Category Archives: business view

How news media fight online parasites

HookwormMore often than not, today’s news from traditional publishing industries bring the picture of a hapless dodo bird in front of my eyes. No surprise there – difficult economic times usually expedite the natural selection process. Recent announcement from the Board of Associated Press however reminds me also about Xerxes, the king of Persia, who ordered the Hellespont waves to be whipped just because the storm destroyed his papyrus bridge over the strait.

NEW YORK — The Associated Press Board of Directors today announced it would launch an industry initiative to protect news content from misappropriation online.

AP Chairman Dean Singleton said the news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content – and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don‘t.

“We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories,“ Singleton said at the AP annual meeting, in San Diego.

As part of the initiative, AP will develop a system to track content distributed online to determine if it is being legally used. AP President Tom Curley said the initiative would also include the development of new search pages that point users to the latest and most authoritative sources of breaking news.

While no details are available on those new exciting online initiatives that AP is working on, it is easier to guess who the AP’s executives have in mind when talking about “misappropriation”. Quoting WSJ editor Robert Thomson “Companies that aggregate mainstream media content without paying a fee are the »parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet« and will soon be challenged”. He specifically pointed his finger at Google, which BTW is hard to understand, as Google apparently has a deal with AP since 2007. But that’s not only Google, although it would make sense for news publishers to go after the big guys who actually make a profit. It is easy to understand why they don’t like Google News but does this “misappropriation” extend to Digg, FriendFeed, Twitter or similar content sharing services? Are they supposed to be responsible or me? It’s me who posts the links, after all.
Just reading the news today I came across this story via Google News. But since I found it interesting, I visited articles on the topic in LA Times (I don’t remember if I have ever been there before), NY Times and The Australian (I never knew it existed, sorry). I generated my share of traffic to their websites. I created bookmarks to these articles on Digg and FriendFeed. Now, is it good or bad for the news industry?
Is it just because these guys don’t get it? Or is it to cover inability to reinvent their business model and putting a blame on somebody else?

Facebook Leapfrogs Rivals in France

We all got used to the hockey-stick growth of Facebook worldwide. However, the global figures don’t tell the whole story. What is interesting to me is the impact of global social networks will make on fragmented European markets and incumbent social media service providers. For those who do business on a country level here in Europe the key question is: to what extent the local copy/paste innovators will be affected by the global player entering their backyard? You might want to look at my previous article Will Big Fish In a Small Pond Survive? discussing LinkedIn facing Xing in Germany (check out the comments as well for insight from Russia and Poland). Yesterday TechCrunch published interesting figures from France regarding performance of Facebook vs. local competitors that shed some more light on this. The graph below shows total French uniques for popular social networks. Original source for the figures from comScore is here.

Image courtesy of TechCrunch

Image courtesy of TechCrunch

The story behind this picture is that in February 2008 Facebook launched localized French user interface. I would humbly say that this supports my argument that indeed there is a real language barrier to the expansion of global social media players in Europe. Believe it or not, in Europe it is not that everybody speaks English and particularily France is a good example of that. Second thought: there is an untapped potential in the European markets for the global players despite the fact that in every country there is one or more strong incumbents offering similar services.

The good news for the local service providers is that their users apparently are not eager to ditch their existing profiles and connections right away, which should be expected anyway. It is more likely that they choose to maintain yet another profile. But with this growth of Facebook I wouldn’t expect many new users joining local alternatives (are you cash-positive, guys?).

Who is going to win this battle for the local markets? I will rephrase my question from my recent post: If you wanted to integrate your local (say: French) product in some way with social networking service and if you had to pick one – would you now bet on Facebook or on Skyrock?

With these numbers I would dare to go a step further and suggest some hints: If something grows globally, then – language barrier removed – it has a good chance to grow in your local market. MySpace for instance is flat pretty much everywhere, so it is not enough to be “global” and speak the local language. After some time (I guess, there must be some connection between global and local dynamics) it is likely that most of the population actively using social media is there, although it might not be their primary host for online identity and social graph. These might be the arguments for going with the big guys.

ReadWriteWeb vs. Wikipedia or Why Web 2.0 Is Not Social Media

Yesterday I read Why Wikipedia’s Policy to Blacklist Blogs is Outdated and Wrong – a story of Richard MacManus on a quest for removing his higly popular and respected ReadWriteWeb blog from Wikipedia’s spam blacklist. Luckily I don’t have to take sides on this because apparently the dispute has been resolved in Richard’s favor. But it got me thinking.

Clearly for Wikipedia to remain a trustworthy, spam-free and reliable encyclopedia there must be rules and must be people enforcing those rules. The definition for reliable rource on Wikipedia is:

“In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see this section of Verifiability for exceptions.”

