Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

August 21, 2009

Is Bing a worthy rival to Google?

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , , — Raja @ 2:33 pm

Farhad Manjoo of Time.com says google may have finally found a worthy rvial in microsoft’s bing.

bing-Google illo

Every year, the market-research firm Millward Brown conducts a survey to determine the economic worth of the world’s brands — in other words, to put a dollar value on the many corporate logos that dominate our lives. Lately the firm’s results have been stuck on repeat: Google has claimed the top spot for the past three years. The most recent report values Google’s brand — those six happy letters that herald so many of our jaunts down the Web’s rabbit hole — at more than $100 billion.

What’s astonishing about this stat is how effortlessly Google seems to have earned the public’s affection. Other companies — Microsoft, Coke, IBM, McDonald’s — spend enormous sums to stay in the consciousness. Google, which makes most of its money from ads, rarely advertises itself. Telling the world how well it does what it does just isn’t Google’s way.

But Google’s humility is being tested as never before. The firm’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., seem besieged by competitors gaining new momentum. Even nominal allies are questioning the company’s motives and long-term plans. In July, Google’s largest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, agreed to work together in an attempt to dethrone it as the world’s dominant search engine. The deal, which awaits government approval, would create a first: a tenacious, well-financed search rival.

Conflicts are beginning to take place in other areas where Google has ventured. That includes e-mail and office programs (Gmail, Google Docs), a cell-phone operating system (Android) and a Web browser (Chrome). Google scans and sells books, runs a phone system and is even working on a desktop operating system to rival Windows. CEO Eric Schmidt recently stepped down from Apple’s board of directors because the two companies now compete in so many areas. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating a legal settlement between Google and the publishing industry over the company’s book-scanning service, and Christine Varney, Justice’s antitrust chief, said she sees Google as a “problem.”

At the moment, Google’s most pressing problem is Microsoft. The software giant is spending $100 million to market its new search engine, Bing — and in the process, to get us all bummed about Google. Bing’s slick ads are unavoidable and blistering. They suggest that Google is broken, that it rarely leads us to what we’re looking for and turns us all into blathering zombies who spew out search keywords in casual conversation.

August 13, 2009

Automating search marketing

Filed under: Internet, Trends — Tags: , — Raja @ 9:11 am

Google wants to automate search marketing by looking beyond keywords. As the term adwords indicates it is based on the concept of keywords. An advertiser has to bid on a set of keywords that closely match what their customers type in the search box. But there are potential advertisers such as plumbers, handyment etc that do not know what a keyword is or how to go about using adwords. Google wants to tap into those type of advertisers by offering a system that doesn’t need bidding on keywords.

“Keywords work very, very well, but we think we can do better,” Nicholas Fox, the business product management director for Google AdWords, said in an afternoon keynote here today at the Search Engine Strategies conference. Fox said Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) was investing in approaches that wouldn’t require keywords.

“It’s hard to say how that will work out, but we’re doing continued investment and research,” he said, adding that there’s a huge opportunity for Google, its partners and competitors to “revolutionize search.”

“Imagine if I’m a plumber in San Jose and I fix sinks and toilets, and Google could automatically match you to the users you’re looking for,” Fox said.

He gave another example of an electronics Web site. “What if I could just point Google to my site and have it crawl the site and automatically build targeted ads matched to queries?”

Fox gave no timetable or indication of how far along Google might be in presenting such a system.

It makes sense though it remains to be seen how well such a system can work.

July 30, 2009

Microsoft Yahoo Search Deal

Filed under: Internet, Media, Technology, Trends — Tags: , , — Raja @ 12:16 am

The blogosphere and the web is abuzz with the Yahoo - MS search deal.

Ballmer and Bartz. (Yahoo photo, via Flickr)

Yahoo has turned the clock back a few years to outsource the search and search advertising to Microsoft. If this sounds familiar, this is how Google became Google. It got its initial distribution by powering Yahoo’s search in the late 90s.

