Alle rumoer rondom YouTube maakt nog maar eens duidelijk dat de meeste contentpartijen een hoop te leren hebben. Hyperpeople legt het beter uit dan ik zou kunnen...
"Television producers are about to learn the same lessons that film studios and the recording industry learned before them: what the audience wants, it gets. Take your clips off of YouTube, and watch as someone else – quite illegally – creates another hyperdistribution system for them. Attack that system, and watch as it fades into invisibility. Those attacks will force it to evolve into ever-more-undetectable forms. That’s the lesson of music-sharing site Napster, and the lesson of torrent-sharing site Supernova. When you attack the hyperdistribution system, you always make the problem worse."
vrijdag 3 november 2006
donderdag 2 november 2006
Large and small social networking services
I agree with Robert Young that Facebook and Six Apart are two of the most interesting 'mainstream' social networking services at the moment. However, I have difficulty with his implicit statement that advertising revenues will create a lot of wealth for these companies.
Marc Canter's vision is very appealing. He says there won't be only a few large centralized social networking services, but instead expects there to be many smaller ones that are relevant in a specific context. The larger ones will facilitate this by building the social networking infrastructure (with Facebook and Six Apart as leading examples), using standards and open APIs. However, a consequence of this will be that at least part of the advertising revenues will go to the niche oriented services. The fact that a user uses SixApart's Vox to create a profile, write blog posts and submit videos (read Robert's piece on 'consoles for consumer control') doesn't necessarily mean they will be seen (consumed) by others at the same place. They will be cross-posted to the relevant niche networks... And that's why I think opening up Facebook for everyone was a bad idea. They are losing their context (students, universities). How will that end...?
"I’m probably also one of the very few that felt Facebook made the absolute right decision when they opened up its social network. Their timing, in my opinion, could not have been better, particularly in terms of competitive positioning against MySpace. With the move, there is no doubt in my mind that Facebook has placed itself on a new growth curve… one that will benefit from the churn of members from competitors as well as newbies to social networks. Having said that, let me qualify my thesis a bit. As I wrote in my last post, Facebook has a low “narcissism” ratio, relative to more “Hollywood-oriented” social media services… and it’s very important that it stay that way as it pulls back its velvet rope to the masses. But doing so puts Facebook on the same evolutionary path with Six Apart… at the conceptual level, both companies are ultimately aimed at becoming personalized portal platforms (what I’ve previously referred to as “consoles for consumer control“)."
Marc Canter's vision is very appealing. He says there won't be only a few large centralized social networking services, but instead expects there to be many smaller ones that are relevant in a specific context. The larger ones will facilitate this by building the social networking infrastructure (with Facebook and Six Apart as leading examples), using standards and open APIs. However, a consequence of this will be that at least part of the advertising revenues will go to the niche oriented services. The fact that a user uses SixApart's Vox to create a profile, write blog posts and submit videos (read Robert's piece on 'consoles for consumer control') doesn't necessarily mean they will be seen (consumed) by others at the same place. They will be cross-posted to the relevant niche networks... And that's why I think opening up Facebook for everyone was a bad idea. They are losing their context (students, universities). How will that end...?
"I’m probably also one of the very few that felt Facebook made the absolute right decision when they opened up its social network. Their timing, in my opinion, could not have been better, particularly in terms of competitive positioning against MySpace. With the move, there is no doubt in my mind that Facebook has placed itself on a new growth curve… one that will benefit from the churn of members from competitors as well as newbies to social networks. Having said that, let me qualify my thesis a bit. As I wrote in my last post, Facebook has a low “narcissism” ratio, relative to more “Hollywood-oriented” social media services… and it’s very important that it stay that way as it pulls back its velvet rope to the masses. But doing so puts Facebook on the same evolutionary path with Six Apart… at the conceptual level, both companies are ultimately aimed at becoming personalized portal platforms (what I’ve previously referred to as “consoles for consumer control“)."
Grote en kleine social networking diensten
Ik ben het met Robert Young eens dat Facebook en Six Apart de twee meest interessante 'mainstream' social networking diensten zijn om te volgen. Waar ik echter moeite mee heb is zijn impliciete stelling dat advertentieinkomsten deze diensten erg waardevol gaan maken. Ik geloof zelf sterk in de visie van Marc Canter dat er niet een paar grote online social networks zullen zijn (zoals ook Erwin denkt), maar eerder vele kleintjes die allemaal relevant zijn in een bepaalde context. De 'grote jongens' gaan dat faciliteren doordat ze een social networking infrastructuur aan het bouwen zijn (met Facebook en Six Apart als goede voorbeelden), gebruik makend van standaarden en open API's. Echter, dat betekent ook dat veel van de advertentieinkomsten (middels pageviews) uiteindelijk bij de niche diensten terecht gaan komen. Het feit dat een gebruiker bijvoorbeeld SixApart's Vox gebruikt om een profiel aan te maken, stukjes te schrijven en video's te plaatsen (zie ook Robert's stuk over 'consoles for consumer control') betekent niet dat iedereen ze daar ook zal zien. Ze worden namelijk meteen doorgeplaatst naar de relevante niche netwerken. En daarom is het feit dat Facebook is geopend voor iedereen wat mij betreft een slechte zaak, ze verliezen daarmee namelijk hun context (studenten, universiteiten). Gaat dat goed aflopen....?
