Carl - 28/02/06 - China and Google: better than nothing, philosophically sound
Two things are required in the fight against censorship: first, to make censorship visible; second to make it ridiculous. The first ensures that a public is aware that they are being censored; the second that they side against it. It is in this light we should consider the recent story about Google's compliance with the Chinese government's demand that they censor their search results. Reactions to Google's decision have been varied, frequently muddled and generally hostile.
Like China, Google is an emerging power, and, like China, Google has a history of disruptive innovation. More surprisingly, like China, Google even has a nascent space programme. However, the notion that Google can dictate to China the terms under which it is prepared to operate is nonsense: China does not need Google. To avoid being blocked by the Chinese government, Google however does need to comply with Chinese regulations. Viewed purely as a business like any other, it is clear that if Google wishes to tap the Chinese market, Google has little choice in the matter.
For many, however, the opening up of China to the world market requires that China abandon such regulations before business may be conducted there. Therefore companies such as Google are expected to refuse to cooperate until such regulatory changes take place. Google is then doubly held up for censure for proclaiming its desire to do no evil whilst agreeing to requests demanding censorship. Such a response, however, fails to take into account the ability of Google on the one hand to meet such regulations, whilst on the other hand to undermine them.
The extent to which Google can making censorship visible via it's search results is debatable. For the average user - and here we refer to the emergent Chinese middle-classes - the notion that censorship occurs is a given, and not necessarily viewed negatively (pornography, I believe, is also censored).
Presumably the belief is that if one is not either a dissident oneself, interested in the views of dissidents, or otherwise some kind of criminal deviant, then censorship is something that affects other people. Thus being told that one's own search results have been censored can make the issue more personal; remind the user of that which has been censored; and lead to questions as to why it has been censored.
Whether or not Google has helped make such censorship ridiculous is a far harder question. Censored results are displayed with a special footer which is absent from uncensored search results. It is not made clear to users precisely what has been excluded; only that something has been excluded.
Being able to guage the quantity and relevance of the censored information, in terms of ridiculing censorship, could be more effective. For example, an image search for the English phrase Tiananmen Square
on the censored engine produces a paltry 68 results. Knowing that this is 68 out of a possible 13,400 results is far more damning.
Ridicule could similarly arise out of innocuous searches that then contain censored results. The difficulty for non-Mandrin speaking commentators lies in finding suitable test cases: for instance, whilst searching for tea (as one might), using the native character does not result in censored results, the same search using its pinyin Romanisation, cha, does.
Quite how a mainland Chinese user would interpret such search results is a matter of conjecture: a given Romanisation maps to many possible glyphs, and it is not clear that pinyin search terms would be used perhaps for this reason. Nonetheless repeated experience of being censored for no obvious reason may irritate and give rise to ridicule.
So is Google's approach to China the right one? I began with the claim that the fight against censorship requires that first it be made visible; second, ridiculous. This works because it builds support against censorship both among the censored and among those denied access to what has been censored. It does open up more possibilities for change to originate at a grassroots level from within China, rather than be imposed from without. To me, at least, this seems both more constructive and more in line with democratic thinking than a policy of isolating China until it does things 'our' way.
So, in conclusion, whilst perhaps a little disappointing, not only is Google's approach better than nothing, it is consistent with the thinking that opposes censorship in the first place.
Drew - 27/02/06 - How to Harness the New Buzz Media
If you haven't heard about the Arctic Monkeys (pictured right), you've probably been living on the moon. In January 2006, the group was the most searched-for band on the Internet, contributing to their first album Whatever People Say I am, That's What I'm Not becoming the fastest selling in British history. Even before the songs were recognisable, the newspapers were lauding their success to online viral marketing. The Arctic Monkeys were virtually unknown before they gave out a few copies of their album at gigs, which fans uploaded to community sites such as MySpace.com, waxed lyrical in chat rooms and on weblogs, and catapulted the band to instant fame.
Although a phenomenon, the rise of the Arctic Monkeys supports what online marketers have been saying for a while now; that the web has marketing opportunities well beyond the realms of "conventional" media (in both cost-for-exposure and proliferation). Heather Hopkins, director of research for Hitwise UK told Net Imperative recently: "Viral marketing is both a challenge and an opportunity for online marketers. Blogs and chat rooms can be a venue for consumers to rant about a negative experience but can provide opportunities to build awareness of a product, service or, in the case of the Arctic Monkeys, a band."
Online communities are not a recent fad - "newsgroups" were the very foundation of early web - but they have grown, with new technology facilitating the maturation. Forums (online discussion groups) have flourished, weblogs provide a platform for "citizen journalism", while social networks like Friendster and MySpace , and social software like Flickr allow members to share expressions of themselves and connect with like-minded people. This greater connectivity has strengthened the viral marketing capability of online communities - as the Arctic Monkeys have recently discovered.
