem. The ongoing sale discussions over its access business will leave it as an advertiser led concern with content at the fore, it will be interesting to see how it pans out both sides of the Atlantic.
It is an open secret that AOL wants to transform its business into a more advertising led proposition and in a world where free email accounts such as Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail are offered by its closest rivals, the company is finally realising that charging for basic online services is not the best model.
Apparently charging for these services accounts for up to 80% of the company’s total revenues. Compare that to Google, which makes nearly 100% of its revenues from advertising and happily offers free email and storage services to users.
It would be a bold move for AOL to take this strategy and it could attract a lot more users that would in turn attract more advertisers, but the transition will have to be handled carefully with the Wall Street Journal predicting the move could cost it about $2bn in revenues.
The UK unit of AOL faces a similar problem. The ongoing sale discussions over its access business will leave it as an advertiser led concern with content at the fore, it will be interesting to see how it pans out both sides of the Atlantic.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Down With the Kidz
The rise of social networking sites such as Bebo, Faceparty and MySpace seems to be getting everyone’s knickers in a twist recently.
Media reports have flagged up everything from bullying to paedophiles using the services and whilst conservatives are calling for stricter regulation of these sites, the UK Government has warned that regulation will only drive children onto unregulated sites.
So what is the answer?
At the end of the day you are not going to be able to shut down social network sites. They are not just sites; they are a social phenomenon that has been created by the advance of technology. If you shut down or heavily regulate sites like Bebo, Faceparty or MySpace then what is stop kids from simply creating their own sites and linking them together? What are you going to do then? Shut down every Web site that may pose a danger to kids? The Internet would become a very boring place indeed.
The answer obviously lies in identifying who is using the sites, but how do you do this?
Faceparty was recently rapped by the ASA for featuring ads on its site that were not suitable for kids. The site argued that you had to be over 16 to sign up, but the ASA countered that the age limit could not be verified and was useless as an argument, let alone a safety barrier.
Maybe the parent needs to take some responsibility here and the kid can only register through the parent – who can then be checked to ensure they are not a dangerous paedophile or the like.
But would this then make these sites uncool? Forcing kids to other unregulated sites?
It is a tough problem but you can be sure that before too long there will be another bad story involving kids use of these sites and then the News of the World et al will scream blue murder that nothing has been done already.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Viral Censorship
YouTube has signed a deal with American broadcaster NBC to put promotional clips of the network’s shows on its site.
This deal in itself is nothing remarkable – even if it does follow NBC’s rantings at YouTube to remove content from its service that ‘belonged’ to the network earlier this year.
Other brands have deals with YouTube and use its viral video distribution to promote events, services and products.
What is interesting is that as part of the deal YouTube will now remove, if asked, any NBC content uploaded onto the service that the network does not want to see out there.
YouTube is already very successful, allegedly has a bigger reach than MTV and has been hailed as the advertising medium of the future by Mark Tutssel, worldwide chief creative officer at the Leo Burnett ad agency.
It’s a shame that the viral nature of the service is now being influenced by the corporate giants. Yes remove offensive material, but editorial control on a viral site? That’s against what it stands for.
Speaking at the Cannes Advertising Festival Tutssel said that marketers must learn to let go of the control they think they have over their brand. Sadly YouTube has already given up control, but to the advertiser.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Making Friends
More social networking madness this week with the news that AOL is going to launch a MySpace-style social community Web site later this year.
The move is being taken as it looks to become an open content business and better compete against rivals MSN and Yahoo! and has been announced amidst a backdrop of speculation about who will buy AOL UK’s access business after it was put up for auction by its US owner earlier this month.
It may seem like a frivolous question, but these networks rely on advertising and advertisers will only want to pay for quality eyeballs, not just members who have signed in and never come back.
As for AOL, it needs to garner eyeballs quickly if it is going to remain as a content business in the
Friday, June 16, 2006
Read All About It - For Free
It's an interesting time in journalism at the moment with first The Guardian and then The Times saying that they want their journalists to write for the Web first and the newspaper second.