I understand why MS wants to do this deal. It is less clear to me why Yahoo did this deal. If it is for short term profits then it would have been better off outsourcing it to Google (which it tried to do but google got scared because of antitrust issues). If it is for strategic reason to fend off google, why let MS power the search instead of otherway around? In fact they have more leverage as they have the bigger search market share. After all Yahoo is a tech company. Search is the center piece in all of internet technologies today and Yahoo is outsourcing it to MS. There in lie some clues as to how Yahoo sees itself. It is signaling that we are not good at internet technology anymore and we just want to make money on the users that visit my site while they last. This sounds more and more like AOL to me. You know where AOL is headed.

It is a great deal for MS as they didn’t have to plough all the money to buy Yahoo and a take huge risk to make it work. They just wanted a better shot at competing with Google by becming the #2 player in search. They didn’t have to fork up a single penny to do this. What a deal!

Yahoo without the search asset is far less valuable. You don’t sell your core asset piece meal. Yahoo would have been better off selling the company as a whole. They should have just taken the MS deal offered last year if they are willing to this type of a deal.

July 1, 2009

State of Real Time Search

Filed under: Internet, Technology, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 2:30 am

Mary Hodder, founder of video search company Dabble, wrote a guest post at techcrunch on real time search. It is an exhaustive look at the state of the real time seach and the servere challenges it poses to comanies that are trying to solve it.

Real time search is nothing new. It is a problem we’ve been working on for at least ten years, and we likely will still be trying to solve it ten years from now. It’s a really hard problem which we used to call “live web search,” which was coined by Allen Searls (Doc’s son) and refers to the web that is alive, with time as an element, in all factors including search.

The name change to “real time search” seems a way to refocus attention toward the issue of time as an important element of filters. We are still presented with the same set of problems we’ve had at least the past ten years. None of the companies that Erick Schonfeld pointed to the other day seem to be doing anything differently from the live web search / discovery companies that came before. The new ones all seem to be fumbling around at the beginning of the problem, and in fact seem to be doing “recent search,” not really real time search. While I’m sure they’ve worked really hard on their systems, they are no closer than the older live web search systems got with the problem. All the new ones give a reverse chron view, with most mixing Twitter with something: blog data, other microblog data, photos, creating some kind of top list of recent trends. Some have context, like a count of activity over a period of time, or how long a trend has gone on or a histogram (Crowdeye) which both Technorati and Sphere experimented with in the early years. Or they show how many links there are to something or the number of tweets. All seem susceptible to spam and other activities degrading to the user experience and none seem to really provide the context and quality filters that one would like to see if this were to really work. All seem to suffer from needing to learn the lessons we already learned in blog search and topic discovery.

Publicly available publishing systems starting in 1999 took the value of time and incorporated it into what was being published (think Pyra which is now Blogger, Moveable Type, Wordpress and Flickr, among the many) as well as search and discovery systems for those published bits like Technorati, Sphere, Rojo, Blogpulse, Feedster, Pubsub and others, to walk down memory lane . . . (btw, for disclosure purposes I should state that I worked for Technorati in 2004 for 10 months, and consulted or advised most all the others in one form or another).

I started working on this problem in 1999, at UC Berkeley, and eventually did my master’s thesis on live web data search and topic discovery at SIMS (or the iSchool as it’s now known). From 2000 to 2004, people at SIMS would say to me, “What are you doing with blogs and data, it’s just weird. Why does it matter?” But the element of time was the captivating piece that was missing for me from regular search. It’s the element that makes something news, as well as the element that can group items together in a short period to show a focus of attention and activity that often legacy news outlets miss (until more recently when they decided that live web activity was interesting).

June 1, 2009

I like Bing

Filed under: Internet — Tags: — Raja @ 8:23 am

I checked out bing, the newly rebranded search service from microsoft, on a few searches today. I like what I see. The user experience was very clean and I see lot less spam and junk results when compared to google. I also like their thumbnail previews of the web pages and videos (is it legal fair use?). So may be there is still hope for microsoft in search market after all. Apparently I am not alone in having a positive experiene with bing.

Granted my initial reaction is based only a few searches, but my first impressions are surprisingly positive.