However, for every successful band there are hundreds who never become hot property, and for every successful viral marketing campaign, there are plenty of disastrous ones, as the Cillit Bang fiasco proved (advertisers, ignoring web etiquette, managed to offend the online community by spam commenting on blogs, damaging the brand). So, while the opportunities are great, so too is the potential for failure. There will always be people trying to manipulate online discussions or skewing the perception of their brand, but in the long run, your company's online identity, and your products and services, will be better served if you're transparent with your e-marketing. It can seem like a simple plan to create a fake personality and mention your widget in a chat room, or commenting on a blog (with a link back to your company website), but manoeuvres like this are short term and can cause backlash if you're motives are discovered.
So where's the line? What can you do to increase your online presence effectively and safely without it coming across as spin?
- Become part of your online community. UK consumers are increasing their use of online communities, with the sector growing 10% year-on-year in December. While MySpace.com is the coolest place to hang for teens who file share the Arctic Monkeys, it might not be the best forum or site for your b2b software, but there are online communities in every industry, and it only takes a few minutes to search to find one and join. Don't simply lurk (read forums without interacting), this medium is all about participation and you'll never get the full benefits without immersing yourself. But as a "newbie" (a new member) it's recommended you tread softly until you pick up the decorum. You might want to join a hobby or a sport forum (or a forum on your favourite TV show) to understand the protocol before posting on an industry forum.
- Avoid "spinning" the conversation. Users on the web reward things they see as "genuine", "original" and "authentic". The Web is just another, more effective place for good old fashioned word of mouth. If you start doing the hard sell (even on your company blog) you'll lose credibility and might even get people angry. Be honest in your online interaction and you won't get caught out. If your product or services are of genuine interest to an online group, suggest them, but don't skew a discussion or crowbar in comments about your new widget just to get publicity. The online persona you might want to align yourself to is the "open minded but slightly biased" - as in "of course I think my widget is the best, but there are alternatives on the market that have strengths too". An online community is a place for discussion, not for sales verbiage.
- Give things away for free. While you might not have CDs to distribute, you do have expertise. Becoming an expert in a community is a great way to build credibility by becoming genuinely useful to its members.
- Don't expect to make buzz with a dead bee. If a song's terrible, no amount of internet exposure will make you buy it. Your products and services must first stand up in their own right before you invest in marketing them anywhere. Exposure too soon - on of offline - could be detrimental. Get excited about your own widgets before you start trying to get others on board.
- Set up your own community. There's been plenty of discussion lately about Web 2.0 (a community based internet) some saying you should talk to your customers (either through a newsletter or a company blog) and let your customers talk to you (if it's suitable, your own forum perhaps - although these need to be well moderated) to improve support and repeat sales. Setting up a community goes well beyond "feedback", it opens up a dialogue, creates new opportunities and can establish your company as a thought leader in your field, but do get first hand experience before taking the plunge (and even then consult an expert).
And there you have it. Well, not quite. The opportunities are too many to compile in one list. Online communities yield fascinating insights and reap great niche and broader publicity. If you tread carefully, you'll not only interact with intelligent, opinionated people in your industry, but you'll tap into a powerful marketing tool. Just don't expect the buzz you create to get you on the Top of the Pops as well. Well, not without backing singers at least.
Buzz Tools:
Blogs
A great place to start is reading weblogs. "Blogs", or online journals, are updated regularly and give the reader the ability to "comment" on posts. Try Technorati or Google's Blog Search to find blogs of interest in your field. You might also want to search to see if "bloggers" have already mentioned your company or product name.
Forums
Forums are the evolution of the Internet's first newsgroups. You can read more about Forum etiquette, and then search for "[industry] + forum". You might also try Google Groups (You'll need a Google Account to Sign in though).
Chat Rooms
Real time conversations are a popular online interaction. To find chat rooms on the topic of your industry, search for "keyword + chat room". Yahoo! Chat is popular and has many chat categories.
Social Software
- Flickr - a digital photo sharing website
- Del.icio.us - A social bookmarks manager.
- Wikipedia - a web-based, free-content encyclopaedia written collaboratively by volunteers.
This type of software depends on user interaction to grow. Flickr is a photo sharing platform, Del.ici.ous is a social book marking application which saves your favourite web pages, and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written by the public. The reason that they are all so powerful is that they have strong communities. Provide genuinely useful, relevant information and tap into these resources.
Dan - 27/02/06 - The rising profile of accessibility - Having been working with clients to create accessible websites for a couple of years, and having read up on the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative), I think I'm fairly up-to-date with issues of accessibility.
However, I've still been affected over the last couple of weeks by the latest campaign from the DRC (Disability Rights Commmission): Are we taking the Dis?
Certainly if you've been in central London lately it has been difficult to miss. Tube posters, billboard advertising, bannners on the sides of buses; these campaign posters citing apalling treatment of disabled people in the UK are doing a great job of raising the profile of disability discrimination.
Some of the examples are striking, including the fact that disabled people earn 10% less, on average, than non-disabled people. I found this ad detailing a series of cases of discrimination especially direct. You can find out more about this campaign and the facts behind it at http://www.disabilitydebate.org.
Given the extremity of some of these facts and examples, it somehow makes the minutae of website accessibility pale by comparison. But nevertheless it's an important topic. The web is an almost boundless window onto the world for everyone, so imagine the frustration in not being able to access all that information as a result of technical issues or poorly considered web content.