"I’m probably also one of the very few that felt Facebook made the absolute right decision when they opened up its social network. Their timing, in my opinion, could not have been better, particularly in terms of competitive positioning against MySpace. With the move, there is no doubt in my mind that Facebook has placed itself on a new growth curve… one that will benefit from the churn of members from competitors as well as newbies to social networks. Having said that, let me qualify my thesis a bit. As I wrote in my last post, Facebook has a low “narcissism†ratio, relative to more “Hollywood-oriented†social media services… and it’s very important that it stay that way as it pulls back its velvet rope to the masses. But doing so puts Facebook on the same evolutionary path with Six Apart… at the conceptual level, both companies are ultimately aimed at becoming personalized portal platforms (what I’ve previously referred to as “consoles for consumer control“)."
What ever happened to OhmyNews?
BusinessWeek has an update on OhmyNews, the newspaper largely made by citizens and itself very newsworthy a couple of years ago. Beginning 2003 I wrote about for the first time.
Apparently OhmyNews is not yet structurally profitable. Read the article for the details, but this quote from McKinsey's Korean director is very short sighted for someone who is a strategic advisor to large corporations....
"Other industry watchers also express doubts that citizen journalism will turn out to be a going concern. Had it been an attractive global model, "someone would have made lots of money by now," adds Stephen
Bear, Seoul-based director of McKinsey's Korean operation."
Apparently OhmyNews is not yet structurally profitable. Read the article for the details, but this quote from McKinsey's Korean director is very short sighted for someone who is a strategic advisor to large corporations....
"Other industry watchers also express doubts that citizen journalism will turn out to be a going concern. Had it been an attractive global model, "someone would have made lots of money by now," adds Stephen
Bear, Seoul-based director of McKinsey's Korean operation."
Wat is er gebeurd met OhmyNews?
BusinessWeek geeft een update over OhmyNews, de krant die grotendeels gemaakt wordt door burgers en een paar jaar geleden zelf veel in het nieuws was. Begin 2003 schreef ik er voor het eerst over.
Kennelijk is OhmyNews nog niet structureel winstgevend. Lees voor de details het artikel, maar deze quote van de Koreaanse McKinsey baas vond ik nogal kortzichtig voor iemand die strategisch advies geeft aan klanten....
"Other industry watchers also express doubts that citizen journalism
will turn out to be a going concern. Had it been an attractive global
model, "someone would have made lots of money by now," adds Stephen
Bear, Seoul-based director of McKinsey's Korean operation."
Kennelijk is OhmyNews nog niet structureel winstgevend. Lees voor de details het artikel, maar deze quote van de Koreaanse McKinsey baas vond ik nogal kortzichtig voor iemand die strategisch advies geeft aan klanten....
"Other industry watchers also express doubts that citizen journalism
will turn out to be a going concern. Had it been an attractive global
model, "someone would have made lots of money by now," adds Stephen
Bear, Seoul-based director of McKinsey's Korean operation."
woensdag 1 november 2006
Wikipedia heerst
Ik merk dat ik Wikipedia steeds vaker gebruik. En er ook naar link vanaf m'n weblogs. Ik ben duidelijk niet de enige wanneer je dit onderzoek leest. Maar in toenemende mate gebruik ik Wikipedia echter direct, niet via een zoekmachine. Gaat interessant worden om te zien hoe, en of, Google and Yahoo die trend(?) zullen omarmen.
"In a research project, Cuhalev gathered a random sample of about 1,000 of the 1.4 million topics covered by Wikipedia. He then ran the terms through the Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines. He found that Wikipedia did in fact appear with remarkable consistency in the upper reaches of search results. On average, the online encyclopedia appeared in the top-ten search results 65% of the time - and 26% of the time it actually had two results in the top ten. (Cuhalev has posted a summary of his findings on his blog, and the full report can be downloaded here.)"
"In a research project, Cuhalev gathered a random sample of about 1,000 of the 1.4 million topics covered by Wikipedia. He then ran the terms through the Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines. He found that Wikipedia did in fact appear with remarkable consistency in the upper reaches of search results. On average, the online encyclopedia appeared in the top-ten search results 65% of the time - and 26% of the time it actually had two results in the top ten. (Cuhalev has posted a summary of his findings on his blog, and the full report can be downloaded here.)"
Wikipedia rules
I find myself using Wikipedia more and more these days. And linking to it as well. Apparently I'm not the only one when looking at these research results. Increasingly I'm using Wikipedia directly however, not through a search engine. So it will be interesting to see how, and if, Google and Yahoo will embrace that trend(?).
"In a research project, Cuhalev gathered a random sample of about 1,000 of the 1.4 million topics covered by Wikipedia. He then ran the terms through the Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines. He found that Wikipedia did in fact appear with remarkable consistency in the upper reaches of search results. On average, the online encyclopedia appeared in the top-ten search results 65% of the time - and 26% of the time it actually had two results in the top ten. (Cuhalev has posted a summary of his findings on his blog, and the full report can be downloaded here.)"
"In a research project, Cuhalev gathered a random sample of about 1,000 of the 1.4 million topics covered by Wikipedia. He then ran the terms through the Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines. He found that Wikipedia did in fact appear with remarkable consistency in the upper reaches of search results. On average, the online encyclopedia appeared in the top-ten search results 65% of the time - and 26% of the time it actually had two results in the top ten. (Cuhalev has posted a summary of his findings on his blog, and the full report can be downloaded here.)"
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)