May 28, 2009

Microsoft rebrands its search as Bing

Filed under: Internet — Tags: — Raja @ 9:02 am

Techcrunch reports:

Today, Microsoft publicly unveiled its soon-to-launch search engine Bing. It will become available over the next few days, and be fully launched by June 3. On the surface, Bing has a distinct gloss. The home page features a rotation of stunning photography, for instance, which can be clicked on to produce related image search results. But the most significant changes are under the covers. “We have taken the algorithmic programming up an order of magnitude,” says Microsoft senior vice president Yusuf Mehdi. Each search result page is customized according to what type of search you do (health, travel, shopping, news, sports). The algorithms determine not only the order of results on the page, but the layout of the page itself, concluding what sections appear. These sections can include anything from guided refinements and a list of related searches in the left-hand pane to images, videos, and local results.

I’ve been playing around with a preview version of Bing for about a week. It is designed to be “more of a decision engine,” says Mehdi. Bing helps people make decisions through guided search and a focus on task completion. In a time when a new Website is created every 4.5 seconds, information overload is becoming a real problem. ” People are getting hundreds of thousands of links but not getting what they want,” says Mehdi. Bing tries to alleviate problem by offering up different experiences depending on the search. It also acts more like a destination site for certain searches. Travel and product searches bring in comparison pricing, reviews, images, and more. Hulu videos can be played within the video search results. Bing pulls in data from other Web services when it can so that you often don’t have to leave to get the information you want.

The internal codename for Bing is Kumo (which is what you see in the screenshots), and the current release is called Kiev. Rather than a spare, blank screen, Bing’s homepage surrounds the search box with a single beautiful image, such as the one of the tribesmen above or a kinkajou. You can hover over parts of the image to get factoids about the image or click through to an image search result page to explore more. The left-hand pane offers the option to narrow your search on images, videos, shopping, news, maps, or travel. Each of these has a different look and feel. A travel search will turn up a page based on Microsoft’s Farecast technology asking you where you want to go, with flights, hotels, and destination information. A news search offers up headlines, photos, videos, and local news in a column on the right. A shopping search will bring up products and is tied into Microsoft’s Cashback program.

Every search also generates a guide on the left to help you refine your search. A search for “kinkajou,” for example, lets you refine by images, facts, sale, breeders, care, diseases, and videos. A search for “Samsung LCD TVs” brings up an entirely different set of guided results: shopping, review, manual, repair, buy, stand, images, and videos. If you search for images of “butterflies,” it lets you sift to show just Monarch, Swallowtail, Viceroy, Owl, and other types of butterflies. All of this categorization and concept-matching is Microsoft’s early attempt to bring in some basic semantic search technologies into a mainstream search engine. Each guided option is dynamically generated, just like the different sections of the search results page. “Google, tried to preempt this,” says Mehdi, referring to Google’s new search refinement options it launched last week, which is also in the left pane. Those Google options, which include the ability to search across different time periods or for related keywords, are “completely static,” criticizes Mehdi. “There is nothing new about it. It is a very minor rev, not as sophisticated as what we are doing. For us ever query is special.”

Bing also takes advantage of Microsoft’s acquisition of Powerset to provide better previews and snippets of text when you hover over a result. Also, whenever a search brings up a “reference” tab in the guided exploration pane, clicking on that will bring up an enhanced Wikipedia article with semantic tags.

Onstage at the D7 conference, Steve Ballmer acknowledges: “There is no way to change the whole game in one step.” But search “deserves a good feature war.” And Bing will be rolling out new features as it goes forward. But is it enough to get people to switch? Bing is certainly not a game-changer, but it does cut out a lot of the back and forth that happens with so many searches today. If Bing can help people find what they are looking for faster, it will put pressure on Google to keep advancing the ball as well.

May 25, 2009

Mobile search: google vs iphone apps

Filed under: Mobile, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 11:15 am

Jason Hiner observes that mobile search on smart phones is very different from web search. Google faces a threat in mobile searc from iphone apps that offer specialized search.

