Author: Paul Wallbank

  • Flunking the Local Search Market

    Flunking the Local Search Market

    At a breakfast last week a business owner told me about his struggle to counter negative reviews about his B&B on Tripadvisor.

    There’s little doubt that sites like Tripadvisor and Urban Spoon are important to the hospitality industry, as customers check out reviews of establishments before they make a booking or set off for an evening’s entertainment.

    Over the last two years most of us in the industry thought Facebook and Google’s Local Search services – both confusing called “Places” – would dominate the market for these services.

    Google seemed to have the biggest advantage as the integration of local search and user reviews seemed to be a no-brainer for the search engine giant.

    A combination of poor implementation and anal retentive policies left Google Places stranded. The distraction of trying to slap a “social layer” onto the search platform can’t have helped.

    Facebook haven’t fared any better. Much of the problem for the dominant social network has been that users aren’t particularly interested in engaging with businesses unless there’s an incentive like a freebie or prize.

    Just last week a US based social media expert was recommending local businesses offer incentives such as “a slice of apple pie” in return for favourable Facebook reviews and likes.

    Business owners themselves are finding it too difficult with the demands of too many social networks overwhelming them. This isn’t helped by the services offering confusing products, arcane policies and requiring information being duplicated.

    Most importantly though is customers just aren’t using these services. Increasingly it’s clear we want to use custom applications, particularly if we’re using smartphones where it’s difficult to navigate through a social media service’s multiple options.

    It could well be that we don’t want to use all in one “portals” – this was the web model that companies like Yahoo! and MSN tried to impose upon us when it became clear that the walled gardens of AOL and The Microsoft Network didn’t work on the Internet.

    One of the factors driving the tech wreck of the early 2000s was the failure of those portals as highly valued web real estate proved to be based on faulty assumptions and shaky maths.

    The failure of specialised search engines and social networks to expand into mobile and local services indicates many of our assumptions today are flawed.

    Could it be that the next popping of a tech bubble is a repeat of the mistaken assumptions we should have understood over a decade ago?

    Similar posts:

  • Television rights and clouds

    Television rights and clouds

    The Australian Federal Court today handed down their appeal decision in the latest twist in the Optus TV Now copyright case where the National Rugby League claimed the telco’s online recording service breaches the sporting body’s copyright.

    Reversing their colleagues earlier decision, the judges found the TV Now service does breach the League’s copyright.

    The Court’s reasoning is because the service plays a part in creating a recording the copies cannot be considered an individual’s personal copy to be watched at a later time – therefore they aren’t protected under the personal use provisions of the Copyright Act.

    It’s going to be interesting to see where the line is drawn that a computer program or cloud service is infringing copyright.

    Could be that copying a video of a football game to Dropbox, Google Drive or Evernote is a copyright breach by those services?

    Perhaps online back up services like Carbonite or iCloud could infringe copyright as they automate the copying process?

    Even if Optus doesn’t appeal the case to the Australian High Court, the decision will almost eventually tested there by someone else.

    Many of the spokespeople – along with and their apologists in the sports and business media – have argued this is about the law falling behind technology.

    The court covered this in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgement linked above and the judges are quite clear the law was written to be technology neutral.

    Calls now to “reform” copyright law in light of the TV Now and AFACT – iiNet cases to “bring the law up to technology” are disingenuous.

    While there’s no doubt legislation could be tweaked, there’s the real threat any “reforms” driven by the pleading of the copyright industries and their tame journalist friends will result in more restrictions and damage the take up of modern technologies.

    One can’t blame the rights holders for trying to maximise their income, they have to feed the remorseless hungry beast that is modern professional sport – although one wishes they didn’t keep bleating “think of the children” to justify their actions.

    We’ve previously seen how sports organisations have felt threatened by every new technology and the profits these new tools have delivered them.

    The latest wave of change is no different, although the glory days of sports rights may be another symptom of a changing economy and 1980s thinking.

    Hopefully the sports organisations and rights holders won’t be allowed to kill the potential of the these technologies before new business models are allowed to evolve.

    Similar posts:

  • Cargo cults and your business

    Cargo cults and your business

    “We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

    “Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

    “China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

    “Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

    “I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

    We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

    It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

    Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

    There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

    For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

    Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

    The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

    What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

    China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

    The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

    In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

    Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

    John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons

    Similar posts:

  • Undermining the cloud

    Undermining the cloud

    Whenever I do a presentation on cloud computing and social media for business, I focus on one important area – The Terms Of Service.

    Google’s relaunch of their Cloud Drive product has reminded us of the risks that hide in these terms, particularly with the one clause;

    When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

    This is an almost identical clause to that introduced – and quickly dropped by file sharing Dropbox – last year. It’s also pretty well standard in the social media services including Facebook.

    Basically it means that while you retain ownership of anything you post to Google Drive, or most of other Google’s services including Google Docs you’re giving the corporation the rights to use the data in any way they choose.

    While the offending clause does go onto say this term is “for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones” there is no definition of what operating, promoting or improving their services actually means.

    Not that it matters anyway, as one of the later terms says they reserve the right to change any clause at any time they choose. So if Google decided that selling your client spreadsheets to the highest bidder will improve the service for their shareholders, then so be it.

    If you’re a photographer then the pictures you upload to Facebook or Google+ now are licensed to these organisations as are all the documents stored on Cloud Drive.

    To be fair this is not just a Google issue, Facebook has similar terms as do many others. Surprisingly just as many premium, paid for services have these conditions as free ones.

    Because these Terms Of Service are about establishing a power relationship, there’s usually an over-reach by large companies with these terms.

    While an over-reach is understandable, its not healthy where the customer has to trust that the big corporation will do the right thing.

    Right now, if you’re using a cloud or social media service for important business information you may want to check that service doesn’t have terms that grant them a license to your intellectual property.

    Similar posts:

  • ANZAC Day

    ANZAC Day

    It’s ANZAC Day in Australia where the anniversary of the World War One landings in Gallipoli marks the first national action of the then new nation.

    At its heart, ANZAC Day remembers sacrifice and bravery. The men and women who volunteered for the Great War and all those that have followed over the last hundred years were prepared to sacrifice relationships, safe careers and their lives to protect the King or Country from the threats of the Kaiser, Hitler, Japan, Communism or Terrorism.

    We should remember though that those politicians saying fine words today and posing for photo opportunities at the landing beaches are the much the same people who started an unnecessary war in 1914 and many of those wars since.

    Compare the words of Billy Hughes supporting Australian conscription in 1915 and the words of John Howard or Julia Gillard.

    Stripped of spin doctors’ dressing and the words of today’s politicians are the same.  Only the empire has changed.

    Today’s politicians know of concepts like sacrifice, patriotism and bravery, exploiting them can prove handy at election time.

    Luckily for most of them their political and business careers rarely call for such qualities.

    Hopefully our children won’t find themselves in the trenches  – or fall out shelters – to meet the short term gains of an Obama, Cameron or Gillard and their corporate friends.

    The real lesson of ANZAC Day, Veterans Day and all the other national days of remembrance around the world for those every nation has lost in battle is that war is the final act and represents a failure by the Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers who choose to lead us.

    They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
    Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
    At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
    We will remember them.

    Lest We Forget

    Similar posts: