Facebook is the social king today, but Google doesn’t have to give up on the Internet’s future.
Google is confronting a series of rugged (and, perhaps, ultimately insurmountable) challenges. And make no mistake: these challenges loom large, because Google’s dominance of the Internet landscape is increasingly being threatened by Facebook’s rise.
If Google (GOOG) is going to maintain its leadership, still-new CEO Larry Page needs to have a plan for the social Web. And, as the new CEO, he’ll need investors to be confident that he’s got this handled.
There are four things Page could do to renew Google’s dominance:
1. Admit that Google has a problem.
Page needs to acknowledge to his employees the enormous threat posed by the socialization of the Web: already, 25 percent of all page views on the Internet are not only social, but served by Google’s enemy, Facebook; meanwhile, Google has no significant share whatsoever in any social activity. Google’s CEO should also be declaring to his employees that Google’s next life stage must be fully social. In addition, Page must offer analysts a more substantive and authentic message. When Google’s senior executive team sweeps its social Web weakness under the rug, Wall Street isn’t fooled. And Page’s silence doesn’t stop the tough conversation from happening. Indeed, in this age of investor sophistication and watchfulness, admitting neither problems nor opportunities only heightens the fact that the CEO isn’t taking his business seriously. Page could have preempted the hard-edged conversation with his analysts recently by proving that Google is ready to fully participate in the opportunity presented by the social Web. If framed well, and backed by demonstrative action, this could even help to highlight the potential upside in Google’s future, and that’s always a positive when it comes to dealing with the Street.
2. Show Google understands how the Web is changing.
Facebook isn’t just another really popular Web site. Rather, the entire nature of the Web has been transformed from a bunch of pages on servers that Google crawls, to the world’s people connected to each other and sharing their lives. Just as significant, more and more of the Internet’s capabilities are delivered via apps, rather than on HTML forms. Gone are the days when Web developers would make everything HTML-compliant just for Google’s sake, while end-users had forgivingly low bars for their own experiences. Now, customers must come first to publishers – and that means providing them with content when, where, and how they want it in the social networks, in video, and on mobile devices. Page needs to clearly show that he understands the “ground rules” of the new Web; then he needs to lay them out crisply, with their differences distinctly noted, so that his business units – from the moneymakers of search and advertising to the experiments in social media – can start remaking themselves accordingly. Gmail, for example, should be reinventing communication for a fully connected world in which email usage is on the decline, just as it reinvented the category when email was still on the rise seven years ago; and Google Apps needs to rethink how applications can be so much more than mere Microsoft Office stand-ins when its users are connected to the Web most of the time.
3. Recruit hard for new talent.
It’s not enough to rotate the deck chairs and the bodies that sit in them; it’s time for Google to parachute in some rescuers. For example, Google needs to win notables like Vadim Lavrusik, who just joined Facebook, to help guide social content in news and media; and it also needs to remake its employment proposition to attract the up-and-coming stars like those who have joined Facebook, as well as those who have started their own companies. Google developed an amazing human resources formula that attracted a slew of talent to fuel the search wave; but now the talent wars are underway, and Facebook’s pre-IPO buzz has leapfrogged over Google’s gourmet chef and personal training perks to attract the best and the brightest. Google needs to reinvent its formula and demonstrate a winning strategy to attract the next generation of stars.
4. Show your work on social.
Finally, Page should be demonstrating progress on a host of new, socially supercharged products and ideas that Google desperately needs right now. In addition to pulling from the outside, the company should be incubating its own ideas to take advantage of the social Web. Page’s incentive compensation plan is a start, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough to light a fire that will help Google out-compete Facebook, a private company that has already garnered nearly 50 percent of Google’s own market capitalization – without having even signaled an entry into the search marketplace yet. Google’s home turf of search is uncharted territory for Facebook, but, just as importantly, the social terrain has already proven a minefield for Google. Page should be working on these four items each and every day. But he should also be communicating his progress in these areas on an ongoing basis to investors and analysts, as well as employees. And, as for how, the outreach needs to be personal. He’s Google’s CEO; it’s his responsibility; and it’s an integral part of the top job – a job, by the way, that he recently chose to assume and shoulder.
In his debut earnings call with investors, Page made nary a mention of social. By sweeping the social Web and his new chief competitor under the rug, Page seemed to be making the false assumption that the analysts and media covering the company wouldn’t notice the rising force of social or Google’s lack of social progress. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, because Facebook’s $78 billion valuation represents a lump beneath the rug that’s nearly the size of Mt. Rainier.
Google can’t just ignore this mountainous marketplace impediment. And investors aren’t the only ones that take notice of Google’s lack of strategy here: the engineers coding Google’s products need to know that their leaders want to attack, not ignore, the mountain.
Markets go up, and markets go down. But opportunities like the social Web come along only so often. So, if Page and Google remain radio silent on Facebook’s clear and present threat, they’ll be frittering away much more than their market cap. They’ll be gambling with their greatness. And that would be a huge mistake.
The upside of all the data that can be collected about us on the social web today is that we can increasingly get better and more relevant information faster.
