MediaWatch: More About Embargoes...

By Tom Foremski - November 2, 2009

Last Thursday I was on a panel discussing embargoes. (There will eventually be video of the event.) The moderator was Sam Whitmore, and I was sitting next to Dylan Tweeney from Wired, on my right was Damon Darlin from the New York Times, and Mark Glaser from MediaShift on my far right.

Unfortunately Mike Arrington from TechCrunch couldn't make it, which is a shame because plenty of PR people have told me TechCrunch regularly breaks embargoes and it would have been good to have heard his side of the story.

Dave Needle from InternetNews.com wrote a very good reound-up of what was said: This tech news is not embargoed - InternetNews:The Blog - David Needle

Here is an extract:

While Tweney continues to selectively agree to embargoes (as does InternetNews.com), he said he recently "punished" a PR firm by refusing to communicate with them for six weeks after a competitor was allowed to publish an embargoed story ahead of everyone else. He said the PR firm's excuse was that the vendor, a handset manufacturer, had leaked the news to a blog directly without the PR firm knowing.

The New York Times Darlin said embargoes are generally used as a tool by PR firms to co-opt the media. That said, Darlin said the Times often accept embargoes because they ensure reporters don't miss a story and they have more time to do a thorough job.

That thoroughness is limited. Once you've agreed to an embargo, you can't share that news ahead of time with the analysts and competitors you might otherwise call for comment. Vendors will sometimes provide a list of analysts that have been pre-briefed on their news.

While many took shots at the embargo process and the games PR folk sometimes play, Chris Preimesberger, an editor at eWeek, said embargoes help him get his job done.

"They give me the background information and the time to do the piece right," said Preimesberger, during a follow up Q&A session. He estimates 75 to 80 percent of the stories eWeek does are facilitated by the embargo process, the rest are breaking news.

"I have no problem with the process and don't feel like I'm being manipulated," said Preimesberger.

My proposal that holding a press conference, real or virtual, so that everyone gets the news at the same time seemed to have a fair amount of support as an alternative to embargoes. But overall, I didn't think that we made much progress in creating any new rules around embargoes.

However, I was surprised that there is such a lot of interest in this subject. Embargoes have been around since year dot and we all have our way of working with them, selectively of course. They are not going away, that's certain.

But I think it could and should lead to media outlets rethinking their editorial policy. Do we have to be first with with news? If a dozen other publications also have the news what is our value-add?

There is more to be gained from developing an unique editorial stance than there is from pressing the publish button a few minutes earlier than anyone else..

The panel discussion sparked a few blog posts. Mike Yamamoto, the founding editor of CNET's News.com wrote an interesting post. The absurdity of embargoes

What was especially interesting was his stories about the use of embargoes when he worked in the Washington D.C. bureau of the Los Angeles Times. Government agencies routinely placed embargo notices on their news releases. It's a practice that companies and PR firms have attempted to use too.

For some reason, many companies and government agencies seem to think that simply receiving so-called embargoed material automatically means you have agreed to it--even if you never knew the information existed, let alone had consented to any restrictions, before it landed in your inbox or mailroom unsolicited.

It would be the equivalent of my mass-emailing a contract to sell my house for $10 million, then holding its recipients to the provisions of the "agreement." When they rightly tell me to go pound salt, I would cry foul and claim that they broke the rules.

Mr Yamamoto rightly points out:

Because News.com did not agree to embargoes, therefore, their restrictions did not apply to us. It's impossible to "break" a contract you never agreed to.

Lastly, I feel it is up to the PR industry to police this issue. If they are working with a journalist or organization that routinely breaks their word, then they should not disclose embargoed information the next time.

November 2, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

MediaWatch: Mashable Is On A Tear - Continues To Widen Its Lead Over TechCrunch And Others

By Tom Foremski - October 30, 2009

Compete.com provides a rough guide to the traffic of various sites, it's usually on the low side because of the way it collects its metrics but it does provide a good indication of trends.

Over the past year Mashable has been doing very well especially compared to the tech news sector leader TechCrunch.

A year ago TechCrunch had 660,000 more monthly visitors than Mashable (1.63m versus 0.96m). The most recent figures for 09/2009 show Mashable has grown 171% and overtook TechCrunch in May.

Mashable now has 43% more monthly visitors (2.62m versus 1.83m). According to Compete, TechCrunch traffic has been declining since June, and is down by about 10%.

TechCrunch is likely making more money than Mashable, at least for now. Mashable is using the Federated Media (FM) ad network. FM takes a large cut from advertising revenues plus it is selling ads based on prior lower Mashable traffic counts.

TechCrunch dropped FM about six months ago and thus can collect a higher ad revenue. (BTW GigaOm also dropped FM and now uses IDG ad network.)

Here is a graph of Techcrunch and Mashable's performance over the past year plus a look at ReadWriteWeb, VentureBeat, and GigaOm.

October 30, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

Are There New Rules For Embargoes?

By Tom Foremski - October 29, 2009

This evening I'm on a panel moderated by Sam Whitmore and organized by Waggener Edstrom:

The topic is:

"Love them or hate them, embargoes are a familiar and much-discussed element of the rules of engagement with media and influentials. Clearly the old rules are not working. Is 2010 the time to re-write that rulebook?"

I'll be discussing this with Damon Darlin, New York Times, Dylan Tweney, WIRED, and Sam Whitmore from Media Survey. Mike Arrington from TechCrunch was going to join us but dropped out.

Mike Arrington has gotten a reputation for breaking embargoes and I know plenty of PR people that won't work with TechCrunch because it harms their relationships with other journalists who do agree to hold the embargo. So it's a shame that we won't be hearing Mr Arrington's side of the story.

I'm not sure that there are any new rules regarding embargoes. This has always been a problematic area. In the past, if one person broke the embargo then everyone else could go ahead and publish the story.

In the old days it wasn't easy to spot if someone had broken the embargo, these days it is much easier to see.

However, the point of embargoes has always been to give every media outlet a fair crack at the story, it enables a level playing field. It also helps to ensure wider media coverage, which most companies prefer over one large media outlet covering a story.

The problem with broken embargoes is that some publications won't run the story because they don't want to be seen as being late with the story. This means a small publication can ruin an entire media launch if they break the embargo.

The situation is made more challenging because some large media companies have had a policy of not accepting embargoes and demanding exclusive access to key stories. For example, the Wall Street Journal doesn't accept embargoes.

One solution is to hold a press conference. When I worked as a journalist in London I went to a lot of press conferences. Everyone gets the information at the same time, company executives are on hand to answer questions, analysts are also present to provide comments.

For some reason press conferences are very rare here. These days you could easily stage a virtual press conference and that might be a solution to the problem of broken embargoes.

However, announcing a press conference signals that there is news coming. And it's always possible to track down someone that might know what will be announced and thus publish the news ahead of the conference.

Another way is just to announce the news without warning hoping that everyone that needs to see it gets to see it. Those that are eagle-eyed get to be first with the news. But this is unlikely to lead to widespread media coverage -- a key goal for PR firms.

I'm looking forward to hearing other people's ideas on this subject. And please send me your thoughts on this topic. The panel will be recorded and I will post it once it is ready. And maybe I'll see you tonight...

October 29, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

Happy Birthday Dear Internet . . . The Internet Devalues Everything It Touches

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

Forty years ago today, October 29, 1969 marks the birth of the Internet.

The first command typed in was "lo" which crashed the entire Internet - all two machines. Internet Reaches 40th Birthday Milestone

Undergraduate Charley Kline was given the simple job of logging on remotely from UCLA to the SRI machine; his one command was "login".
The first attempt, however, proved too much for the "interface message processor" or IMP for short - the system crashed as young Charley reached the letter "g".

... 12 years on, only 213 computers being linked up to the network.

The Guardian is collecting stories for its "A people's history of the internet."

To mark the 40th anniversary of the first stirrings of the internet we asked you to tell us your experiences of life online. Hundreds of you responded, and here we present an interactive documentary of your stories and videos, alongside our own research and interviews with key figures (About this project)

Foremski's Take: The Internet is the most significant collection of communications technologies ever created. It enables huge numbers of new types of businesses and services, many of them replacing pre-Internet businesses.

Anything, any service, business, that can be digitized is open to disruption because of the Internet. The Internet devalues everything it touches.

