Tagged with Twitter

Personalized Tweets

Well I’ve been leaping up the technology curve (read: wandering around like a lost puppy) ! First I stopped getting newspapers at home. That was actually cos’ I was seldom at home and mom never read the newspapers anyways. And it would be a hiccup period between my returning home, when we would ask the newspaper guy to start delivering the newspaper, and then stop after 4 days when I left for my next client location. Then I started getting most of my news through RSS feeds. Those were brilliant. Specific news around content I loved. Then without realizing it, I moved onto Twitter and Facebook for my daily news; Twitter for business feeds and Facebook for news of near and far family and friends. So when Bloglines announced that they were shutting down their service, I was more than a little miserable. Not just exporting my feeds now to a new feed reader but more importantly, I would have to manually move all my clippings and news snippets that I had bookmarked by manually copying them on to Word documents. Ugh !

But however, I realized that even after exporting my feeds, I’ve actually been using RSS less and less to consume information. The launch of the new Twitter makes it even more addictive to use, resulting in me spending less time on blog feeds.

A parallel thought process was around a project I was working on regarding Location-based services. More specifically, I was focusing on what would be the best mode to deliver an alert to a specific user based on his location…whether through an SMS, USSD or build an app and stuff. However, putting these two thoughts together (extensive use of Twitter +  service delivery of alerts) , I came across an even more elegant method. Tweets ! The thought process is simple: Twitter allows you to broadcast your location whenever you tweet through your mobile, PC, etc. It also allows you to consolidate specific people you follow into various lists. However, this is for each user (in my service, they would be a subscriber) The method I’m suggesting tends to turn this inside-out i.e. with your permission, your (subscriber) twitter account would, in a sense, “private-tweet” your location to another specific twitter account (service provider- account). Based on the service that you have configured to receive alerts on, and based on this location, you would receive tweets from that particular account on your twitter stream based on your location and your services configuration. To make it even simpler, you could even configure the services you would like to receive alerts to by simply “following” that particular service’s Twitter account. So basically, I could build an funnel-like API over Twitter wherein I could dump a million alerts into each account (not subscriber accounts but the specific service accounts) and the API/ application could automatically filter them based on the location and tweet those alerts to follower accounts.

P.S.: I do get that Twitter was not really built around a concept like this, it was for the expression of individual users, but given Twitter’s recent comments on making the product more focused on consumption compared to what it was previously, I feel this could be another direction in the product development process

Updated: Added a basic flowchart to describe the idea:


For a larger view, click on the image

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Battle expands definition of “database of intentions” – blows mind again

Credit: Amazon.com

John Battelle’s book The Search was one of the books I took more than 72 hours to complete. Not because it was long, tedious and boring. Rather, it was so packed with ideas and concepts (And some brilliant history of search as well….what I thought was Google’s brilliance of ads chasing subscribers wherever they went i.e. AdSense was the the brainchild of Overture – something I didn’t know). The book started with this concept of “The Database of Intentions” which was described by John as:

The Database of Intentions is simply this: The aggregate results of every search ever entered, every result list ever tendered, and every path taken as a result. It lives in many places, but three or four places in particular hold a massive amount of this data (ie MSN, Google, and Yahoo). This information represents, in aggregate form, a place holder for the intentions of humankind – a massive database of desires, needs, wants, and likes that can be discovered, supoenaed, archived, tracked, and exploited to all sorts of ends. Such a beast has never before existed in the history of culture, but is almost guaranteed to grow exponentially from this day forward. This artifact can tell us extraordinary things about who we are and what we want as a culture. And it has the potential to be abused in equally extraordinary fashion.

Simply put, our searches were a series of bread crumbs that created a trail leading straight to our real intentions. Whoever (i.e. Google) accessed the trail could understand our intentions.

Now in another pretty fabulous post, John states ( and I agree) that web search is now just one mode of identifying intention. As he states it “I’ve come to the conclusion that “web search” was just the first of many fields in the Database of Intentions. For those of you who are not database geeks, and to further pad the metaphor, a field in a database is colloquially defined as a specific type of information in that database. Sets of fields are called records, and sets of records make up the database.”

The Database of Intentions has now been updated as below:

So now the database does not just contain the query (or search) but the social graph (Me and my contacts), the Status update (What am I doing) and the Check-in (Where I am).

What I love about this post/ idea is that not only does it point to other sources of such information (for information gatherers) but executing excellently on even one of these “fields” as he calls them is a very viable business. Combine two or more of these and BOOM! A potentially very very successful operation. For example, take the check-in (e.g. LBS – my favorite) and the social graph and you get this. So many permutations are buzzing in my head right now……still need to think them through. For example, let’s say you have a platform on one of these four fields. You open it to allow others to build upon it (on the other fields). Can you even imagine?