But there’s a dark side that Brian Stelter reported on this week in The New York Times – all that data can leave us exposed.
There’s no question that the benefits of a connected world are immense; but, after reading Brian’s probing piece and taking a big gulp, I recognize that it also means we’ll see more abuse.
The new information exchanges, marketplaces, and networks we are building online have huge power because they connect so many disparate people and things together. That’s the appeal; and it’s also the genesis of the inherent potential for misuse.
In previous Web generations, newsgroups, eBay, and Craigslist offered people extraordinary new dimensions of information, commerce, and connection. And we saw a small – but harmful – percentage of misuse.
And yet, the bigger surprise to me isn’t that these exchanges can be exploited, but that they work at all. Whether they’re propelled by financial or ego-centric motives, the nefarious exploiters seem to be outnumbered twenty-to-one or more, and the exchanges largely work in spite of them.
Lately, I have been thinking and writing a good deal about the divergent approaches that Facebook and Google have been taking when it comes to the Web.
It’s clear that Facebook is a world filled with identity – and with a vast network where every node is identified comes unprecedented personal risk. Do I really want my friends, my enemies, my government, and worse, my mother, to connect all the dots of my existence?
No, most assuredly not.
And yet having my identity established online offers enough payoffs that I permit it.
Increasingly, Facebook has been pushing for the benefits of an identified and networked world; at the same time, Google has established itself as the king of the anonymous Web. The result is that Facebook finds itself in one privacy imbroglio after another; and I’m sure more are on the way.
But while Google scans the pages of the Web without any sense of human identity, its former CEO rues that they have missed out on the benefits of the social Web as a result.
We’re definitely walking a fine digital line here.
But my money is on an increasingly social Web; and we’ll clearly have to address the downsides as we tip-toe – or barrel – into the future.
A couple of weeks ago, here in Seattle, I had the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the future of SEO (search engine optimization) and SMO (social media optimization), along with one of the top SEO experts in the world: Rand Fishkin. The conversation was a lively one, moderated and reported –by Curt Woodward, at Xconomy.
My view is that – particularly for media – we are at a tipping moment. The web is no longer a field of static documents navigated by a precise search engine. Instead it’s a living organic distribution machine from person to person, through the ether of “social operating systems” like Facebook and Twitter. And, as a result, I expect Google will be losing ground to Facebook.
It’s was a lively and fun dialogue.
Read the highlights and play-by-play here, courtesy of @curtwoodward.
Microsoft unveiled its first preview of the Windows 8 user interface at the All Things D D9 conference last week. It was a thrill to see it. And my first reaction was that it looks more like media than software.
But upon further reflection, it’s more than just Microsoft. It’s been the theme of the recent wave of operating system overhauls on mobile devices, which are now taking root on the desktop, too. It’s happened on the iPad, on Palm/HP’s WebOS, and now finally on Windows’ mainstream interface. User experiences are showing more design heritage from print and media, and less from software roots.
It’s an important marker. Going back decades to the beginning of the personal computing revolution, software was written by programmers, who were doing their best to make machine instructions controllable by end users. It was an inside-out approach: starting with the microprocessor’s constraints and translating them into displays that were at least interpretable by end-users.
Now, programmers have the luxury of fast processors, sophisticated graphics systems, and advanced libraries – not to mention the development of the new field of user experience. So, instead of starting with microprocessors and asking users to adapt, we are seeing design go the other way: we are starting with real people (consumers) and making the software conform to them.
When we do that, the “a-ha” to me is that the consumer-first approach is a media approach, not a software approach. It doesn’t start with the machine; it starts with the audience. And that’s exactly what the expertise of media is. The result culminated in Steve Sinofsky’s demo of a complete overhaul of Windows 8’s interface, that looks so much like a media property, and not so much like any desktop software interface that we are used to. Indeed, the “desktop” metaphor of previous generations of Mac, PC, and Unix interfaces is blown up entirely, replaced by a start screen with so many content tiles, each formatted richly and compellingly in a glossy, high-production-values sort of way
The future of software is looking a lot like media.
This article originally appeared as a feature on iMedia Connection.
Nieman Journalism Lab recently posted a very provocative piece on the eight trends to watch in 2011.
Taken together, the eight trends reinforce the fact that digital publishers have been forced to abdicate their relationships with customers. It’s a big change from our offline legacy, where news and magazine publishers built long-term customer relationships by offering a branded collection of content.
But in our current digital world, content is no longer oriented toward delivering on an existing relationship. Instead, every published piece is a marketing vehicle. The content itself has become the bait for customer acquisition, with each new item the means for catch-and-release fishing for more unique users.
With this practice, the basis of customer acquisition has changed: Digital media publishers acquire audience by the item — not by their collection. We all see it play out with the bad content around us all the time: An inflammatory headline earns clicks. Keywords garner search rankings. And sensationalist pieces generate social distribution and links.
But the obsession with acquiring audience article by article has had serious consequences and, in the end, the holistic sense of a “publication” as a product — one that builds a long-term branded relationship with audience — has gone out the window.