I define "devalues" in a monetary sense, dollars and cents because clearly it creates tremendous amounts of value. But that value often cannot be quantified or measured, or recovered, in a financial sense. For example, look at the transition to online journalism -- it creates tremendous amounts of value because huge numbers of people read online journalism but we don't have (yet?) a good way to recover the value of that work in dollars.

Journalism is not the only sector being disrupted in this way because of the Internet.

The challenge for Internet based businesses is to figure out how they can transform the value that they create into dollars and cents and then hang onto it.

The challenge is that competitors can continually undercut each other because the costs of providing Internet based services are relatively low and it is difficult to lock up customers. Switching costs are very small for customers.

It helps if you are government regulated. The Telcos, for example are able to make use of VOIP and other advances in communications technologies to reduce their costs of doing business yet they are still able to raise the price of their services. Being a government regulated industry helps them keep competition away.

But if you are in the music industry, movie industry, journalism, software services, cloud computing, if you are a software engineer, if you are a web designer, if you design logos -- if you do any kind of digital work you are exposed to a huge amount of competition, you are exposed to the lowest cost provider in your sector -- thanks to the Internet.

It's interesting that countries spend billions of dollars to protect their living standards by limiting immigration because they know that low-cost labor hurts the living standards of their citizens. Yet there are no controls on exporting jobs via the Internet.

That will change or at least there will be efforts made to change this and other aspects of Internet use, because of the disruptive effects that it enables.

I believe the Internet will eventually enable a new golden age but getting there will be very messy.

These are interesting times. Happy birthday Internet.

---
Please see:

A Saturday Post: The Internet Devalues Everything It Touches, Anything That Can Be Digitized - SiliconValleyWatcher

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Our Local Schools Should Be Showcases Not Basket Cases - GOOG Ups Its Schools Focus

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

The promise of distance learning through the Internet has yet to be realized and I'm puzzled why this is the case since it should be possible to collaborate on creating a great online curriculum. Once it is created it can be easily accessed by anyone.

Why don't we use the social networking and collaborative tools we already have to put together an open-sourced curriculum consisting of text, images, videos, lectures, online volunteers acting as tutors, etc. We have all the technology we need to do all of this today.

I've always been amazed that San Francisco/Silicon Valley region public schools are so bad. We are inventing the future here, yet we can't use our ingenuity, our technologies to improve our local schools? Our public schools should be showcases, not basket cases, we should be ashamed to allow this to happen.

So it's good to see Google becoming more interested in schools because there is a lot it could do to help, especially in terms of projects like its Google Books. Maybe it could help to provide text books. It's incredible how expensive textbooks are.

For the past two days Google has hosted a conference on its campus: Breakthrough Learning in a Digital Age. The goal was to "create and act upon a breakthrough strategy for scaling up effective models of teaching and learning for children." It's not clear what breakthrough strategy has emerged but at least it's a start,

Dan Fost writing at Los Angeles Times has a report on the conference:

[Sergey Brin] advocated putting all textbooks on computers, to make for easier access, and for putting high school students to work -- writing Wikipedia articles, and teaching technology to senior citizens and middle school students. In teaching, they will learn.

...he did see a downside.

"When I was growing up, I always knew I'd be in the top of my class in math, and that gave me a lot of self-confidence," he said. But now that students can see beyond their own school or hometown, they see that "there are always going to be a million people better than you at times, or someone will always be far better than you. I feel there's an existential angst among young people. I didn't have that. They see enormous mountains, where I only saw one little hill to climb."

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Preparing For Spotify - Google Partners To Launch Music Service - Denies Competing With iTunes

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

Google launched it's much anticipated music service today, partnering with Lala, Pandora, Rhapsody, imeem and MySpace, to provide music streaming services on Google search pages.

Searchers will be able to hear songs for free for the first play but must pay a fee for subsequent plays. LaLa charges ten cents per song for a lifetime streaming license.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Google itself isn't paying record companies for the rights to play millions of songs on its search page; its partners are. Those include Lala, Pandora,imeem, MySpace Music and Rhapsody, a subscription service from Real Networks. All have licensing agreements with record labels to stream or sample millions of songs online.

..."We're not in the music business per se," said R.J. Pittman, Google's director of product for the music search project. "We don't license the music nor sell the music directly on Google. We are merely a music search feature."

Experian Hitwise, which tracks Internet traffic, says that music is a popular search term. Hitwise analyst Heather Dougherty writes:

- Out of the top 1000 search terms that took place on Google last week, 6% were music-related (includes bands, music services and content).
- Last week, Google sent 1.48% of their total visits to the Music category and of those visits, 95% of the downstream traffic to Music websites were returning visitors (that had visited Google in the past 30 days).
- Google was the top referral website to the Music category accounting for nearly 30% of the total traffic to the category last week, 5x more than 2nd ranked Yahoo! Search and 6.3x more than MySpace.
- Last week, 15% of the clicks from the search term portfolio of Music that includes the names of over 900 band & artist names resulted in a visit to a Google property, especially YouTube.

US music sites are bracing for the US introduction of Spotify, a very popular European based streaming music service. Spotify could launch before Christmas.

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

MediaWatch: An Example Of Data Journalism

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

For several years I've been writing about the need for "media engineers" part software engineer and part journalist. And others have also started to write about teaching journalism to programmers.

MediaShift . Can Programmers, Journalists Get Along in One Newsroom? | PBS

There is a lot of journalism that can be done by mining data in public databases. Some newspapers now have interactive maps, for example, Oakland Tribune has an interactive map of homicides.

A much better example of data journalism is EveryBlock, which provides a news feed for neighborhoods in all large US cities. Type in your zip code and EveryBlock will email a newsfeed that contains police reports, restaurant openings and reviews, building permits, coverage in the media, and other local data culled from public databases and other sources.

EveryBlock is run by Adrian Holovaty, based in Chicago. It was recently acquired by MSNBC.

EveryBlock was started by a grant from the Knight Foundation and part of its condition was that the EveryBlock publishing software be released under an open source license. It's available to anyone, anyone can replicate what EveryBlock has done.

Adrian Holovalty is a true media engineer, he is also one of the driving forces behind the Django project, an open-source framework for quickly developing web applications for newsroom projects.

Data journalism has had its fair share of critics. But I think it has a bright future as long it it is wrapped within the right context. The temptation is to just publish the raw data without much else and allow the readers to make sense of it depending on how the data affects them.

Data journalism combined with a fair amount of human journalism could be a potent mix, providing context to the content. It'll be interesting to see how newsrooms combine the two.

But most newsrooms lack the software engineering skills to use Django and similar technologies. And with newsroom cuts and the pressure on media business models continuing unabated, we may be running out of time to experiment with data journalism.

That would be a shame because today's media technologies make it possible to create many novel types of media formats. There's a tremendous amount of innovation that can be done with media formats. I've got a few ideas myself that I'd love to try out but unfortunately I, too, lack the resources.

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

HP Facing First Ever Strike

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

The Register reports that 150 customer engineers in the UK are voting on taking strike action because of changes in their employment contracts.

They belong to Unite, the largest trade union in the UK.

A statement from Unite:

This is the first time HP employees in the UK have been asked to vote on industrial action and follows an overwhelming vote for industrial action amongst the workers in a consultative ballot carried out earlier this month.

Peter Skyte, Unite national officer, said: "Our members face cuts to their pay and pensions and have no choice other than to begin an industrial action ballot. This is the latest in a series of attacks by the company on our members' pay and conditions, while senior executives and shareholders do very well indeed."

The results of the ballot are expected in mid-November.

Please see:

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

CPJ Announces Funding From Hedge Fund Manager Peter Thiel

By Tom Foremski - October 28, 2009

The Committee for Protection of Journalists last night announced funding from Peter Thiel, head of hedge fund Clarium, for the defense of online freedom of the press.

The amount was not revealed but described as a "substantial check."

Peter Thiel told SVW, "Technology can have positive and negative aspects. I want to help the CPJ defend the rights of online journalists."

The CPJ says that 33 journalists have been killed this year, and 760 killed since 1992, of which 482 were murdered. Increasingly, it is online journalists that are being targeted.

Some details about CPJ:

How did CPJ get started?
A group of U.S. foreign correspondents created CPJ in response to the often brutal treatment of their foreign colleagues by authoritarian governments and other enemies of independent journalism.

CPJ has a full-time staff of 23 at its New York headquarters, including area specialists for each major world region. CPJ has a Washington, D.C. representative, and consultants stationed around the world. A 35-member board of prominent journalists directs CPJ's activities.