So if you don't already consider accessibility issues with your website, why not start now? Here are a few resources to help you assess how accessible your site is now.
Automatic checking software and sets of industry guidelines are a great start, but of course they need to be interpreted by humans and understood in context. So a great complementary activity to is to consult people who know about accessibility and can advise you, and also to arrange testing of your site by disabled users, which can be organised through testing bureaux.
Chris - 07/02/06 - TV and the Internet - In the 90's when I was working at Disney's European HQ the Vice President of Marketing for International TV asked me in a rather concerned way whether I thought the Internet would reduce the amount of time people spent watching TV. I looked at her rather bemused, I was thinking why on earth would anyone think struggling with a 9.6k dial-up modem and the Mosaic browser be a popular new form of alternative entertainment?! I had to get this stuff working for a living and I was not impressed, so I assured her, her job was safe but nearly ten years later and the Internet has come a long way...
...but to be honest I still have no idea where it is heading - all I can see is a fog of press releases, technology announcements, company takeovers and technology trials.
So how does one make any sense out of the confusion? Well, from a technological perspective I see the developments on three fronts (that may or may not converge in the future) - Mobile TV (i.e. TV on your mobile handset), Digital TV/Video viewed/retrieved over the Net and lastly Video search (adding video search facilities to search engines and the like). Let's take one at a time and see whether a clearer picture emerges (if you will pardon the pun).
Mobile TV
It seems that every Mobile operator has trialled some form of TV received on their handsets. This again falls into two categories: those using their mobile networks to transmit programmes to handsets; and those using duals network with handsets - one network for traditional voice calls and the other to receive TV programs.
I have to say the first approach seems doomed to failure to me - the mobile networks are not designed for broadcast so sending out programmes uses up valuable network bandwidth, therefore this service is always going to be limited to short video clips. Sky is already offering news, sports and weather clips to be accessed from handsets and although Sky doesn't charge for this service the mobile networks will charge users for the bandwidth used. Maybe advertising will create a business model that will work for consumers and operators but at the moment I can't see many people wanting to pay a premium for this service.
True mobile broadcasting seems a much better proposition to me but involves much higher investment and could take years to roll out. Maybe when the Video, e-Book, PDA, Wifi/Wimax, 4G MP3 iPOD phone eventually hits the shops then live TV will be the icing on the cake!
TV Downloads (or to use a 90's term - Video on Demand!)
Freeview has been a runaway success despite the doomsayers and it seems to me that if anything the analogue signal could even be turned off ahead of schedule, leaving it available for other purposes.
Freeview, when used in conjunction with a hard disk based digital video recorder, brings TV into the 21st century. It allows for live programs to be paused, rewound and kept indefinitely all at the touch of a button - I love it! With the advent of Microsoft's Media Centre (which turns your PC into a digital video recorder and much more), Broadband, WiFi, and LCD Monitors, the entertainment centre of the house is slowly moving to the PC, meaning that TV companies are also looking into their crystal balls to see where they fit into this digital future.
Last year Google launched its Video Store product, selling TV programmes and other video through on-line downloads and this came the day after Apple announced it was expanding its video offerings through its iTunes service. Steve Jobs announced recently at MacWorld that more than 8M videos had been sold since they were first made available last October.
HomeChoice has been offering Video-On-Demand over a broadband connection for quite a few years but it is now extending its services outside North West London where it was based for a prolonged gestation period and BT is also thought to be planning to launch pay-per-view television service over Broadband later this year.
Recently BSkyB became the first UK broadcaster to unveil its broadband service that allows viewers to watch sport highlights and download full-length films legally to their home computers. At the moment this service is only offered to those who subscribe to two of Sky's premium channels but with BSkyB's acquisition of Easynet for £211m late last year, I am sure there are more services and options to come.
Video Search
Video search has proved difficult to implement, AOL bought Singingfish in November 2003, which led to the launch of AOL Video Search last June and only a number of weeks ago announced its purchase of Truveo, which is said to be its largest acquisition since it bought Advertising.com for $435m in 2004, despite Truveo only employing a handful of software engineers.
AOL has high hopes for the service which they say will allow users of Aol.com a vast, new array of tools and an extensive collection of updated, hard-to-find, video assets
. Meanwhile, News Corporation (the owner of BSkyB) is reported to be eyeing Blinkx.com, another search engine specialising in video. See it for yourself at www.blinkx.com. After Google announced results below expectations, could Blinkx become the new Google?
Conclusion
So where does this leave us? Well I think it will be some time before we know for sure the winners and losers, which business models work, which services are here to stay and whether there will be further convergance of the technologies and services.
However, there are general themes that have emerged... The Internet is increasingly becoming the distribution channel of choice for all types of digital assets (some that probably haven't even been thought up yet!), the TV/Film industry is the next to be disrupted by the Net and thirdly, more and more devices will be accessing digital content via Wifi and Broadband in the home, office and on the street in the future. Any other insights and conclusions, I will leave to you!