How did this happen?
I chalk it up to the perverse system of online media buying that takes place with advertisers and, particularly, their agencies. This system places such a high priority on maximum momentary reach that it totally overlooks any question of relationship.
The net (and short-sighted) result of this focus is that digital publishers spend all of their energy acquiring customers. But acquiring them to what end?
There’s no reward for keeping customers anymore. Having audience return daily is a nice-to-have — a “supporting statistic” on a page of a PowerPoint media kit — while almighty reach drives ascent through the comScore reports. Given the opportunity, publishers would gladly double their reach while halving their engagement; then they’d wonder why no one came back. Customers today are met for a moment, and then discarded — then publishers go out and acquire all new viewers the next month. And, to fill this hole, publishers too often appease Google’s search algorithm as their evergreen source of new eyeballs.
But as publishers get on the customer acquisition treadmill, an increasingly smaller percentage of their consumers connect to their greater collection or brand. Instead, a user comes for one piece and, more often than not, leaves right after. The whole process is all about churn-and-burn, rather than relationship building.
Once you accept this digital advertising dynamic and how it has shaped publishing behavior, you realize some pretty interesting things about your online audience.
First, there’s the inner-circle audience that has a strong branded, destination relationship. These people come back frequently — several times a month to every day. They type the URL into the browser bar, or use a bookmark, or type your brand name into their favorite search engine, or maybe they have “liked” you enough to add you to their Facebook feed. You are a habit to them, and they are your loyalists. These folks know you well. They have a relationship with you. And they come back over and over for your collection — for the entirety of what you have to offer, all wrapped up together and labeled with your brand name.
Then there’s the outer-circle audience. These people don’t visit for the collection at all. They might know your brand well and, if so, that might have helped them make a decision to click. But they aren’t here for you; they are here for your content. And when they are done with that content, they’ll leave.
Gut instinct would say that those loyal inner-circle users are the ones who should be prized most highly. After all, the outer-circle users, who come for one short visit once a month, at most for a page view or two, should pale in value to a loyal user.
But the real problem is that publishers are rewarded by advertisers for the combined size of the two circles. The No.1 driver of ad revenues is unique users, and it is totally dominated by the outer circle. Given this reward system, no matter what the buzz might say, “engagement” obviously isn’t valued by advertisers with any sincerity these days.
And yet my view is that digital media companies must now — more than ever — convert customers to loyal, brand-loving audience. In the long term, these readers are the ones that an advertiser has the greatest ability to impact, since they can leverage a real — rather than fleeting — relationship with the publishers.
It might be difficult and daunting, but that’s the only true path to sustained publishing prosperity. The current advertising model is broken, and it must be fixed.
I have a question for Jonathan Tasini, who is leading a $105 million lawsuit on behalf of thousands of uncompensated bloggers against The Huffington Post.
If you and your litigious colleagues are so good, so valuable, and so organized, why don’t you launch your own online media venture to out-compete HuffPo?
I’m sure you have your reasons – and, of course, initiating a lawsuit is so much easier than starting a digital publishing site from scratch.
But, let’s get real.
Blogging isn’t free-lancing, and it’s hard to imagine that any of the contributors who sent their material to HuffPo ever thought it was. As I wrote several weeks ago, every contributor knew the basis of the transaction: write what you have to say in exchange for being publicized. As always, the prime currency of blogging was fame – not fortune.
So who’s trying to cash in now?
On a broader, more global note: I feel sad for the desperate bloggers who are trying to shake down HuffPo; and I’m deeply sensitive to the fact that the media world is under pressure and steadily shrinking. But Tasini and his fellow litigants look like starving dogs scrapping for a shred of meat. It’s unseemly and unproductive.
What’s next?
Will Tasini respresent a class action suit against Endemol on behalf of all American Idol contestants, who were totally exploited as they sought super-stardom?
Or will he represent the tens of millions of users in a suit against Facebook, for advertising against their status and Farmville activities?
Both legal moves would make for entertaining blog posts, and I look forward to the juicy reading!
One of the supreme ironies in digital publishing today is that there’s infinite online space, and a desire to read rich and substantive content on mobile devices such as the iPhone or iPad; and yet, there’s still limited long-form multimedia journalism available on the Web.
That’s the subject of a fascinating feature in The New York Times by David Carr.
Always incisive, David focuses on The Atavist, which he describes as “a tiny curio of a business that looks for new ways to present long-form content for the digital age. All the richness of the Web — links to more information, videos, casts of characters — is right there in an app displaying an article, but with a swipe of the finger, the presentation reverts to clean text that can be scrolled by merely tilting the device.”
Since January, The Atavist has had over 40,000 downloads of its app; and it’s also begun conversations with publishers about the possibility of adding nonfiction books to the eclectic mix of stories it now presents.
This nascent success reinforces what I’ve been saying for a long time – give people an enhanced digital content experience, something that’s very special, and they’ll be willing to pay for it.
Good luck to The Atavist, which has the right business model, and the best of reading to all of us.