When I’m sitting at a computer, I typically use Google at least 2-3 times per hour. It’s usually the first place I go to get information. Google is not as much of a sleuth as it is a concierge. For example, when I’m pulling up a site, I often don’t use a bookmark or type the URL into the address bar. It’s just quicker to open my home page (Google) and type in the company name. This behavior is a bit lazy, but it’s effective because it’s the path of least resistance.

However, the opposite is true on smartphones — especially the iPhone with so many specialized apps and no qwerty keyboard. In my tests with the iPhone, I discovered that Google is usually my last resort for finding information. In fact, I typically only use Google search 2-3 times per day from the iPhone.

Typing is just not as fast on a smartphone (even with the full qwerty keyboard on BlackBerry). Pointing, scrolling, and selecting are all much easier and quicker. As a result, many of the things that I would usually do with a Google search from my computer, I do through an app on the iPhone. For example:

  • Instead of looking up a business address on Google, I use the universal White Pages app on the iPhone
  • Instead of looking up a local business category (e.g. “Computer recycling”) in Google, I use the Yellow Pages app, which will even automatically calculate my location via GPS, if I allow it
  • Instead of looking up a local taxi company when I’m traveling, I can use the Taxi Magic app on the iPhone (again, it will automatically get my location from GPS if I allow it)
  • Instead of looking up local restaurants in Google, I can use the Yelp iPhone app
  • Instead of searching for the professional credentials of a business associate on Google and being unsure if the results will have pages that might not work well on a smartphone, I can use the Linkedin or Facebook iPhone apps to do a quick people search.
  • Instead of using news aggregators like Google News and Techmeme - which I tend to use on my PC - on the iPhone I usually go straight to news sites with strong iPhone apps or pages, such as AP News, Reuters, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and MoneyWatch (a CBS sister site to TechRepublic).

The last example points to one of the reasons why mobile apps trump mobile search. With mobile search you don’t always know whether the stuff you click on in the search results will be viewable or functional on your smartphone. But if you have a mobile app or site that’s designed for that smartphone then you can be relatively confident that a search using that app will quickly return results (and links) that are optimized for a smartphone.

There’s also another factor. The limited screen size and computing capacity of smartphones force developers to make their apps laser-focused on a specific task. This automatically guards against feature-creep and makes most apps simpler and faster to use. As a matter of fact, there are some sites and services where I prefer their iPhone apps or pages to their Web sites because the smartphone version is much more focused, easier to navigate, and faster.

As I’ve been conducting my iPhone apps experiment I’ve also noticed that I’m starting to reach for the smartphone instead of the laptop more often, even when I’m in fixed locations such as conference rooms or even at home. The instant-on access, portability, and growing library of quality iPhone apps are all factors driving this behavior.

No matter how you look at it, these trends add up to bad news for Google in mobile search because it translates into fewer people needing its search engine. And the mobile trends are accelerating. According to comScore, U.S. users who access the mobile Web from a smartphone on a daily basis jumped from 10.8 million in January 2008 to 22.4 million in January 2009. 

April 23, 2009

Yahoo shouldn’t sell its search business

Filed under: Business, Internet — Tags: — Raja @ 8:49 am

Search is still in its infancy. Search experience still leaves a lot to be desired. There needs to be lot more innovation in the field. That is the reason why I don’t want to see Yahoo search being sold. Even as a business, search is one nice pillar on which to build the foundation. I never thought Yahoo should sell its search business. Of course they need to innovate and execute better. But they should not give up on it.

Fortune has a nice article on why Yahoo should not sell its search business.

carol_bartz__new.03.jpg
Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz

SAN JOSE, Calif. (Fortune) — During Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz’s conference call Tuesday to discuss the company’s quarterly results, there was much to discuss:

Sales fell 13% and profits sank 78% as advertisers cut back on online spending. And the company confirmed reports of layoffs, saying it would shed about 675 jobs.

Yet analysts seemed to care about only one thing: Yahoo’s search business.

The worst-kept secret in the tech world is that Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) and Microsoft have been talking again about a potential deal. So everyone wanted to know if Bartz would sell search.

But that was the wrong question. A better one: Why would she?