Definitely get the book and most definitely read the complete post

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mobile shopping – Exteme localization

Mobile Shopping

Image Credit: Mele’s Musings

When I was writing the previous post (I know, today despite a fever and a bad cold, I’ve got verbal diarrhea to boot), one of Google’s biggest weaknesses struck me: IT’S SYNCHRONOUS. Let me explain. Basically, Google will display ads on the right hand side based on what is searched on the left hand side. Here’s an example:

 

Obviously, there’s a reason. I don’t want my private searches (for XXX stuff or illegal downloads and even any other searches I prefer to keep private) broadcasted all over the screen as ads. But on the other hand, I never will be informed of new offers on things I want to purchase but for which I haven’t searched in a week. Hence, Google only displays ads based on what I am searching now. I guess it also displays ads based on where I am sitting and searching from.

Secondly, I don’t search for everything on Google. A lot of things I find out from word-of-mouth. Also, let’s say for example, last weekend I went to Vashi searching for showcases. Now, one of my cousins recommended one good shop around there. We went there and then also explored other shops around that area and actually chose one from a nearby shop (not the recommended one). So this was more of a “location-location-location” aka William Dillard style. How does Google address this? Answer: In its current avatar, it can’t

So this is another place for mobiles to kick in their advantages of:

Personalization: One mobile belongs to one person. Hence, usually, a profile of one person will not be confused for another

Mobility: Take your profile wherever you want.

So the scenario I’m describing is a  mobile profiling application (product) which would act as something of a to-do list.  The idea would be to match providers of a content with the sellers of the content which is location-specific, asynchronous (you don’t have to be looking for the content when you get an intimation that the content is available at a provider). So you list out whatever you need to purchase say, the latest 50-cent CD, probably a sweater and maybe a replacement for those old specs that you’ve bought. You set up a consumer account in your application and your list would be:

  1. Until I self-destruct
  2. Sweater
  3. Sunglasses

Now, on the other hand, a shop keeper sets up a provider account. He has his own music store where he has set up a special on 50-cent music. Maybe, he realizes that consumer tastes have shifted from hip-hop to jazz and wants to clear his unsold inventory. So if you walk past his shop, you see this big poster of these discounts and rush in to buy a copy. However, what happens if he is the second shop at the intersection and you’re passing through a parallel road. In this case, your to-do list helps you out by informing you that there is a shopkeeper one road down who sells you the album cheap. Simple!

Few other scenarios below:

1. The provider may have a status as “open” or “shut” status on the application. Hence, late at night you could use this to-do list to help you find shops which are still open delivering hot Chinese food to your doorstep. 

2. Further, you could configure your mobile to display advertisements only for specific items e.g. You ensure that you receive ads only for 50-cent CDs and not for the XX CDs that you also want and is in your to-do (not that kind of to-do).

3. In specific circumstances: You could say “Give me only information for Ray Ban sunglasses – Aviator model where the provider is offering a discount of atleast 15%.

4. Ratings for providers: On receiving a particular offer, you could be given the option view the provider;s profile. The profile would also include feedback of other consumers i.e. whether the offers he broadcasts are often false, whether he keeps casting out offers which are have been repealed quite sometime back, quality of goods, etc.

5. Limit the number of messages that can be displayed to the subscriber within a particular period of time. This can be configured by the user. Which ads to then display? It could be based on the subscriber’s preference to receive notices from ONLY one provider, a preference to one provider with an OK to receive from others as well, user feedback and ratings or completion of transaction history.

6. C2C sales: I need a ticket to the next AvB concert and in a hurry. There is another guy (not exactly a seller in the conventional sense of the word i.e. shopkeeper,etc.) who wants to sell his ticket. There is an aspect of scalping here but if the price is agreeable, it will work.

The best part of this whole thing is all you need is a mobile phone. Any one can use this, from a huge mall / supermarket to the vendors on the road selling street food.

Payments can  be made based on the number of advertisements broadcasted by the provider or based on any transaction based events that may be triggered on completion of the sale. This could also be based on giving a “teaser” by the provider and payment is triggered when the consumer asks for more info.

Update: After reading my published post, I also realize that this would not necessarily just a product but another social networking platform (Another?) where I can tie up reviews from Burp!, feedback posts from WordPress or Blogger, Google Maps to determine location, the profiler (as a seperate product), offerings on Ebay by mapping the seller’s address to the consumer’s current location and even profile of the seller / company on Orkut, Facebook or Twitter feeds.

Obviously, there are a few caveats to the whole product:

1. Password-protected and secure
2. Inability by the providers to hoard subscriber numbers – Important
3. Customers to feel secure that their profile is not being abused/ used incorrectly by the application provider.
4. Service does not become spam

5. The product should be able to integrate with online stores as well as work on PCs and Apple computers as well e.g. irrespective of whether I’m at home on my PC (on Ebay or Amazon) or on the road (passing through stores), I should be able to access special offers on products I want . Hence, the consumer profile should accomodate for both on-the-road offline offers and stay-at-home online offers while providers should be able to choose from bricks-and-mortar options as well as on-net options. The application needs to ensure adequate configuration options for the subscriber for the same.