CPJ is funded solely by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations. CPJ does not accept government funding.

Without a free press, few other human rights are attainable. A strong press freedom environment encourages the growth of a robust civil society, which leads to stable, sustainable democracies and healthy social, political, and economic development. CPJ works in more than 120 countries, many of which suffer under repressive regimes, debilitating civil war, or other problems that harm press freedom and democracy.

By publicly revealing abuses against the press and by acting on behalf of imprisoned and threatened journalists, CPJ effectively warns journalists and news organizations where attacks on press freedom are occurring. CPJ organizes vigorous public protests and works through diplomatic channels to effect change. CPJ publishes articles and news releases; special reports; and Attacks on the Press, the most comprehensive annual survey of press freedom around the world.

October 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

Smart Grid Innovation Competition Announced

By Tom Foremski - October 27, 2009

VentureBeat's upcoming GreenBeat 2009 conference (November 18 to 19) is focused on the Smart Grid. It has launched an "Innovation Competition" to discover the best ideas that "wield significant impact on the power grid's ability to become smarter."

The top nominees -- selected by their carbon reduction potential -- will get a chance to pitch " luminaries such as Nobel Prize winner and former Vice President Al Gore, as well as Venture Capitalist John Doerr and leading executives from companies such as PG&E, Oracle, IBM, Cisco and General Electric."

Matt Marshall, founder of VentureBeat, said: "There's no higher calling for entrepreneurs, in my view, than the one to tackle what could be the greatest challenge of our lifetime."

But nominees will have to act quickly. The deadline is November 4.

More details are here: GreenBeat 2009 Innovation Competition

October 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

AT&T Technologies Showcase Includes "Telesole" Medicated Shoe Insoles

By Tom Foremski - October 27, 2009

I've been invited to AT&T's emerging technologies showcase next week in San Francisco.

AT&T's chief technology officer John Donovan. Glen Lurie, president emerging devices and AT&T Labs researchers will be demonstrating some key new technologies.

Among the gizmos and gadgets will be: "telesole" shoe insoles" for dispensing medication. That's an interesting product. I'm guessing that the AT&T network would trigger a dose of medicine. I hope they solve some of the network connection issues that many iPhone users have complained about--network reliability will be crucial in medical applications.

We have also been promised demos of:

· Social networking apps that use location-based service to create message boards allowing users to leave videos, photos and songs at various locations. These messages "sit in the air" for friends or others visiting that particular location.

· A selection of pre-release devices from AT&T's Emerging Devices Organization.

· The latest research from the IPTV lab in Atlanta. Highlights include modifications of popular applications like Twitter for use in conjunction with U-verse, as well as unique IPTV applications such as FamilyMap, HD TrafficCam and i-Verse.

· New speech recognition applications, including speech-enabled online Q&A, "push to talk" TV remote controller, and multimodal apps that combine speech recognition with touch screen and other controls.

· New wireless phone capabilities that allow handsets to communicate directly with each other without tapping existing wireless infrastructure - designed to help emergency responders send targeted notifications to victims' wireless phones.

October 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

CultureWatch: Should Cafes Become Cheap Office Spaces Or Places For Community Interaction?

By Tom Foremski - October 27, 2009

Most of the cafes in my San Francisco neighborhood have people staring into their laptops, they are like libraries with piped music. Yet for hundreds of years cafes used to be centers of debate and interaction.

Some of the first newspapers grew out of the newsletters associated with cafes.

Today there is little conversation in cafes and when I do chat with friends or business contacts, I feel self-conscious, I feel I'm disturbing the screen focused concentration of other patrons.

It's largely because many cafes are being used as cheap office space. Our modern workforce is rapidly turning into independent "consultants" and contractors performing digital work. But cafes weren't designed for such uses.

If they are to be used as an office space why not have an area set up as a meeting room that could be rented by the hour? Or small booths for meetings? Why not have a fax and a printer available?

These days cafes seem caught in a limbo, they are neither good office spaces or good at fulfilling their traditional neighborhood roles.

But things could be changing. Some cafe owners are discouraging the laptop crowd by turning off the Wi-Fi and blocking power outlets.

Margaret Rosas pointed me to a Santa Cruz cafe whose owner has done just that and caused a local controversy.

Alan Hawrylyshen posted the owner's (Manthri Srinath) reasons for the change:

Our perspective after doing this a quarter-century, is that we operate coffeehouses with a view to creating a space for community to gather. We have only accidentally become a "WiFi cafe", by virtue of the fact that we haven't done anything to dispel the notion that we are. Now that we are doing so, it is understandable that some of our clients are surprised and upset. For this, I apologize.

Internet use results in a disconnect between the user and ones' physical surroundings, similar to watching television. No moral judgement here. I do it too. In a coffeehouse however, this results in rooms full of solitary people with no connection to the space or the people around them and has the unfortunate effect of crowding out any other sort of activity. Which of course is how we come to the misconception that we are a "WiFi cafe".

... we have also come to the realization that the use of our space, "the Commons" if you will, is something of a zero-sum proposition. We can either have rooms full of laptop users or rooms half-full of folks having a cup of coffee with a friend. Not both.

We have chosen to return to our roots as a coffeehouse where folks can come to converse with friends, read books, hold meetings and religious studies, listen to live music and generally have an experience that transcends Explorer or - if you're a bit more savvy - Firefox. We regretfully realize that this means that people who "must" have Internet access will be unable to use our space, at least for now, unless they bring in wireless cards or tethering capability. Of course, on the flip side, it's been nice to see a new clientele who want something different from a coffeehouse.

... I'm sure there are ways for us to solve everyone's connectivity issues, but this really is not our charter. There are many things we could do to make money. Selling umbrellas and offering/charging for WiFi access are two of them. We're in neither business.

We're old-style coffeehouse operators who came to this pass by accident. We were pioneers in offering WiFi when hardly anyone knew what it was, and we will be pioneers in moving beyond it. We're comfortable in that space. It's largely been why we operate the busiest cafes in town.

You can read the full post and discussion here: Geek Friendly Cafe - Santa Cruz Geeks | Google Groups

It's refreshing to see this type of thing. And its good to see a cafe owner bringing back discussion and debate to cafes, although it's ironic that the subject is his cafe. Maybe this will encourage other cafes to follow or even become more specialized.

Some cafes could focus on offering great wifi and office-like facilities. Others would be more traditional. Others more like restaurants and bars.

I can see myself working in one cafe, strolling over to another one for lunch, maybe a late-afternoon meeting with friends at another, then catching an early evening lecture or performance at another cafe.

Each one would be set up for such activities instead of each cafe trying to become a hybrid space that doesn't fully satisfy either type of customer.

Since there are so many cafes these days, creating differentiation would be a prudent survival strategy.

- - -
Please see:

Wallace Baine: Free Wi-Fi and the 'tragedy of the commons" - Santa Cruz Sentinel

October 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: CultureWatch | Subscribe to SVW

GOOG CEO Predicts A Predictable Future Web - Stunning Absence Of Any Real Insights

By Tom Foremski - October 27, 2009

Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb writes about Eric Schmidt's predictions about the future of the Internet, delivered at a Gartner conference.

I'm rarely impressed by Mr Schmidt's predictions or analysis of Internet trends. Even though he is CEO of Google, his position seems to fail to provide him with much insightful to say about the future Internet.

Take a look: Google's Eric Schmidt on What the Web Will Look Like in 5 Years

• - Five years from now the internet will be dominated by Chinese-language content.
• - Today's teenagers are the model of how the web will work in five years - they jump from app to app to app seamlessly.
• - Five years is a factor of ten in Moore's Law, meaning that computers will be capable of far more by that time than they are today.
• - Within five years there will be broadband well above 100MB in performance - and distribution distinctions between TV, radio and the web will go away.
• - ...content will move towards more video.
• - Real Time information is just as valuable as all the other information, we want it included in our search results."
• - There are many companies beyond Twitter and Facebook doing real time.
• - "We can index real-time info now - but how do we rank it?"
• - people will listen more to other people than to traditional sources. Learning how to rank that "is the great challenge of the age." Schmidt believes Google can solve that problem.
• - Real Time information is just as valuable as all the other information, we want it included in our search results."

Chinese language will dominate the web?

So what? It won't dominate in my world or yours.

Teenagers are the model, they move seamlessly from app to app? I move seamlessly from app to app. So do you. I'm fed up with received wisdom about the digital savviness of teenagers. I've got teenagers, and I know their friends. They are as plugged in as you and I. They are better at some things, they are clueless about other things.

There is less of a generational gap than many people without teenagers think. It is an experiential gap. You have to be exposed to the digital world in order to know it.

Five years is a factor of ten in Moore's Law. The math doesn't look right. Computing power doubles roughly every two years. But so what? What are we going to be doing with that extra computing power?

Distribution distinctions between the web, radio and TV will go away. OMG. Is this the best he can do? I haven't had cable TV for a couple of years, I watch TV through my laptop connected to the TV, I listen to radio podcasts over DSL. I'm no different from tens of millions of people who have already noticed that distribution distinctions have gone away.

People will listen more to other people than to traditional sources. They always have listened to other people given the chance, now social networks make it easier to share recommendations. Learning how to rank this information is a problem? There's no problem here, people know how to rank their friends and their social network sources. It's a personal ranking that is far more relevant, far more targeted than any algorithm Google could come up with.

Real time information is just as valuable as all the other information. Another valuable insight from a company whose mission has always been to "index all the world's information."

The quality of Mr Schmidt's predictions are stunningly disappointing especially since he is sitting on top of a company that is privy to massive amounts of web usage data from every part of the world. Not to mention the tens of thousands of engineers working on new projects.

October 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

MediaWatch: Putting Journalists And Programmers In The Same Room

By Tom Foremski - October 26, 2009

Megan Taylor over at PBS' MediaShift writes about the challenges of getting programmers and journalists to work together.

MediaShift . Can Programmers, Journalists Get Along in One Newsroom? | PBS

"there's no reason why a programmer can't do journalism," said Rich Gordon, director of digital innovation at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. "They just need an understanding of the mission and culture of journalism and journalists."

Mr Gordon thinks that in terms of personalities, i.e programmers being introverted and anti-social, they can be similar to journalists.

But even with similar personalities, it's not easy to get programmers to think like journalists, or to get used to the chaotic environment of a newsroom.

Aron Pilhofer, editor of interactive newsroom technologies at the New York Times, has assembled a team of mostly programmers to do journalism.
..."It's not a normal corporate-y type of environment," Pilhofer said. "It's very loosey-goosey, collaborative, hectic, disorganized. It takes time to get used to that environment, and not everyone is comfortable in that environment.

Others say problems arise because of miscommunication.

Matthew Waite, news technologist at the St. Petersburg Times, weighed in on how programmers and journalists communicate, and how that communication can be improved. He said ill-will between journalists and programmers arises from miscommunication.
"I've seen a lot of cases where some piece of code did exactly what the requirements document specified, but it didn't do what anyone wanted," Waite said.

Foremski's Take: I've written on this topic many times and I think it is easier to teach journalists to become programmers. They then become "media engineers" rather than software engineers.

Today's development tools are very powerful and they make building complex software applications easier than ever before.

Every journalist should know some html, CSS, JavaScript, etc. They don't need to be proficient but they should know how all these media technologies work. Some journalists can go much further and I think we will see that happening more because there is a real need. If I were a journalism student I'd be loading up on programming courses because I'd greatly improve my chances of getting a job -- every newsroom needs strong media engineering capabilities.

Teaching a programmer journalism skills is challenging primarily because programmers have already chosen their profession. If they had wanted to be journalists they would have become journalists.

But teaching a journalist programming skills would be a lot easier and far more effective because you have to have a strong understanding of media -- that comes first. That's what a media engineer would provide, media first, engineer second.

And a media architect would be similar to a systems architect, they would design the information/publishing architecture of an organization. And by the way, today every company has to be a media company to a degree, every large company needs media engineers and media architects on staff.

- - -

Please see:

Move Over Software Engineers It's The Era Of Media Engineers

Journalism Schools Wake Up To Need For Media Engineers

October 26, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

MSFT Earnings Report: It Would Take GOOG More Than 3 Years To Catch Up

By Tom Foremski - October 23, 2009

Microsoft is facing many challenges but it is still an incredible cash machine. Revenue for its first fiscal quarter, which included deferred revenues of $1.47 billion was $14.39 billion, a slight decline of 4 per cent compared with the year ago period. Operating income was $4.48 billion.

Many industry pundits like to compare Microsoft with Google. GOOG reported revenues of $5.94 billion and operating income of $2.07 billion in its most recent quarter.

At a rate of revenue growth of seven per cent per quarter, a rather generous growth rate, it would take it more than 3 years to reach Microsoft's current quarterly revenue. There is a lot that can happen over the next few years in terms of Microsoft's competitive position against Google.

Microsoft can patiently build up its search services and other areas where it lags Google. And it will continue to generate large revenues from its business software -- a tiny market for Google.

Can GOOG continue to grow its search business to nearly $13 billion per quarter? What other businesses does it have that could generate comparable rates of growth and revenues? None.

Microsoft has many different business groups that have the potential for growth and it is building up its Internet business groups to better compete with Google. MSFT is a much more diversified business than GOOG.

While it is fashionable to talk about the demise of Microsoft and its poor competitive position against Google, the fact is that it's still going to be around for a long time and it will continue to be a potent, cash-rich competitor for many years.

Foremski's Take: Google will need to make some acquisitions to generate revenues and give it the heft that Microsoft already has. It needs to have a more diverse business base. Google has only one main business - text ads next to a search box or on a 3rd party web site.

What type of acquisition could help it be more competitive against Microsoft? What about a telco acquisition?

How about AT&T [T]? Its third quarter revenues were $30.9 billion. Its market capitalization is about $150 billion compared with GOOG at $175 billion.

AT&T would give Google a powerful position in terms of the net neutrality debate, and also in wireless markets, providing it with a key position with respect to both Android and iPhone phones.

And it would give Google a direct billing relationship with a huge number of US households. There are a ton of services it could introduce and without dealing with the telcos and their walled gardens.

Google's ability to build large server farms would further boost the types of on-demand services that it could market to consumers, and more importantly, to business users.

AT&T would be a big pill to swallow but strategically, it makes a lot of sense, imho.

October 23, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

WSJ Chief: There Are Two Types: Creators And Aggregators - Creators Carry The Burden Of Costs

By Tom Foremski - October 22, 2009

Hat tip to Danny Sullivan for pointing out the above panel at Web 2.0 Summit, which featured Robert Thomson, Wall Street Journal chief, and Marrissa Mayer head of search products at Google, plus Martin Nisenholtz, The New York Times Company, and Eric Hippeau from the Huffington Post, moderated by John Battelle. Title: "Whither Journalism."

YouTube - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

The reason this discussion is interesting is because Mr Thomson is a close confidant of Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp and one of the leaders in trying to create new business models for online journalism. One of those ways is to create a paywall - to charge for content.

This has been criticized by many online pundits who believe content should be free and that Mr Murdoch, and others that want to charge for content won't succeed.

This is a ridiculous argument because it doesn't address the issue of how content is created and the costs in creating content. An army of citizen journalists won't be able to fill the gap caused by fewer professional journalists. We have to figure out a way to pay for professional journalism.

At the beginning of the discussion Mr Thomson gets to the point right away, when he makes the distinction between content creators and content aggregators and point out that the cost burden is being shouldered by the content creators.

Many people, like Danny Sullivan, like to point out that the Wall Street Journal, and others that complain about Google stealing their content, want the traffic that Google sends their way.

But Mr Thomson challenged Ms Mayer's view that Google is all about sending traffic to other sites. He said if that is true, why isn't the font size larger on the link to the original source? Double figure (font size) would be good, he said to laughter.

Google, and other aggregators, take the headline and first paragraph of a story, the two most important elements of a news story and try to monetize that content.

The value of the traffic Google sends is not that great, believe it or not. As a publisher I get to see my server stats, etc, and so I know first hand the value of traffic from Google, or even Techmeme, is not much.

I can appreciate the frustration that Mr Thomson feels when he sees others trying to profit from the work of his journalists.

Producing original content is very expensive. Trawling web sites and taking the headline and top paragraph of a story is dirt cheap. The difference between costs for content creators and content aggregators is very large indeed.

The Huffington Post gets a ton of content for free. The New York Times has more people moderating its comments than The Huff Post has journalists on its masthead. Yet the Huff Post couldn't exist without the content creators. Clearly there is a large mismatch here.