Yes, Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) covets Yahoo’s search business as its best hope for taking on Google (GOOG, Fortune 500). Yahoo has a 20% market share in search, which would give a big lift to Microsoft’s 8% share. Google’s commands 60% of the market.

Less clear is what Yahoo would get from a deal. Microsoft could offer to let Yahoo sell prime display ad space on its MSN properties perhaps, but that would leave Yahoo’s ad sales group in the awkward position of selling MSN inventory in competition with space on Yahoo properties.

And it’s not as though Yahoo is desperate for cash. It has nearly $4 billion in the bank, and its stock price has been holding up just fine - its shares are up 12% this year.

Meanwhile search isn’t just some non-core business that Bartz can toss off.

When Internet users plug a term into a search engine, they’re providing clues about what they want, and what advertisers might be able to sell them. That’s valuable data for the Yahoo engineers who are trying to improve their system for showing the right display ad to the right person at the right time -­ a minivan ad to an expectant mom, perhaps.

Then there’s the matter of measurement. Ad buyers haven’t been shy about telling Bartz that they want a clearer way to prove to their clients that ads on Yahoo lead to a measurable result - a test drive, say, or a purchase. If Yahoo can show that someone who sees a flashy display ad for a minivan later searches for one, that’s a step in the right direction.

But none of that can happen if Yahoo surrenders the search business - and that’s something Bartz doesn’t seem inclined to do. While I was working on a profile of Bartz for the current issue of Fortune, that was a theme that repeatedly surfaced. Ad industry executives who have met with Bartz said she told them that Yahoo’s 20% search share in search is plenty to work with, and that she’s not going to do any deal that threatens Yahoo’s access to search data.

April 4, 2009

Google big on voice search

Filed under: Internet, Mobile, Technology, Trends — Tags: , , — Raja @ 3:40 pm

Google sees voice search as a core part of their business.

Google has said it sees voice search as a major opportunity for the company in building a presence on the mobile web.

The company’s vice president of engineering made the comments during a wide-ranging discussion at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.

“We believe voice search is a new form of search and that it is core to our business,” said Vic Gundotra.

SearchEngineLand editor Greg Sterling agreed: “If done right, it could be a valuable strategic feature for Google.”

April 3, 2009

Search advertising slowing?

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , , — Raja @ 8:17 am

Search advertising, google’s cash cow and the most effective form of online advdertising, may be slowing down says BW.

Search advertising is finally feeling the full impact of the weak economy, according to a new report out this morning from online marketing analytics firm Covario. In fact, search spending fell from quarter to quarter for probably the first time ever, by 1.4% in the first quarter.

The report isn’t comprehensive—it’s based on Covario’s largely tech and consumer electronics customers—so it may not be typical of overall spending on search ads. But with those clients spending $250 million a year on search ads, it’s also worth mentioning.

Although search ads seemed to hold up decently in the fourth quarter thanks to holiday budgets getting set before all hell broke loose last September, there was no such luck in the first quarter. Virtually all the decline came in Europe and Middle Eastern and African countries, which were down 16% from the fourth quarter. U.S. spending was actually up a little under 1% and Asia-Pacific rose 7%.

What’s more, search ad prices—known as cost per click—continued to fall, to their lowest level in two years—a result of falling demand as marketers cut back on all ad spending. “The pullback is starting to happen,” says Craig Macdonald, Covario’s chief marketing officer. “We expect this erosion in spending to continue the rest of the year.”

Google, which had reported surprisingly good fourth-quarter results, came in for the worst of it—oddly enough, mostly because of its dominant position. For one, it commands around 95% of search spending overseas, so all of that decline landed on Google.

Also, marketers simply saturated their spending on Google, as they started to see lower returns on their search spend: Click-through rates, or the rate at which people clicked on search ads, fell to 0.7% in the first quarter, way down from 1.8% in the fourth quarter. That trend sent them to Yahoo and Microsoft to find more clicks. Yahoo’s click-through rate rose to 1.7% from a little under 1%, and Microsoft’s rose a bit, to 2.3%.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress