Search Sense

I was using Facebook this morning to look at the new Facebook chat function and I started to think about data capture and the position of power that Facebook has attained. There is an underlying commercial exchange that occurs when we opt in as nodes in a network such as Facebook - in exchange for our position as a node we hand over personal data that can then be traded as a commodity by Facebook (Beacon).

I dont know if I like that, so I started to look for the ‘answer’. I came across an excellent post by Christoper Carfi on his blog The Social Customer Manifesto. He quoted his friend who had come out with a rather nice statement:

“Networks don’t have people. People have networks” - Demian Entrekin

These 7 words encapsulate how Carfi feels that the industry will evolve.

I think this is shaped and ratified by the concepts of web 3.0 and VRM. When I say Web3.0 I refer to the description put forward by Dave McClure as “the condition which exists when someone is always ‘logged in’ on the web, and can move from site to site without ever having to re-enter a username/password.”

This is a big step from web2.0 and is the most succinct description I have read to date.

If this is combined with VRM (Vendor Relationship Managment) where individuals choose what data they allow social networks to ingest then this may well result in a power shift. Instead of individuals having to enter relationships defined and controlled (sometimes from both sides) within each network controller’s silo, we can now become the point of integration. We reclaim personally controlled approaches to relationships, including the all important privacy variables. Sounds odd but is very simple when articulated by Carfi:

“Having my information (social network connections, preferences, purchase history, etc.) stored in someone else’s silo makes no sense. Having my information stored in (literally) dozens of silos makes even less sense. (Yes, dozens. Think about it. Your information is in Facebook, and LinkedIn, and innumerable CRM systems like Salesforce — one for each vendor you deal with — and in Visa’s systems, and in…you get the point.) The right point of integration is around the individual. Each of us is at the centre of our own universe!”

Here is a slick visualisation:

At the centre of our social universe (yes I am aware the image above is technically a solar system) we reposition ourselves as the gatekeepers of our data. We begin to reduce the power disparity and minimise the in your face commericialism that threatens to taint social media (until the next evil marketing scam….).

In theory this great, but it does come with some big buts (which I like):

- we can always just not use a site if we dont like its terms

- for this to work then social sites need to develop more efficient ways to monetize their offerings (if they dont have data collaterol and display isnt bringing in the bucks) - are the days of philanthropic networking sites behind us?

- does anyone care that people sell data other than when their mates find out what xmas gift they plan to buy them?

Amazon’s web services are an intriguing hotbed of innovation. As an example take Mechanical Turk a “crowdsourcing marketplace that enables computer programs to co-ordinate the use of human intelligence to perform tasks” [Source: Wikipedia].

In essence small repetitive tasks that computers either do badly, slowly or not at all, are available for people to complete in exchange for a small financial reward. The service is setup so that programmers can incorporate people-power seamlessly into existing code. Some examples include:

• · Analysing human perceptions of colour
• · Determining the relevancy between web pages and keywords
• · Paraphrasing and rewriting product descriptions
• · Collecting 12,000 drawings of sheep facing left for your thesis
  

Don’t give up the day job just yet though, rewards for completing a Human Intelligence Task (HIT) range from $0.02 for 5 minute tasks to $75.00 for an 8 hour brain-marathon.

Why do people complete the tasks if the rewards are minimal? You’re familiar perhaps with Dr Kawashima’s recent Brain Training success – it’s made Mr Nintendo a lot of money. Where there once were crosswords and then Sudoku now there are HITs. Be it for momentary diversion, light entertainment or simple self-satisfaction, the fact is that people are actively contributing to Amazon’s hive-mind starter-kit.

It interests me because Efficient Frontier have completed tens of thousands of repetitive SEM-related tasks (eg assessing keyword relevancy) using the service, and SkyPromote apparently have a staff of 120 ‘virtual workers’. I welcome such intelligent competition and all-out innovation in our industry, but above all I’m happy to see humanity realise that for some tasks silicon still just can’t compete with a good old human brain.

Related Links:

Katharine Mieszkowski’s article posted on Life (not) as We Know It

Dolores blog – a blog all about MTurk experiments

[Photo via bistrosavage on Flickr]

Here’s a top tip when you’re posting pictures in HTML - expect many of you know it already. Sometimes, if the original image is too big, it won’t fit properly on the screen. With the iCrossing internal blog, for example, it ends up overlapping the middle column.

If this happens, you don’t need to manually resize the picture itself - particularly handy if you’re linking to one hosted elsewhere. If you use the visual editor on Wordpress or a similar platform, you can simply drag a corner of the image outline to resize it.

If you use an HTML editor, check the line of code that embeds the image, which might normally look something like “img src=’path to image goes here/image.jpg’”. It may also specify “height=’number in pixels’” and/or “width=’number in pixels’”. Take out the height bit altogether, and change the width bit to “width=’100%’”.

This should scale the picture to the full width of your post, keeping the height in the correct proportion. Obviously, choosing a lower percentage will make the picture smaller still.

As mentioned in Joe’s previous blog post, Google last week announced changes to its pay-per-click trademark policy which for the first time will allow any company to buy keywords associated with a rival’s brand name.

We’ve had a great deal of interest from our clients and industry journalists, who are keen to understand the implications and effect of Google’s plans to allow any company to bid on competitor brand names.

So we asked Paul Doleman, our CTO and Head of Paid Search, to give his advice and opinion on:

• What has happened and why
• Google’s motivation behind the policy change
• How it might affect the market and businesses
• The likely impact to brand owners

Find out what Paul has to say…(advise using your headphones)

The policy comes into effect in May, ahead of which the debate will no doubt continue. For example, Travolution discussed the impact to travel brands in an article posted yesterday.

Google have just announced changes to their trademark policy in UK & Ireland that will bring it in line with US & Canada. This basically means that from 5th May, Google will no longer stop advertisers bidding on the registered trademarks of their competitors. All keywords suspended in your account due to trademark violation will be activated on that day. Any trademark complaints received by today will be processed in the usual way but any received after today will only be processed for ad copy and not keywords. As far as I am aware, Google will still stop people using your trademarks in Ads, provided you have registered the trademark properly. The official Google blurb can be found here

http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=92877&hl=en_US

Personally, I think this has been on the cards for a long time and have sensed a big shift in Adwords account managers attitude towards trademarks throughout last year. Although this change it makes the job of the Paid Search agency harder, I think it’s fair enough and I am quite pleased that Google are recognising that it’s not necessarily their job to enforce trademark policy. In the travel sector, I think this could work to an advertiser’s advantage quite well, as there are many hotel chains with high search volume featured travel operators’ sites that one simply couldn’t bid on before. In finance, I think it will be less advantageous, as cheap, good-converting brand traffic will suddenly be open to competition by aggregators who will push bid prices up. In retail, I think both scenarios will be relevant, as retailers tend to promote their own brand as well as sell other high-profile brands. However, a lot of retailers will already have had permission to bid on their best selling products’ brand terms so it may lean towards the less advantageous end.