The tragedy is that on either side of the equation there isn't enough money to pay for the content creation.

Even if Google News and The Huff Post and all the other news aggregators gave every dollar and cent they make from other people's content to the content creators it would be unlikely that it would cover the costs of the news creators.

For example, The New York Times is laying off another 100 newsroom jobs and its most recent financial quarter showed a 29 per cent fall in revenues with print and online ad revenues continuing to plunge.

The tug of war between creators and aggregators is some degree, a red herring. We need to develop a "value recovery mechanism" for online journalism.

This is the most important problem we have related to the Internet, it is much more important than net neutrality. It is the Gordian knot of the Internet - if one person solves it we all benefit.

- - -

I was reading an interview with Bay Area philanthropist Tad Taube. He is asked what other things would he like to fund...

"There is one thing that I've been thinking about a lot, but I'm not quite sure how to do it yet. One of my principal concerns is the preservation of freedom in the United States. Now, in order to have a free country, it's necessary to have a free press. A free press is a press that is ready, willing, and able to present all the different points of view that bear on an issue. If people are not informed in an impartial and unbiased manner, if there is only one point of view that they ever hear, how can they possibly make a decision that was in the best interest of their country or their civilization?

What I would like to explore are ways to distribute and influence the body politic with much more balanced reporting. So how do you create that? I'm not sure yet. It won't be easy. It will take a lot of people--this is another area ripe for philanthropic collaboration, I would say--working together to bring balance back into the media, particularly in its political coverage. I'm sure there is more balance in terms of basic news: political turmoil in the Congo or a fire in downtown Boston, or reporting on a sporting event. But coverage of politics, economics--of ideology, of ideas--is badly unbalanced. And, ultimately, we live off of our ideology. "

Interview with Tad Taube - Interviews - Philanthropy Magazine - Philanthropy Roundtable

Please also see:

Dear WSJ: To Avoid Google Disease, Please Put A Condom On Your Content

"Google Devalues Everything It Touches" - Wall Street Journal Chief

Non-Profit News Funding - We Need A Sustainable Business Model Not Handouts

We need a Google AdSense on steroids: The Grand Challenge of Internet 2.0 - SiliconValleyWatcher

October 22, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

San Francisco Celebrates Its Sister City Relationship With Krakow

By Tom Foremski - October 22, 2009

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and other dignitaries that included Bay Area philanthropist Tad Taube, last night attended a reception in celebration of San Francisco's sister city relationship with Krakow, Poland.

Mayor Newsom said he hoped that this would not be a "paper" relationship and that there will be an active partnership and exchange of people and ideas between the two cities.

Krakow is one of the oldest University towns in Europe and produces more than 200,000 graduates every year. Companies such as Google have opened R&D centers there, attracted by the high quality of the workforce and the high quality of life.

Tad Taube, a prominent Bay Area philanthropist was a driving force in establishing the sister city relationship. Mr Taube was born in Krakow and managed to leave in 1939, just months before the second world war broke out. He is an Honorary Consul for the Republic of Poland and he also heads the Taube Foundation for Jewish Life and Culture.

I will be writing more about Krakow and links with the Bay Area.

Here is more information on Krakow's sister city relationship with San Francisco from the Krakow Post:

Although very different on the surface, the two cities have much in common. For starters, the size of Krakow's population is very similar to that of San Francisco's 764,000 inhabitants. Both cities also hold cultural significance in their respective countries and function as centres of scientific research.

...San Francisco's active Polish community, which supports collaboration with Polish institutions and maintains Polish traditions abroad, was also an important attribute.

Interview with Tad Taube - Interviews - Philanthropy Magazine - Philanthropy Roundtable

Part of the ongoing tragedy of the Holocaust is that 1,000 years of Jewish history and culture in Poland has become essentially obscured. There are historical records and archives that detail how that 1,000-year period of Jewish culture shaped literature, art, history, language, science, philosophy, and religion. Ultimately, that 1,000-year period of Jewish culture served as the underpinnings of Western culture.

Roughly 75 percent of all American Jews are of Polish extraction. (When I describe Poland in this context, I'm talking about Greater Poland, whose boundaries have shifted rather dramatically over the centuries, on both the eastern and western borders.)
Now, people who are Irish- or Italian-Americans, they talk with great pride about their history and genealogy. American Jews are not so quick to talk about Poland. Quite the contrary, in fact. Many American Jews have such a hard time disassociating Poland from the Holocaust that they don't fully appreciate what their heritage contributed to all of Western culture. Unfortunately, many see Poland as nothing but a giant cemetery.

I want to restore a sense of perspective. I want American Jews to recognize and appreciate their Polish heritage. At the same time, I want Poland to recognize and appreciate its Jewish heritage. And I want everyone to understand and appreciate the massive contribution of Polish Jews to Western civilization.

Please see:

Update: San Francisco Sister City Krakow - Emerging R&D Center

Poland: Krakow - Sister City To San Francisco And R&D For GOOG, IBM And Others

Silicon Valley Skills Crisis: Poland Emerging As A Top Source of Engineers

Warsaw University Team Are World Programming Champions, Again

US and Polish Web 2.0 companies swap notes at Stanford

October 22, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

NYTimes Quarterly Results Show Plunging Print And Online Revenues

By Tom Foremski - October 22, 2009

Transitioning to an online business model for a newspaper company is made all the harder if your print and online advertising revenues are falling. That's the scenario for the New York Times Company.

Its third quarter financial report showed a $35.6m loss - smaller than expected as cost cutting measures helped slow losses. The company recently said that it will cut 100 newsroom jobs.

Ad revenue at the company's News Media Group, which includes all of its newspapers, fell 29.6 percent compared to the period a year earlier -- essentially unchanged from the 30 percent drop in the first half of the year.

. . . Internet revenue declined 7.2 percent, to $78.9 million. That includes a 7.2 percent increase at the About Group, which includes About.com, and an 18.5 percent decline in digital advertising revenue at the News Media Group.

For the first time, the company's New York Times Media Group (NYTimes and International Herald) revenues from readers exceeded revenues from advertisers: "circulation revenue reached $175.2 million in the third quarter, while ad revenue dropped to $164.5 million."

The company said that there was some sign of an improving economy and that fourth quarter losses should be lower than in the most recent quarter.

Times Co. Reports Loss but Beats Estimates - NYTimes.com

The New York Times Company Reports 2009 Third-Quarter Results

October 22, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Upcoming Charity Event: Silicon Valley Rocks! Announces Lineup

By Tom Foremski - October 21, 2009

This is a worthwhile event Silicon Valley Rocks! raising money for local schools. The lineup for this year's show December 9 at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco is:

CORINNE MARCUS & THE KINDRED SPIRITS — catchy and intriguing with hints of Lilith, pop, rock and lounge. Tech Affiliations: Walden Venture Capital, Digidesign.

FAREWELL TYPEWRITER — melodic rock music that's energetic yet tight, dancey but tough. Tech Affiliations: Hewlett-Packard and Thing Labs (makers of Brizzly).

MARROW — electronica/dance beats guaranteed to make you move your gloomy ass. Tech Affiliations: Pyramind Studios and the “sflogicninja” of YouTube fame.

THE OPEN SOURCE BAND — featuring Jonah Matranga (lead singer of Far) and Randi Zuckerberg — a Silicon Valley Rocks! special freely available for your listening pleasure. Tech Affiliations: Facebook, Norwest Venture Partners, Walden Venture Capital, Amplified Music Services.

THE TELL-TALE HEARTBREAKERS — tearing through the post-punk music scene with tense, guitar and bass-driven songs that reflect the darker side of rock and roll. Tech Affiliations: PDI/DreamWorks.

THE WHITEHALLS — from straight-ahead rockers to political drama to crowd-pleasing ballads to electronica, this band covers all the bases. Tech Affiliations: Digg.com, Aldon (software), IT for SF Boys & Girls Club, Bite PR.

This year we had eight times the band submissions we received in 2008! Stay tuned to the Silicon Valley Rocks blog for a list of finalists selected by our "listening committee" and more info on this year's line up — band history, interviews, music, photos etc.
But for now, say YES to music and education by buying a ticket or making a donation. We're offering a very sweet treat for you monsters of rock that love Halloween and music. It's our "RIP" ticket promotion that gives you a VIP ticket (3 free drinks, light hors d'oeuvres, and premium seating) for only $50 (a $25 savings!). The offer lasts until 11:55pm on October 31 - act now before the candy is all gone! Tickets are on sale here. Be sure to select the RIP - Halloween Promotion!