Also The Sun has launched a free classifieds Web site that is linked from its main online site in a bid to get more people to come to the portal.
A few years ago publishers were up in arms about content being given away for free online, now it seems that they are willingly giving it away instead of saving it for the pages of their esteemed publications.
What has changed? Simple – more people are online, more people are accessing news online and more people from oversees are accessing the pages of UK newspapers online.
Both the Guardian and The Times have a strong oversees readership online and that translates into better advertising revenues for them and so a fresh impetus to make their Web site content as good as possible. This comes at a time when newspaper readership is declining and beginning to harm print advertising revenues.
Does this mean that traditional newspapers are dead? Probably not yet, although I know quite a few people who don’t read as much offline as they used to, but there will always be a devoted offline following, the publishers will just have to use their brand more and rely on hard news stories less.
As for The Sun? It doesn’t really have a classifieds business anyway, so it is not harming itself, only sticking one in the eye to its competitors.
Also The Sun has launched a free classifieds Web site that is linked from its main online site in a bid to get more people to come to the portal.
A few years ago publishers were up in arms about content being given away for free online, now it seems that they are willingly giving it away instead of saving it for the pages of their esteemed publications.
What has changed? Simple – more people are online, more people are accessing news online and more people from oversees are accessing the pages of UK newspapers online.
Both the Guardian and The Times have a strong oversees readership online and that translates into better advertising revenues for them and so a fresh impetus to make their Web site content as good as possible. This comes at a time when newspaper readership is declining and beginning to harm print advertising revenues.
Does this mean that traditional newspapers are dead? Probably not yet, although I know quite a few people who don’t read as much offline as they used to, but there will always be a devoted offline following, the publishers will just have to use their brand more and rely on hard news stories less.
As for The Sun? It doesn’t really have a classifieds business anyway, so it is not harming itself, only sticking one in the eye to its competitors.
Monday, June 12, 2006
AOL UK the ISP, BT and BSkyB
AOL UK has put itself up for sale and is courting offers from interested parties.
BT and BSkyB are the two that have emerged in the press as leading the field and it promises to be another interesting twist in what is becoming an increasingly complicated UK broadband market.
AOL has decided that the impending price war between the ISPs – in their triple and quad play forms – is not its scene and is cashing in its UK business (which is thought to be profitable) as well as offloading its French and German operations.
I can’t see BT being allowed to buy out AOL as BT is top dog in the broadband market with 2.6m broadband customers and AOL is third with 2.2m customers, 1.3m of whom are broadband customers. So unless someone else comes in with a better offer Murdoch’s empire will roll on and BSkyB will become the third largest ISP in the UK.
The broadcaster is set to launch its full – and probably ‘free’ – broadband offering later this summer after buying Easynet for £211m last year and the addition of the AOL business would sit nicely with its satellite TV services, especially as other players such as BT move into on demand broadband TV services.
The consumer will probably win price-wise, but working out what is the best deal may become increasingly difficult when having to factor in mobile charges, broadband services, Pay TV services and fixed line services.
Communicationssupermarket.com won’t be far away I reckon.
BT and BSkyB are the two that have emerged in the press as leading the field and it promises to be another interesting twist in what is becoming an increasingly complicated UK broadband market.
AOL has decided that the impending price war between the ISPs – in their triple and quad play forms – is not its scene and is cashing in its UK business (which is thought to be profitable) as well as offloading its French and German operations.
I can’t see BT being allowed to buy out AOL as BT is top dog in the broadband market with 2.6m broadband customers and AOL is third with 2.2m customers, 1.3m of whom are broadband customers. So unless someone else comes in with a better offer Murdoch’s empire will roll on and BSkyB will become the third largest ISP in the UK.
The broadcaster is set to launch its full – and probably ‘free’ – broadband offering later this summer after buying Easynet for £211m last year and the addition of the AOL business would sit nicely with its satellite TV services, especially as other players such as BT move into on demand broadband TV services.
The consumer will probably win price-wise, but working out what is the best deal may become increasingly difficult when having to factor in mobile charges, broadband services, Pay TV services and fixed line services.
