Podcast Advertising Report Roundup

Post ImageeMarketer has managed to garner a ton of buzz today about their forthcoming report on podcasting and marketing in which they estimate that $400 million will be spent in the space by 2011. My only real comment on the report (since I haven’t seen it) is this wonderful quote from NewTeeVee (on an unrelated post):

“The great thing about forecasts is that no one remembers the exact amount when the future finally rolls around.”

Here is a quick roundup of some great quotes from posts discussing the report:

“If you build it, they will come! Or in other words, concentrate on bringing podcasts to a bigger audience, only then can you make advertising work.”
Marketing Pilgrim

“The increase of video podcasts, which lend themselves to the kind of video ads that marketers are accustomed to developing for television, has also increased advertiser interest.”
BusinessWeek

“Show me an advertiser that wants to generically market to Podcasts with listening audiences of dozens.”
Paul Colligan

“Currently, despite some 90,000 podcasts available on the Web and close to 90 million iPods in the market, podcasting is universally thought of as a supplemental medium by advertisers.”
Mediaweek

“Every once in a while someone accidentally runs into a magic lamp and a guru pops up telling us that Podcasting has already had its 15 minutes and is a fad that is ready to pass.”
901am

“Unfortunately, for all you indy podcasters out there, this does not bode well. With all of that competition for ad dollars, the money is going to flow to folks who have ad sales reps.”
Micro Persuasion

“While I would love to see 400 Million dropped annually into the space, the podcasting listening and producing community is going to have to get a lot bigger.”
Geek News Central

“As I’ve said before, I think the bigger growth could come from simply making the entire creation process easier.”
The Viral Garden

I like the last two comments best – they are spot on.

Happy Valentine's Day – Web 2.0 Style

Post ImageYup, it’s that time of year again – Valentine’s Day. As Wikipedia says, it’s “the traditional day on which lovers express their love for each other.” Apparently, it’s also a great marketing opportunity for web companies. Svetlana Gladkova over at profy shares with us seven special Valentine’s Day logos:

I think that Valentine’s Day must really be a Web 2.0 holiday with so many companies engaged in it – even important enough for Google to use a special logo (definitely created in a hurry but still).

Google, Orkut, LiveJournal, Yahoo!, AOL, Ask, and Yandex all have special logos. And if that wasn’t enough, Social Signal has a Web 2.0 Valentine just for you. Very clever! Seriously, check it out, it made me laugh!

Read: Web 2.0 Valentine

Return of the portal? Not exactly

Post ImageOm Malik’s latest column in Business 2.0 deals with the topic of “hyperaggregation” – which is a fancy way of saying “aggregating the aggregators”. Basically, there is too much content available on the web from sites like YouTube and Flickr, and web software is evolving to help us consume it all. Om says:

Since the dawn of the Web, we’ve been plagued by too much information and too little time to consume it. It’s impossible to keep up with dozens of social networks, millions of videos, and thousands of blogs. Hyperaggregation is simply a way to do in the new-media world what old media has done for centuries: neatly package information.

Sounds a heck of a lot like the “portal” of the late 90s to me.

At least, that’s the first thing that came to mind. I thought about it a bit more though, and realized that hyperaggregation != portal. The main difference is that with hyperaggregation, you have control in most cases. Either explicit control, by entering tags or topics that you are interested in, or indirect control, by making a certain video the most popular. In the portal world, it was the portal alone that decided what content made it to the front page.

My gut “portal” thought wasn’t too far off though, as even Om admits:

Perhaps the biggest opportunity in hyperaggregation is for the biggest traditional Internet companies – the AOLs, Yahoos, and MSNs of the world.

I have to agree with Om. MSN shouldn’t be building their own video hosting service, they should be building the best video aggregator instead. Increasingly it will be the aggregator that people turn to first when looking for content.

Read: Business 2.0

Dixie Chicks win all five? Seems suspicious to me

Post ImageDid you watch the Grammy Awards last night? I didn’t. I figured there wasn’t much point. It’s the same with all awards shows – why watch? You can find out the results almost immediately online anyway. And if there’s a performance you wanted to see, it’ll probably be on YouTube. It’s amazing that anyone at all watches marathons award shows anymore.

Anyway, I read about the Grammy’s today. Turns out the Dixie Chicks won all five awards for which they were nominated, including album of the year. Call me crazy, but that strikes me as being somewhat suspicious. Can you really go from being one of the most hated music groups in the country to winning five awards in a single night? It’s almost like they won simply because the academy felt sorry for them. I guess the “return to glory” plotline always makes for a good story too.

It’s not like such a big win happens every year:

The last time an act won the album, record and song categories was in 1993, when Eric Clapton led the field. The last country act to win album of the year was Glen Campbell in 1969 with “By the Time I Get to Phoenix.”

I mean, sure, Taking The Long Way is a decent album. I guess I have to admit that I even enjoyed it. But seriously, album of the year? Plus record and song of the year? I dunno. Just doesn’t feel right.

Here are the winners I’d have picked:

Record of the Year: “You’re Beautiful” – James Blunt
Album of the Year: FutureSex/LoveSounds – Justin Timberlake
Song of the Year: “Not Ready To Make Nice” – Dixie Chicks

Read: Yahoo! News

Tim O'Reilly on Yahoo! Pipes

Post ImageI’ve been doing a little more reading about Yahoo! Pipes lately, and today I came across this excellent (though somewhat long) post from Mr. Web 2.0 himself, Tim O’Reilly. He says (via BoingBoing):

It democratizes web programming, making it easier for people to have more control over the internet information services they consume, and providing a general-purpose platform for interacting with sites that is more powerful than the browser or feed-reader alone, but without requiring full programming skills.