I would say, that 17th most popular blog clearly falls under “the more people engaged in checking facts […] the more reliable publication” category. The problem starts when somebody reads the first sentence as saying “there must be a big-ass media corporation/university doing the verification of the source for us”. So, maybe the policy is not as outdated as I initially thought, maybe it is just the way it is applied. So here is my social-network-powered approach to verification of reliability of a source. My intention is not to criticize Wikipedia administrators but rather show how social networks can be leveraged (see also the section on Human-Powered Search in my Social Media: What’s Hot? post). But Wikipedians, you might want to reconsider your policies at some point.

A self-published source is not an abstract – it is an individual writing a blog post. Usually you can read who this person is in an “About” section of the blog. Likely you can meet him/her on this or that social network and for this purpose I think Twitter is the best. If there is like a few thousand individuals following this guy, chances are he or she is quite reliable. Especially if you find among followers the people that you personally know and trust (or people you can find on Wikipedia). Of course there is no way to automatically tell how trustworthy the person is. Impersonations and hacks happen everywhere.  But the networks heal themselves really fast and in many cases you can tell pretty quickly who is a good citizen. You can see how many times he/she gets retweeted. If this person writes posts from time to time, you can look for comments to see if the writing is controversial and how it is appreciated.

It could be difficult to put it in a policy today because the online society is fragmented into too many social graphs and the social media footprints of an individual are not that easy to track. But I think we are getting there. In order to benefit from it, you need to be a part of the network. One thing in this story I’m particularly uncomfortable with is that a group of anonymous administrators and editors was discussing reliability of the person who identifies himself under the real name. Is it that difficult guys to tell us who you are before you call somebody a spammer?

And this brings me to my last point. Richard said in his post:

“It’s also deeply ironic that Wikipedia – a poster child of the Web 2.0 revolution, the read/write user participation Web – fails to recognize the validity of “self-published” media.”

This is the reason why I object when people use “Web 2.0” and “social media” interchangeably. Web 2.0 is just a technical concept and finally a bunch of software components that enable creation of user-generated content. MediaWiki is one and there is plenty of other tools. You can plug them into your website. Yet they by themselves will not create this online community culture that Twitter or Facebook have. Social media is defined by the nature of the relationships between the individuals who have chosen to participate.

Will Big Fish In a Small Pond Survive?


If you read this blog, chances are you’ve heard of LinkedIn, the largest professional networking site in the world. It currently has over 35 million of registered users and the number grows by 1 million every 17 days. This growth rate might not be very impressive if compared to Facebook, but LinkedIn has been profitable for 2 years now and reportedly has $80 million in cash in their bank account. The private valuation of LinkedIn today is over $1 billion.

Today LinkedIn announced that they are moving into Germany with localized version of the service, which puts them on a collision course with Xing, the largest professional networking site in the country. The clash between global giant and local big fish deserves special attention. Let’s look at some numbers to remember:

Currently the LinkedIn user base in Europe amounts to 9 million. Last year they launched Spanish and French versions of their service and currently there are 200,000 registered users in Spain (population of 46 million) and 700,000 in France (population of 65 million). In Germany today LinkedIn has 500,000 registered users using English version out of 82 million population. In the other corner is Xing with over 6.5 million registered users. Although Xing has many language versions, it is safe to assume that a large part of this user pool are Germans. Xing is a public company, valued now at $182 million.

For us, Europeans, certainly language does matter because large part of European population does not speak or read English. This simple fact creates a market space for all sorts of copycats, essentially cloning the popular global services without any added value, except for speaking familiar language (no offence, Xing, it is not about your great service, but for instance in Poland there are at least 4 different clones of Twitter). Some of them gain ground and grow their user base significantly because, indeed, they offer a good service for their users. This phenomenon has been called by TechCrunch a copy/paste innovation.

I’ve been inclined to think that social networks have no real reason to be constrained by country borders. This should be specifically true for the 27 member states of the European Union where freedom of movement is one of the fundamental rights and people do move. Yet we speak at least 23 different languages in three entirely different alphabets. To what extent the language barrier is an obstacle to global social networks’ expansion in non-English speaking country? To what degree local social media incumbents, such as Xing, should feel threatened by the fact that a global player simply localizes their user interface? Will people abandon their local social network for the benefit of having one global professional identity and one global social graph? How quickly? I think this is the question that the LinkedIn vs. Xing competition will help to answer and I’m going to watch it closely.

What do you think? If you wanted to integrate your local (say: German) product in some way with professional networking service and if you had to pick one – would you now bet on LinkedIn or on Xing?

Social Media: What’s Hot?