October 21, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

The Web 2.0 Squared Summit . . . Are You Hiding Under Your Desk?

By Tom Foremski - October 21, 2009

I can't bring myself to go to Web 2.0 Summit, which is trying to distance itself from the boring world of Web 2.0 by calling itself "Web Squared."

Check out this language on the front page of the Web 2.0 Summit site:

We believe that nothing is going to get better if the world collectively hides under its desk. It's time for the Web to step up and step into its role as a platform for positive change—be it in our economy, our culture, or our society.

Last year we focused on where the Web met the world. This year, the Web is the world. And we've got a lot of work to do.

. . .be there, and get squared!

OMG. I think I'll stay under my desk until this passes...

Here, to mark the Web 2.0 Summit is some of my prior coverage of Web 2.0:

Web 2.0 on the Ropes. . . Kleiner Perkins Halts Investments - SiliconValleyWatcher

"We have absolutely no interest in funding Web 2.0 companies," says Randy Komisar, a partner at Kleiner Perkins. He mentioned this during an after dinner conversation last week. He said he had recently told John Battelle, one of the organizers of the rapidly growing Web 2.0 Summitconference, that the term no longer had the same positive cachet it once had. In the VC community it clearly has a negative one.

Web Two-Point Yawn . . . Conference Fizzle?

Who is Making the Most Money from Web 2.0?

The Web 2.0 sector is a vibrant sector that is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital. But how many "Web 2.0" companies are profitable? What's the value of the Web 2.0 market as a whole?
It depends how Web 2.0 is defined but probably there aren't any profitable Web 2.0 companies yet, and the total value of the market is too small to measure.
So who is making money out of Web 2.0? That's easy, it is the conferences such as TechCrunch50 with tickets at $2,995 each. And of course Tim O'Reilly's trademarked Web 2.0 conferences such as the upcoming Web 2.0 Summit at $3,795 for each ticket.

October 21, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Is Mike Arrington Risking Arrest?

By Tom Foremski - October 21, 2009

Mike Arrington, the publisher of the excellent Techcrunch news site got into a squabble with a UK entrepreneur, which resulted in a court judgement against him.

Dennis Howlett, over at ZDNet reported the details:

Michael Arrington snared in libel verdict: lessons for us all | Irregular Enterprise | ZDNet.com

The UK’s High Court of Justice has ruled that Michael Arrington and Interserve Inc libeled Sam Sethi (see above.) The original plaint claimed that Arrington/Interserve engaged in a:
“…sustained campaign of character assassination against the Claimant alleging fraud; bank forgery and other crimes; including threats to murder a business associate; of being psychotic; pathological; threatening; despicable; disreputable; deceitful; and a cheat.”

Mr Arrington chose not to defend against the libel claim. That puts him in an awkward position because:

... should Arrington attempt to enter the UK without first having settled the matter, he might be liable to immediate arrest and incarceration. That has yet to be tested but represents a risk that Arrington will need to consider for the future.

It's not just entry into the UK, but entry into any EU country, risks arrest.

I noticed that Mr Arrington is one of the featured speakers at Loic LeMeur's excellent "Le Web" conference in Paris, France this December.

I hope his appearance doesn't lead to an arrest since Mr Arrington is caught in a tough spot dealing with a court ruling that wasn't able to hear his side of the story.

- - -

Please see:

Update On Sam Sethi Litigation: We Decline To Participate

October 21, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Google Is NOT Building It's Own Phone - Ridiculous Claims

By Tom Foremski - October 20, 2009

The Street.com reports that Northeast Securities analyst Ashok Kumar spoke with companies that are making a mobile phone for Google.

In what is likely to be seen as disruptive to the wireless status quo, Google is working with a smartphone manufacturer to have a Google-branded phone available this year through retailers and not through telcos, according to Northeast Securities analyst Ashok Kumar, who has talked to Google's design partners about the plan.
. . .By bypassing the carriers, who keep tight controls over the features and applications that are allowed on phones, Google will presumably offer a device that lets users determine the functions.

Exclusive: Google to Crash Android Party | Technology | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com

I don't believe it and neither should you. Google isn't in the hardware business because it doesn't need to be in the hardware business. There are plenty of companies that make phones and that make Android phones.

And how can you make an unlocked phone that has features that aren't controlled by the telcos? They either support the featurs on their services or they don't.

The story is ridiculous. Just read a little further:

... the entrance of a unlocked, low-cost, Web-friendly touchscreen device will probably undercut other Android phone efforts by players like Motorola, Samsung and Dell(DELL Quote).
Motorola's entire turnaround strategy is based on the Android operating system.

Why would Google want to get into a competitive battle with Motorola and others? It wouldn't. It makes no sense at at all.

October 20, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Gartner's "Magic Quadrant" Goes To Court - ZL Technologies Lawsuit

By Tom Foremski - October 20, 2009

Gartner will seek to dismiss claims by ZL Technologies, based in San Jose, CA, that the use of it's proprietary "Magic Quadrant" is misleading and favors large vendors.

On Friday October 23, Gartner is seeking the dismissal of ZL's complaint on First Amendment grounds.

Dennis Howlett, over at ZDNet writes:

ZL points up some uncomfortable assertions. Even if it lucks out in court it will have been successful in drawing attention to important issues.

...I spend a lot of time talking to other so-called analysts. Almost to a man/woman (but not entirely) they are 70-80% in the pay of the vendor community. Many believe they are independent. However when I ask who really pays the bills they go silent. Shout all you like about defending your independence but at the end of the day? Show me the money.

Gartner in the dock over Magic Quadrant | Irregular Enterprise | ZDNet.com

Gartner's Magic Quadrant has been very successful for the market research and analyst firm. It has been widely adopted as a way to define the position of companies and their products, within their sectors.

Companies that appear in the top right hand quadrant are considered the best positioned, the higher the position the better.

ZL Technologies provides email and file archiving for corporations. It's claims are:

- Gartner’s use of their proprietary “Magic Quadrant” is misleading and favors large vendors with large sales and marketing budgets over smaller innovators such as ZL that have developed higher performing products.

- The complaint alleges: defamation; trade libel; false advertising; unfair competition; and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

- Fair Disclosure on Conflicts of Interest – Gartner generates its revenues from payments made by the same vendors whose products it evaluates. Similar to the new rules now being imposed on financial ratings agencies on Wall Street, Gartner should be required to disclose the revenues received from the vendors it ranks.

- Fair Disclosure on Evaluation Scores – The tech industry would benefit if Gartner were required to disclose more data in its evaluation process and disclose component scores so vendors know exactly where they are lacking and by how much and take corrective action. Currently, there is zero disclosure, which can lead to arbitrary placement, with no recourse and no basis for appeal.

- Better Oversight –Gartner currently has an employee act as ombudsman to handle disagreements. The conflict of interest is self-evident in the way ZL’s concerns were summarily dismissed with little supporting evidence. There is a crying need to establish an impartial ombudsman similar to those found in public media, in order to ensure purchasers that they are receiving impartial analysis.

The legal documents are here: ZL v. Gartner Court Documents | ZL Technologies

Gartner and other analyst and market research firms have long denied that their analysis is biased by their client base.

October 20, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Should You Sell(out) Your Startup? A Smart Bear Tells All

By Tom Foremski - October 19, 2009

Jason Cohen is the founder of Smart Bear Software, based in Austin, Texas. He writes a personal blog called: A Smart Bear - Startups + Marketing + Geekery. It has great advice for entrepreneurs.

Not many people know that he sold his company two years ago -- he has kept quiet about it until now.

I sold my company, Smart Bear, in December of 2007. I haven't talked about it at all on this blog, and it's time I spill my guts about the whole affair.

You'd think selling a company would be a glamorous, exuberant experience, but I was surprised at the reactions I got.

A lot of people thought that he was wrong selling his company, and that he had sold-out. Nearly two years later he has finally managed to explain his decision.

He starts by saying that there are two types of startup founders, those that do it for the money and those that do it because they love the lifestyle. It's a choice between "Rich" or "King." Those that want to be King hardly ever sell.

... they want to be "King" no matter what. I'll bet Jason Fried wouldn't sell 37signals for $100,000,000; neither would Joel Spolsky sell FogCreek.