I think that’s a great way to describe what Pipes is, and why it matters. Sure the interface could be improved and made easier to use, but it’s only going to get better from here.

Read: Tim O’Reilly

Notes for 2/11/2007

Here are my weekly notes:

Music
I’ve been listening to the wonderful album A Beautiful Lie by 30 Seconds To Mars a lot lately. I originally got it because of the song The Kill, but I guess you could say I have rediscovered the entire album recently. You’ve probably hear their other single, From Yesterday, on the radio. Good stuff.

Visual Studio Orcas

Post ImageI haven’t been keeping up on my .NET news as much as I used to, so lots of the things that Scott Guthrie mentioned in his “First Look at Orcas” post were new to me. And now I’m all excited! Here are some of the things that stick out for me:

  • Orcas will indeed bring us version 3.5 of the .NET Framework. First time I have seen a reference to 3.5.
  • Rich HTML/CSS WYSIWYG designer. Ahhhhhh. I use this daily, so I welcome any changes. I am particularly looking forward to the split-view editing mode…I could never figure out why Visual Studio didn’t have it.
  • LINQ. By all accounts, LINQ looks intense. Scott posted a video a couple weeks ago that demonstrates how it works.
  • First beta this spring, and final release this year. Bring it on!

His post contains screenshots and a link to a slide deck he presented recently. Check it out!

Read: ScottGu’s Blog

Mini-Microsoft on Outlook 2007

Post ImageI have talked about Outlook 2007 a couple of times before, and in neither post was I singing Outlook’s praises. Nope, I love the interface tweaks, but Outlook 2007 is terribly slow. Almost so slow that it is unusable. I wonder if it would be any faster if I had 4 GB of RAM…probably not. Anyway, here’s what Mini-Microsoft had to say about Outlook 2007 recently:

I’ve learned to meditate while Outlook ruminates over ten incoming POP messages of 69K. Perhaps it takes a few seconds over each incoming message or RSS feed to contribute to solving a Grand Challenge. Or it and Desktop Search have to play 333 iterations of rock-paper-scissors everytime a change has to be written. I don’t know.

I have wondered the same thing. It has to be doing something when it’s not doing what I want it to, right? He continues:

For our customers’ sake, I hope that I’m the only one and that there is just something funky about my setup…

Sorry, no. Outlook 2007 sucks when it comes to performance, plain and simple. It can’t be your setup, because there’s thousands of threads on the Internet in which people are complaining. Please Mini, use your power to get someone to fix it!

Read: Mini-Microsoft

Powerset secures rights to search tech

Post ImagePowerset is back in the news again (you may recall they were ‘discovered’ back in October), this time for winning the exclusive rights to search technology developed at the famed Palo Alto Research Center in Silicon Valley. The technology essentially allows Powerset to understand the meaning of your search query (you know, “natural language” as they call it). Apparently Google is developing something similar. Here’s what VentureBeat says:

Clearly, Powerset faces challenges. Even if its technology does prove to be useful, it isn’t clear how long it will keep any lead (in natural language) in the face of an onslaught from Google. Another challenge is changing peoples’ search behavior, which is used to keyword searches.

Maybe I am being naïve, but I don’t think changing peoples’ search behavior will be all that hard. We still think in natural language before deciding what keywords to enter into the box. And some people don’t even bother to pick out keywords, they just type a sentence or question.

I think their biggest problem will be proving that their technology works and is useful. For now I’ve got Powerset filed under the “believe it when I see it” category. And assuming they really can do natural language search, will it be that useful? The keyword based search we use today works fairly well for general queries. I think natural language search definitely has value, but I don’t think it will replace Google overnight, if ever. There are certain types of queries that are probably better suited to keyword-based search.

And let’s not forget that millions of people (myself included) use Google and other search engines as navigational tools almost as much as information-finding tools. A quick glance at the 2006 year end Google Zeitgeist will show you that – half of the top ten queries were the names of websites.

Read: VentureBeat

Yahoo! Pipes

Post ImageI decided I would take one last look at Techmeme before heading off to bed, and as a result I just found out about a new product from Yahoo! called Pipes. It’s definitely not for everyone, but my inner geek is jumping for joy – Pipes is very, very cool:

Pipes is a hosted service that lets you remix feeds and create new data mashups in a visual programming environment. The name of the service pays tribute to Unix pipes, which let programmers do astonishingly clever things by making it easy to chain simple utilities together on the command line.

I just created a quick “pipe” to see how it works, and I have to admit, it’s very easy to use. Essentially it will let you take any number of sources (like an RSS feed or something), add user inputs if required, combine them with modules to process the data, and finally connect them all together to produce some output. And it’s all done visually. No programming experience required (well not really).

Nik at TechCrunch nails it:

Pipes can take any feed as input, and combined with the already available list of functions proves to be very powerful – my mind is still buzzing thinking about all that can be done with Pipes.

It was inevitable that such a product would be released, and it is very good for Yahoo! that they managed to be the first of the big web companies to release such a product.

I wonder how successful Pipes will be. Could it be the product that allows everyone to be a “programmer”? Possibly. Nik is right that the terminology needs some work (they use too many “coder” terms I think) but that’s fairly minor. Pipes has incredible potential.

I’m definitely going to have to play with it some more.

Read: Yahoo! Pipes