1043922_51054240_250pxThis post is part of my social media 101 primer series. If you haven’t done so, you might want to read my previous post Social Media: What’s on Top?. This time I’m presenting the hot and cool social media services that didn’t make the Top 20 but still are worth mentioning.

The game changers

My objective for this post is to point at some social media services that in my opinion have a great potential of disrupting or invalidating long-established business models of media companies. And, by the way, here is why every company is a media company. By no means this list could ever be complete. Forgive me for not mentioning this or that great service (but please, leave your comment below). I’m making my selection based on personal, hands-on experience. Don’t focus on the brands – I need to give you examples. But what’s most important is the concept behind them.

Google Reader is an online RSS feed reader – yawn! While it doesn’t sound very sexy, it virtually made me quit browsing newspaper’s websites altogether (now you know where I’m heading, don’t you). Right now almost any source of information on the Web offers you the opportunity to subscribe to their RSS feed. And your RSS reader just keeps your reading list right there, neatly ordered, ready for you waiting for your spare 10 minutes between meeting and conference call. Because over time you are getting picky about your information sources, you end up with tens or even hundreds of feeds linked to blogs that are updated not very often but with very valuable content. You can fine-tune your selection of feeds to your particular needs. Want to learn more about RSS? Check this flick out.

Google News is a news syndication/aggregation service. Using powerful Google Web indexation technology it scans the news sources around the globe, groups stories referring to the same topic together and allows you to filter the categories according to your personalized interest. What you get is your personalized newspaper fed by headline stories from all over the world. You can guess – Google owns or licenses very little content themselves – that’s why you are presented only with the title and the lead of each article – to read the full story you need to click through to the original site. Looks like Google is doing the newspapers a favor, right? Think again. Skimming through the title and the first paragraph is enough to skip the news and go to the next one. Try it yourself. That is why Google got sued by a number of publishers and we know they settled with AFP. And you know that already – you can grab your personalized RSS feed from Google News and plug it into your RSS reader. This way you have a single reading list consisting of all your hand-picked high-value blogs and personalized world and local news. You can imagine now what should happen to the online traffic (and advertising revenue) of the newspapers. They call it signs of secular change.

Update: ZDNet ranks Google News as the 5th most popular news site in Feb 2009, trailing Yahoo! News, The Weather Channel, CNN and MSNBC.

Twitter is a social network built around a micro-blogging service. Sounds flat? OK, rollback. Twitter is a paradigm shifter – in my opinion it has the potential to add yet another dimension to the way people communicate. Much like SMS did for cell phones, but being deeply rooted in online social networking it has enormous integration opportunities. The number of users right now is estimated around 5 million and growing rapidly. One can’t explain what Twitter is in a few words but here is an excellent explanation and a video. But I must warn you: I had been reading stories about Twitter long time before I joined and wasn’t impressed. You really need to try it out and getting comfortable will take you a few days. Make sure you read this fantastic non-fanatical beginners guide to Twitter first. And another warning: it’s addictive. There is zillion and one applications for Twitter now and twice as much undiscovered yet. But let me focus on just one simple characteristics: many people post updates on what interesting articles they have just written or found on the Net. If your choice to follow people on Twitter is based on their interests being similar to yours, you get the most up-to-date, fine-tuned-to-your-needs news service you can dream of. It is filtered by the collective wisdom of the individuals you have chosen to trust.

Digg is a social bookmarking site with 30 million users. Once you get your hands on an interesting piece of news through whatever means, you might want to bookmark it for future reference. Sure you can use your browser’s bookmark feature but there are reasons to keep them on the Web instead. Digg is my personal preference, but there are other services. The ‘social’ part of Digg is that all bookmarks are public – you can submit the story or bookmark (or ‘digg’) the story submitted by somebody else. By digging the story you increment its digg counter, which indicates how popular the story is. But the coolest part of Digg is the Upcoming tab. In order to create this page for you, Digg tries to understand your interest profile based on what you’ve dugg before and to match it with the profiles of other users. The Upcoming tab then displays the stories freshly submitted by those users whose profiles are similar to yours. And, of course, you can friend people on Digg and get Friends’ Activity stream. You know that already – sure, there is Friends RSS feed and that’s how we’ve closed the circle back to the RSS reader.

Back in the old days we used to jump from website to website trying to find the information or we used search engines to find content about the topic of interest. In the process we were generating ad displays which converted into revenue streams for the content owners. The tools described in my previous article enabled massive proliferation of user-generated content. With the services presented above our position vis-a-vis the content on the Web has changed. We are no longer running around searching for information. The information comes to us thanks to collective effort of other people.