His choice was to try to do both.

...it's good to be "King," but what do you do when you're at Trudy's "North Star" Tex-Mex Restaurant . . . and the guy across the table looks you in the eye and offers you enough money that you never have to work again?

He took the money but others told him he should have waited. After all, his company was growing quickly, in one more year his multiple of about 3x revenue would have doubled his company's value.

He spends much of his post explaining the math of his decision before finally saying:

As of December 2007, I have the freedom to work on any project I want for the rest of my life while simultaneously providing for my family, never again worrying about bills, debt, having a place to sleep, or sending our daughter to any college she wants.

I can stay home with my wife and new baby girl for as long as I want, having all the precious time and experiences and memories that they say money can't buy.

I would have done exactly the same (I think). And this problem of keeping the company or selling it isn't such a tough problem. People figured it out a long time ago: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

It's worth reading the entire post: Rich vs. King in the Real World: Why I sold my company

- - -
Hat tip @dotben

October 19, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

Pubmatic And The Rise Of The Second Channel Of Advertising

By Tom Foremski - October 19, 2009

PubMatic is on a roll. The Silicon Valley based company helps online publishers interface with multiple ad networks, selecting in real-time the most lucrative ads available -- and that can boost revenues by as much as 300 per cent on the same ad inventory.

Publishers need all the help they can get in wringing revenues from online ads so PubMatic is well positioned in helping the troubled media sector.

But it is not quite as simple as that. What Pubmatic does is increase ad revenues for the publishers' second channel. This is the ad inventory that is not sold through the first channel -- the premium channel, which is represented by the publisher's direct sales force.

The second channel is what's left over, and traditionally this has been sold to the advertsing networks at a very large discount to the first channel. PubMatic allows publishers to settle for a lower discount.

The good news for PubMatic is that the second channel is growing at 22% a year. The bad news for publishers is that the first channel is barely growing and is actually shrinking for many online publishers. This is partly due to the bargains available on the second channel.

Even though PubMatic can double or triple the money publishers get for the second channel -- it doesn't make up for the losses in the first channel. Still, every bit helps, and the company has some big customers such as The Huffington Post.

I recently met with the youthful and energetic CEO and co-founder Rajeev Goel. Here are some notes from our conversation:

- Advertisers, generally are moving to buying access to an audience that isn't just associated with a specific web site but that can be found wherever they are.

- There are more than 400 ad networks. We help publishers manage their relationships with the ad networks and choose the best deals.

- We have invested more than 100 man years in developing our technology, the predictive ad server. We have 40 engineers (mostly in Pune, India.)

- We make money by charging the publishers 15% of the ad revenue that we bring in.

- We also charge advertising networks to gain access to the publishers.

I pointed out that there seems to be a possible conflict of interest here. Why charge the ad networks? Surely PubMatic is actively seeking out the best deals for its clients? Isn't it in PubMatic's interest to actively seek the best deals?

Mr Goel says that it costs PubMatic time and labor to evaluate the advertising networks. And that its publishers are quite happy not to pay for that extra service.

- - -

More information:

PubMatic Data Reveals Premium Publisher Ad Pricing Increased 32% Since Last Year

From PubMatic's recent conference Ad Revenue 2009. Here are videos of some of the more interesting panel discussions:

The New Economics and Revenue Opportunities of Data « PubMatic

October 19, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: A Top Story | Subscribe to SVW

MediaWatch: The East Coast Tech Revival . . . More To Come?

By Tom Foremski - October 19, 2009

There's an East Coast tech revival underway, I'm told. The publicists for TechStartsUps.com say that Hulu and Etsy have been "overwhelmingly successful" and that is propelling New York City into "once again becoming a hot spot for creative people who make inventive and viable technologies."

I spoke with Kris Smith, the newly appointed senior editor of TechStartsUps.com. He recently moved from Chicago to New York city and says their is a vibrant startup scene and people are dusting off old business plans.

He says that there are some active investors and that large media companies have some interesting projects going on, and that they also make acquisitions of local startups. There's a lot of activity in structural data, semantic web, mobile, and more. And TechStartsUps.com hopes to become the "Techcrunch" of the east coast.

He says there is a cultural difference between Silicon Valley and New York, there is a bit more focus on money. "Freemium has been great for some companies but generally it hasn't been very good for developers."

East coasters like to poke at Silicon Valley's penchant for "build it and then figure out the revenues" attitude -- not that Mr Smith is doing that but it is certainly a cultural difference.

Interestingly, "freemium" is a term coined by New York based VC Fred Wilson.

Mr Smith likes CNN's iPhone app because it charges money. And I agree, premium is a better model than "freemium" -- if you can get the dollars.

I ask him what jokes do people tell about Silicon Valley? He says there are none and laughs when I tell him I don't believe him.

I've had friends move from here to New York over the past few years and while they love the city, they say it is difficult to find people that you can talk to about technology and business. You can have conversations here that are very difficult to find anywhere else in the world, and that's why companies continue to move here from all over the world, including the East Coast.

It's great to hear that New York might be enjoying a bit of a tech revival but I'm afraid that Silicon Valley's view on this topic is equivalent to the famous New Yorker cartoon of the New York cityscape, where the rest of the world is depicted as pimples on a distant horizon. NYC is simply a pimple -- it's not personal it just is.

October 19, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

ChipWatch - Where Next For Semiconductor Trade Press?

By Guest Writer - Matt Grimshaw - October 16, 2009

By Matt Grimshaw, Editorial Director of the Semiconductor Technical Journal Future Fab International.

As the year draws to a close I've been trying to take stock of where the semiconductor world stands as we collectively look forward to a period of growth and try to put the disasters of 2008 and 2009 behind us.

I've been having many conversations and meetings with some of the largest semiconductor PR firms and gurus on just what the hell is going on in an attempt to get a handle on what the future holds for the semiconductor segment and in particular the media in this space.

The results were unsurprisingly about as clear as mud; I have never in my ten years in this industry seen such a mass of confusion as to what to do - it makes a riot look like a Gold medal synchronized swimming team.

Fear is the prevailing emotion; communications people at vendor companies in all segments of the semiconductor support ecosystem are being asked to come up with answers to unanswerable questions. Questions like "If I give you X dollars how much money is that going to make the company?"

Companies want to calculate a return on their marketing and media investments in ways that don't quite make sense. They want detectable business as a result of their spending and while this is certainly attainable with modern technology, if you are selling cars or any number of electronic gadgets that number in the tens to hundreds of thousands, when you're selling big shiny tools/software/materials that cost tens of millions of dollars, and your total sales for a year equal 30 units...the market dynamics are incomparable.

When just one sale can be 5-10% of a company's income...how can it be attributed to any one avenue of communication such as advertising?

The chip business is now entering a state of maturity that's pretty much equivalent to late teen angst. The pimples and days of gaining a couple of inches in height every month are gone, now the personality must mature and integration into society at large begins. In the world of the semiconductor supply chain this means that the good old days of massive double digit growth (and subsequent crash) with cash flowing faster then water over Niagara Falls are gone and have been replaced with a game where the stakes are now so high that one error or slip could lead to a company's destruction.

No one talks about the 'killer application' (the one product that drives a boom - i.e. PC's, cellphones etc.) anymore - the consumer is now king and they are more fickle then a cat offering its belly for a good scratch...those with mangled hands know the dangers of which I speak. This leads to fear that filters through the infrastructure of all companies and leads to hesitancy and resistance to the unknown.

On the one hand no one wants to support the old models, on the other they also don't want to try something new. The old media models are not just dying, in some cases such as trade shows, they have done their jobs so effectively they are putting themselves out of business. When trade events came into being it was because customers and vendors didn't really talk - over the course of 30 years they have learned not only to talk, but now are codependent. Trade shows ceased being places of trade or places where wares are shown and became PR events with some technical aspects thrown in for good measure.

Everyone that can afford a new big shiny chip production tool has already been contacted long before the show in order to develop the product, so no one needs to show it off to prospective clients at an event because the clients have already seen it and have most likely had a hand in its development. With no reason to show up at events, the people the exhibitors want to meet -- the buyers stopped going.

So what about virtual conferences and social networking, will they fill the void? While these virtual events and sites do serve a purpose they miss out on the one thing that still makes trade shows valuable; meeting new contacts and people. You simply cannot build personal relationships in a virtual environment in the same manner as those built in person. The camaraderie is reliant on being there.