In my opinion, this is the ultimate benefit of using advertising. Screw demographics, this advertising is based on customer-intent to consume the service.

I can also fantasize (and the correct word is “fantasize”) when billboards become extremely intelligent and broadcast advertising messages based on the most popular items among consumer profiles (what the consumers have agreed to receive offers on) in the area around the billboard

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anand Mahindra on Twitter

Anand Mahindra

Why do d ‘wonders of d world’ hv to b of brick&mortar?The colour of the leaves in new england in Fall is a spectacle that is a true wonder.

From Anand Mahindra’s tweets: http://twitter.com/anandmahindra/status/5098906423

Tagged , , , ,

Rupert Murdoch to block Google from indexing pages from NewsCorp Inc.

Interesting ! Rupert Murdoch has stated that NewsCorp would in the near future block Google from sending spiders to crawl and index NewsCorp pages which basically means that if you search for news in Google, NewsCorp results would not appear.

Video announcing the same:

While this may actually look like a bad thing for NewsCorp (not getting listed in Google rankings), it really isn’t. After all they have huge brand equity which can actually stand up against Google’s might. Anyways, the comments section is afire. Murdoch doing what he does best. Here are two interesting viewpoints:
Mark Cuban says that the game has changed for Google as now people just don’t use Google much for searching breaking news. That has been usurped by Twitter and Facebook (what is really called the real-time web). Hence, for breaking news it makes more sense to follow that particular media company, magazine, what have you on Twitter and Facebook.  Particularly enlightening quote:

Twitter and Facebook have become the ultimate real time programming guides.  Look at it like this. “Hear about bubble boy from a follow”. If: “its a news source, go to that news source” If not: “Look it up on twitter (or i use icerocket.com it shows tweeter authority) to see if there are any 1st hand accouts or check my FB wall to see what my friends have to say,  if anything”  “See tweets/posts to determine how I want to get more information:  from  TV ( stream, regular, phone), or from online written or audio source” if online: “go to that source from link in twitter or facebook”

All of the above complements everything Rupert and Newscorp are doing. Google is no where to be found in that equation.

Another interesting  viewpoint from Jason Calacanis (from his newsletter which I subscribe to. He says this would be the most opportune moment for companies like Bing to go all out and negotiate with Murdoch and NewsCorp. From the letter:

Essentially, I put forth a simple strategy for Microsoft to pursue with Bing in which they would go to content providers like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal and offer them 50% more revenue then they are currently getting from Google search referrals to be exclusively indexed in Bing.

This is 100% legal and, in fact, Google encourages people who don’t like how they do business to opt out of the Google index (they can do that because they are so huge and because they don’t like to be evil).

So, for a moment, imagine a world where Bing could say in their TV commercials:

“Want to search the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and 3,894 other newspapers and magazine?”

“Well, then don’t go to Google because they don’t have them!”

“Go to Bing, home of quality content you can trust!”

Comments are interesting and insighful as well

Interesting points to which I replied back saying:

1. What would stop Google from negotiating for a higher revenue share? They did start off their business in a big way by doing the same with AOL. Would this lead to some kind of bidding war among search enginers? In which case, what would be the scenario in case all the big guys grouped together and said “Bid for ad spots on all our sites”? Would such a scenario be feasible? So would this then be a case study on not just blocking the spiders from some sites and negotiating with another or more about how big audience sites can make more money by playing off one search service provider against another

2. Bing may also be able to negotiate on other aspects of the advertising such as the metrics that Bing would share with NewsCorp. As per my understanding, Google has not been very transparent in terms of how the revenue shared is reached. This might be another differentiating factor. Would like your thoughts on this

Video of Jason’s back and forth here with Lon and Tyler:

Well, to be very honest, it’s a very very ballsy move by Murdoch (Something that is a frequent happening in his life). After the disappointment of the Myspace acquisition, this is his new move on the Internets. The interesting thing is what happens if this succeeds?. That results in definition of an automatic threshold for price discrimination i.e. how many followers, page views, etc. do I need to have before I can open my ad inventory for negotiations? This makes news aggregation sites such as Weblogs pretty powerful especially in the number of sites they control and the ad inventory they deliver. Especially if they use the 140-word limited Twitter and updates to display the “tease” (A headline with a link to the content behind paywalls). So essentially, the equivalent to reading a newspaper is : You browse through the headlines on Twitter and Facebook and if you like something, you click through to read the content behind the paywall (The main body of the news). See any Google intervention there? Frankly, do you see any search engine intervention anywhere?

What does this mean for the media industry as a whole? What happens if pay walls allowed subscribers to access the content through an RSS feed with Bing adding a link saying “Want to read more?” which directs the person to the Bing site, this totally removes only Google from the scene.

I am going to watch this closely. This really changes the rules of the game from the search provider dictating the terms to the content provider choosing his delivery mechanism

Other links: PaidContent reports

Updates:
Google replies with its standard PR reply doesn’t say what the impact to it will be;
John Battelle comments- short and sweet

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.