The Human-Powered Search

Now we’ve got to the point where we don’t need to spend our valuable time on searching and filtering relevant information from irrelevant hype. This doesn’t mean that the amount of information flow gets automatically reduced to a manageable level, but that is a different story. We will still need search and recommendation engine but it is going to be quite different from what we know now. There are two interesting posts that helped me organize my thoughts around it (came by Twitter, by the way): Google’s First Real Threat? Twitter and Is the real-time web a threat to Google search?. “My web is my network” as @newtonmota has just succintly put it. Or in other words, the content that is interesting for me is defined by the people whom I trust, through some form of expression of their interest in it (be it tweet, digg, comment, etc.). This subtle network of connections cannot be replaced by any automatic indexing and ranking algorithm which does not have access to this network. In case you missed it – for that very reason Facebook has just introduced the “I like this” feature in their platform.

How the commercial content provider can play a role this game? Leave your comments and stay tuned for my take on the future trends in social media. Real-time web and more is coming soon.

Social Media: What’s on Top?

With this post I’m starting a series presenting a helicopter perspective of online social media as they stand at the beginning of 2009. My intention is primarily to help those business people who are newcomers to this world to quickly gain some understanding through examples and, maybe, build some personal experience with one service or the other.  

Top social media sites in 2008

Thanks to TechCrunch we can have a look at the top 20 social media sites according to ComScore. The figures represent worldwide traffic in November 2008 (total monthly unique visitors). For those who do not follow the social media development very closely I put short descriptions of the sites listed.

  1. Blogger (222 million) is a blog publishing platform currently owned by Google. Learn more…
  2. Facebook (200 million) is a social networking platform. It is privately-held, valued at $15 billion. In 2007 Microsoft acquired 1.6% of the company for $240 million. Learn more…  
  3. MySpace (126 million) is a social networking platform owned by News Corp. Until recently MySpace was the most popular social networking site in the US, but apparently Facebook caught up in December 2008. Learn more…
  4. WordPress (114 million) is an open source blog publishing platform owned by Automattic (New York Times is a strategic investor in Automattic). Learn more…
  5. Windows Live Spaces (87 million) is a social networking platform from Microsoft.
  6. Yahoo! Geocities (69 million) is a website creation service with blog publishing. From the comments to the post looks like a lot of people are surprised not only that it made #6 but that it’s still alive.  
  7. Flickr (64 million) is a photo sharing platform owned by Yahoo!. Learn more…
  8. hi5 (58 million) is another privately-held social networking platform. Learn more… 
  9. Orkut (46 million) is yet another social networking platform. Owned by Google. Learn more…
  10. Six Apart (46 million) is a privately-held blog publishing platform. Learn more…
  11. Baidu Space (40 million) is a social networking and blogging platform supported by the one of the largest Chinese search platform providers. Google invested in Baidu in 2004. Learn more…
  12. Friendster (31 million) is one of the oldest social networking sites. Still remains privately-owned. Learn more…
  13. (29 million) is a Chinese photo/video sharing service. Learn more… 
  14. Webs (24 million) is a website creation service with blogging and social networking components. Learn more…
  15. Bebo (24 million) is a 3rd most popular social networking site in the US. Owned by AOL. Learn more…
  16. Scribd (23 million) is a privately-held social document sharing service (a “YouTube for documents”). Learn more…
  17. Lycos Tripod (23 million) is a website creation platform. Recently Lycos Europe announced that it is going to close Tripod together with their free mail service on 15 February 2009. Learn more…
  18. Tagged (22 million) is a social networking platform originally for under-18 population. Later changed the policy and now allows everybody to join. Learn more…
  19. Imeem (22 million) is a social network platform focusing on discovering/recommending music, film, art and other media. Recently Imeem received $15 million investment from Warner Bros. Learn more…
  20. Netlog (21 million) is a social network platform present mainly in Europe. Learn more…

How popular the social media are, actually?

We might want to split all these social media services into three categories looking at the nature of the social relationships between members in each community (the borderlines are very vague, I know):

  • social networks hosting some form of online identity plus social graphs (that is friends of some sort) of the individuals – the traffic totals ca. 770 million unique visitors/month,
  • publishing platforms (blogs) with limited networking component – ca. 400 million,
  • media sharing – ca. 115 million.

Bear in mind that although the World’s population is 6,700 million, half of the people live on less than $2 a day and only 536 million have access to the Internet from home (hard to believe but here is the source: Nations Online, World Population). Even with this napkin math it’s fair to say that social media are quite popular these days.

Of course, the distribution of the population using social media in some way differs from continent to continent and country to country. But here is a temperature check I learned form my American colleague: if suddenly your mom or dad (for my demographics at least) invites you to their Facebook or send you a YouTube link, it means that there is rampant online socializing going on right in your neck of the woods.