Communicationssupermarket.com won’t be far away I reckon.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Eye On The Ball
Everyone else is running World Cup stories, so I thought I would have one on my blog too.
The BBC has announced that it is going to show live footage on its Web site of all the games it is screening from the World Cup in Germnay this summer.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a strange state of affairs?
In 2001 Yahoo! signed up as an official sponsor to: 'provide FIFA with its many services and innovations in the various Internet sectors, up to and including the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany'.
Yet despite this agreement it is the BBC that will be showing the games live online and not Yahoo!
There are a couple of questions here about the rights.
Firstly, has this situation come about as the online live rights for the World Cup are tied up with the broadcast package? - If so then why aren't ITV offering a similar service. Secondly, why the hell didn't Yahoo! have the foresight to insist that any games shown live online would be their domain.
New media is fast paced, but this seems like a real clanger, especially as neither the official FifaWorldCup Web site nor the Yahoo! portal will be showing games live.
If I were Yahoo! I would be asking some serious questions.
The BBC has announced that it is going to show live footage on its Web site of all the games it is screening from the World Cup in Germnay this summer.
Am I the only one who thinks that this is a strange state of affairs?
In 2001 Yahoo! signed up as an official sponsor to: 'provide FIFA with its many services and innovations in the various Internet sectors, up to and including the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany'.
Yet despite this agreement it is the BBC that will be showing the games live online and not Yahoo!
There are a couple of questions here about the rights.
Firstly, has this situation come about as the online live rights for the World Cup are tied up with the broadcast package? - If so then why aren't ITV offering a similar service. Secondly, why the hell didn't Yahoo! have the foresight to insist that any games shown live online would be their domain.
New media is fast paced, but this seems like a real clanger, especially as neither the official FifaWorldCup Web site nor the Yahoo! portal will be showing games live.
If I were Yahoo! I would be asking some serious questions.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The Future's Bright
Next week looks as if it is shaping up to be broadband week with both Orange and Vodafone expected to announce their strategies in the forthcoming converged services market.
With Carphone Warehouse already offering ‘free’ broadband through TalkTalk – a claim that is continuing to attract complaints from the public and rivals to the ASA – both Orange, who will gain full broadband services after merging fully with Wanadoo next week, and Vodafone, who are hotly tipped to buy an ISP soon to offer services, want to get in on the act.
The converged services market is shaping up to be more confusing than getting a new mobile contract – trying to work out your best deal usually requires a maths degree and a lot of patience – and each player will be offering a combination of discounts set against other parts of its business.
But who will emerge victorious? BT has a strong hold on the broadband market and so could, theoretically, manoeuvre this into the converged services market with a mobile play, but BT Fusion is not proving very popular. Vodafone has a great brand in mobile, but no broadband heritage at all and will have to move fast and pay big to bring some in.
Orange is without a doubt the best placed. It has a good mobile brand and with the backing of France Telecom and a £130m marketing campaign to rebrand Wanadoo as Orange next week, will be making a big impact on the market from the start of converged services.
With Carphone Warehouse already offering ‘free’ broadband through TalkTalk – a claim that is continuing to attract complaints from the public and rivals to the ASA – both Orange, who will gain full broadband services after merging fully with Wanadoo next week, and Vodafone, who are hotly tipped to buy an ISP soon to offer services, want to get in on the act.
The converged services market is shaping up to be more confusing than getting a new mobile contract – trying to work out your best deal usually requires a maths degree and a lot of patience – and each player will be offering a combination of discounts set against other parts of its business.
But who will emerge victorious? BT has a strong hold on the broadband market and so could, theoretically, manoeuvre this into the converged services market with a mobile play, but BT Fusion is not proving very popular. Vodafone has a great brand in mobile, but no broadband heritage at all and will have to move fast and pay big to bring some in.
Orange is without a doubt the best placed. It has a good mobile brand and with the backing of France Telecom and a £130m marketing campaign to rebrand Wanadoo as Orange next week, will be making a big impact on the market from the start of converged services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)