I could tell you numerous stories that start with "I met these folks and xyz show and we went out for a drink..." that end up with hilarity and a bond that remains in place for years.

Similarly with magazines and trade publications, the marketing folks now want leads from advertising that turn into sales as a direct result of $$'s spent and magazine ads simply don't perform this function.

Good products lead to success - advertising, PR and all forms of marketing are just the mechanisms to let people know that a good product exists. However, marketing people need leads in order to justify their spending to those that create budgets, hence the problem.

Advertising doesn't need to be sold to marketing folks, it needs to be sold to accountants...and they simply don't see much value in it. Advertising, yes even web advertising, simply doesn't supply leads. At best it supplies interest or curiosity.

So with budgets being limited, marketing spend has been pulled back from that which funds magazines/websites and journals. It is being funneled into press releases, interviews, and articles as they do not cost as much as advertising.

While seemingly logical to the buyer it means that publishers in the semiconductor media sector are forced to cut back on editorial space. Which means that marketers and PR folks find it harder and harder to get anyone to publish press releases, interviews or articles. And it all goes spiraling towards the ground with neither party seeming to be able to do anything about it.

Media companies have few choices left to them; 1) Get the hell out of the game 2) start charging for promotional content/articles 3) experiment with new ideas.

Option 1 isn't really feasible as media companies create media...what else shall we do? Option 2 is considered a dirty phrase known as "pay for play" in the segment which stirs marketing folks into a frenzy of witch-hunting that which hasn't been seen since the Spanish inquisition (and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition). Marketers would rather stab themselves to death with toothpicks then admit to paying for the inclusion of content.

This leaves option 3 but nobody wants to jump first... there's a prevailing "I'll go if you can show me others that have already succeeded" mentality that completely negates the meaning of NEW. So, have we reached an impasse?

What do marketers want? What's next for the Semiconductor trade press?

October 16, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: ChipWatch | Subscribe to SVW

Is There A Future For The Embargo?

By Tom Foremski - October 15, 2009

On October 29 I'll be on a panel with Mike Arrington from Techcrunch and Mark Glazer from NPR's Media Shift, moderated by Sam Whitmore from Media Survey, discussing embargoes and if they have a future.

The event will be at Varnish Gallery in downtown San Francisco at 6pm and is organized by Waggener Edstrom-San Francisco.

The topic is interesting because embargoes don't seem to work anymore. Techcrunch is famous for breaking embargoes; Wall Street Journal and other publications no longer accept embargoes; while others keep embargoes but are then upset when they are broken, and that can strain relationships between PR people and journalists.

I do accept embargoes but then I end up not writing about the news because the embargo is too far out in time and I've either forgotten about the news or have gotten bored by it. And of course, the embargo is usually broken so what's the point?

But how should companies distribute important news in a fair manner, giving every media outlet a chance to interview key executives and research and write the story?

Are embargoes better suited for different types of stories? Is it possible to create a new type of rule book around embargoes?

Hopefully you can join us on October 29 for "Embargo 2010: Industry Conversation on Future Rules of Media Engagement."

October 15, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: MediaWatch | Subscribe to SVW

The Fall Of Print: BusinessWeek Sells For Under $5m - Worth $1bn In 2000

By Tom Foremski - October 14, 2009

Bloomberg senior executives met with Businessweek staff Wednesday morning and assured them that they intend to be patient and invest in the title for the long term.

Spencer Ante, Computers Department Editor, was on a Bulldog Reporter panel with me Wednesday morning, and he said Bloomberg sees a lot of potential in combining online sites, and said they hope to keep most of the jobs. Together, Bloomberg and BusinessWeek will have a combined monthly readership of more than 20 million unique visitors, "this will make it the largest business site after the large portals," said Mr Ante.

No changes are expected until early next year.

Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter now writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that McGraw-Hill sold BusinessWeek for between $2 million and $5 million. Yet in 2000, BusinessWeek was valued at $1 billion.

So there's your new emblem for the Fall of Print. That decline in value happened for the most part not because it's readers abandoned it--circulation (rate base) dropped about 20 percent during that time--but because its advertisers did.

BizWeek Emblematic of the Fall of Print : CJR

McGraw-Hill invested about $20 million over the past two years. BusinessWeek losses in 2009 are expected to be more than $40 million on revenues of about $130 million. Ten years ago it had an operating profit of $100 million.

Foremski's Take: Working at Bloomberg will be different than working for BusinessWeek -- the reporters will have to work harder and faster. Taking a week to work on one story is something that won't happen under the new management. I would expect a gradual staff exodus if there was somewhere else for the journalists to go.

Staff cuts are inevitable. Bloomberg currently has about 2,200 journalists worldwide.

Please see:

Bloomberg Wins Bidding For BusinessWeek - BusinessWeek

October 14, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: | Subscribe to SVW

Ticketmaster Rant Update . . . The High Price Of Pearl Jam's Principled Battle Against Ticketmaster

By Tom Foremski - October 13, 2009

I continue to receive many excellent emails and comments about Ticketmaster. That's the beauty of the "blogging" platform for publishing, it can continue to gather stories from readers.

For example, my prior rants about AppleCare and Wells Fargo continue to receive new comments such as today (please see the side column) yet they were written months and years ago.

Here is an excellent account of Pearl Jam's fight with Ticketmaster written by one of SVW's readers:

"I may have missed this in my search through the comments...but I didn't see anyone mention Pearl Jam.

I feel bad for having ignored their music for so long, but I respect them enormously because of the price they paid for fighting Tickemaster, starting in 1994 - a fight that included testimony in front of Congress, and a DOJ anti-trust investigation, and a career that nearly self-destructed in the fray.

Pearl Jam has had other kinds of integrity. They didn't like the kind of fame that their first music videos brought them, so they stopped doing music videos. They felt that their fans were being priced out of shows, so they capped their ticket prices.

In 1994, they went ballistic when they found out the size of TM's service charges. Skipping ahead to the end of the story, they canceled the rest of their tour that year, leading to a boycott of any venues that TM controlled -- which turned out to be almost all of them. They played virtually no shows in the US for three years.

As Pearl Jam fired up their fight, the DOJ had already begun an investigation into TM, which it subsequently dropped. They had asked for Pearl Jam's input, as did a congressional committee to which Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament testified. My personal highlight: when asked about the origin of the name, one of them replied that it was an homage to the "jam" made by one of the band member's Aunt Pearl.

The bottom line is that Pearl Jam sabotaged their careers for their principles. They lost bandmates, delayed albums, and exiled themselves from the incredibly lucrative platform of US concert tours solely to protect the rights of their fans in the face of a bloodsucking giant.

Their reward: fans (understandably) more upset with Pearl Jam for vanishing than with Ticketmaster for gouging them.

Looking at the other ways that they've expressed their integrity over the years, I wonder if the price that was hardest to pay was sacrificing one set of principles - protecting their fans - to serve another principle - making themselves available to their fans.

My view of the highest price that they have paid - having their fight so thoroughly forgotten.

Tom, I enjoy your columns, but this was a pretty serious lapse.

And again, my apologies if I missed your comments on this topic."

Here is a great solution to Ticketmaster from Baltimore. A reader writes:

"Like you, I have come to abhor Ticketmaster et al. However, here in Baltimore, we have an alternative. There are a few small, independent ticket brokers and they are being used by local venues at a modest cost i.e. $2.00 per ticket, $10.00 for six to 28 and some have sliding scales above that for really large , tickets en bloc.

They are being used by the like of: The Classical guitar Society,Homewood House of Johns Hopkins University and Evergreen Estate also of JHU. I believe that The Baltimore Choral Arts Society does too.

I can but hope that these modest local agencies prosper. Some have been for two or three years and at the same fees so I suppose that they are succeding.

Baltimore Is a culturally rich town but Baltimoreans are frugal. Ticketmaster continues with The Ravens and they act like they are the only snow in town. I can but hope that they receive an unpleasant surprise."

- - -

Please see:

Mugged By Ticketmaster - The Outrageous Tax On Culture

UPDATE: My Ticketmaster Mugging... And Collecting Ticketmaster Horror stories

Apple Rant: AppleCare = Shoddy Service - Apple Arrogance?

RantWatch: Extremely Poor Service from Wells Fargo

October 13, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: | Subscribe to SVW