What G+ is really about (pst it's not social)
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
Imagine if google knew BOTH your search term and your complete personal history. Then the ad price and conversion would increase enormously.
That is what Google is trying to get a piece of.
Also, even though your example is obviously not meant to be taken as is, it shows that targeted demographics quickly don't have a lot of data behind them. Successful stories in AI usually involves lots of averaged data with only little "focused" data to adapt your model quickly (e.g. as done in speech recognition where models are estimated on 1000s of hours from many speakers, and the model is then adapted for the one speaker to be recognized).
I think the value of the so called social graph for advertising is overestimated. IMO, what's interesting about facebook is more the amount and diversity of data than its personalized nature. But then, I have little knowledge about algo for advertisement targetting, maybe the situation is different than the domains I am familiar with.
If you've collected marketing data that tells you your conversion rate among pet owners is 2% when your conversion rate among the general public is 1%, then you know that every ad you show to pet owners is going to have twice the impact on your bottom line.
Ad targeting enables you to collect this kind of data and to exploit it once you have it. If you find the right audience, your advertising dollars can go more than twice as far.
But, the real problem with facebook users is you are far less intrested in adds while on a social website and a lot of clicks are simple mistakes.
Buying an ad on Facebook that happens to be related to something they once had interest in, and may still do, will result in it being shown while they are not always looking to solve a problem or buy a product, but to entertain themselves, and most importantly may not care about that subject at that moment.
Online advertising is not a cut and dry field. You can get great results from either place, but you won't get the same results from both, at least in my experience.
Unethical behavior does not scale in business, no matter how much your calculations rationalize it. In the end people just go away from sleazy businesses. GM and Ford might tell you a story about it and millions of others short term profit oriented businesses also.
Theres only so much bullshit you can pile up before your reputation catches on to you.
Why do people buy Coca Cola? Is it because of the tremendously expensive advertisements they put out or is it because the stuff is ubiquitous, tastes fairly good and is usually not surrounded by a lot of competing products at the places where it's sold?
Don't believe me? What about if you're in a restaurant that sells only Pepsi. Do you leave the restaurant in search of another that sells Coca-Cola? Most people probably don't, thereby proving that all the so-called "positive emotions" advertisements instill in consumers do absolutely nothing when the time comes to make purchase. Theoretically, yes, in a situation where you can choose either Pepsi or Coca-Cola for (roughly) the same price, Coca-Cola's advertising campain may have an effect, but such situations are exceedingly rare. In most purchasing decisions there are variables that have much more significance than the advertising history of the products.
So ads are, probably, not effective. And despite this fact, there has been an industry selling them for over a century and that industry has been getting richer and richer, thereby proving that you can perfectly well build a business on scamming people and keeping it up indefinitely. You do, however, have to keep playing around with some superficial parameters of your business model to keep it convincing. Which is exactly what Google is doing here.
(btw, I use - and love - Google's services, but never in my life have I clicked one of their ads or even looked at one for more than a split second)
And its obvious that Coca-Cola's marketing has been waaay better than Pepsi's. And also I believe that Pepsi is quite comfortable in its #2 position. As is Burger King in its own.
Don't forget, that second biggest player in a huge market is usually still a friggin big behemoth. And that for Pepsi and BK being #2 is a core business strategy. Less upside, but also less downside. These companies basically use their bigger competitors as a hedge against market change.
Marketing in general, I agree, has some non-bullshit aspects to it. Not many, though.
But certainly the marketing that causes Coca Cola to be sold in way, way more places than Pepsi has been very effective.
One of the reasons Google's advertising programs are so successful is that they are measurable. A site can compute return on investment and know that for every $X spent on Google ad clicks they are generating $Y in sales.
The retailers I'm talking about may not be representative, however: they already had a strong market presence and strong brand recognition before they went online. Maybe there are businesses that have started from scratch online that did see significant revenue from adwords, but I doubt it.
For businesses that can best exploit Adwords targeting, it can be breathtakingly effective. I've dealt with specialist contractors who saw 25000% ROI on their Adwords spend. Search terms like "loan consolidation" and "car insurance" cost tens of dollars per click and are absolutely worth that much.
That's why we skip ads in my house, they are just too hot to handle.
A lot of sales guys sell by telling stories, not necessarily by persuading metrics, and all the contextual data makes for GREAT stories.
I disagree, for certain businesses it is more beneficial then Adwords. I have had really good experiences with Facebook Ads.
Here's my 2 cents:
1) Cheaper than Adwords, much much cheaper. The ads tend to be expensive when you first get an estimate from Facebook, but in practice, this number goes down 5-fold. Also, in comparison to Adwords, it is at least 5-fold cheaper.
2) Easier to target people. This depends on what you are doing, but I believe it works better if you are trying to build a community with a specific interest. However, Adwords is probably better for targeting advertising for an e-commerce store.
3) If you advertise your fan page, you have a hook to constantly advertise to your fans. I like building my fan page, generating conversation, and sparking interest. It is important to give users good content, but it also doesn't hurt to self promote about 10-20% of the time. It all depends on what you are doing.
Without going into specifics, think of this data as just another signal to use in ad targeting. Maybe users in certain regions are more likely to purchase a product? Maybe men versus women, people who have kids, people in certain income ranges. We ad people use all this info to eek out performance from campaigns.
Google is going for the holy advertising grail with +
- Google Engineer: If I'll better target demographics and increase conversion - I'll be able to raise my per ad price by 200%
- Ad Campaign Manager: better conversion rate? OK will pay max 15%-30% more per ad.
- Google AdSence Manager: we'll lose 80% of revenue if target narrow demographics - screw it
It would really be expanding the number of $100 clicks available and I think thats almost inevitable.
I find it highly implausible that google has as strong a desire to form simple, narrow narratives around its strategy and ambitions as bloggers and the media do.
The most convincing argument I have heard is that 'social signals' are (going to be?) a fantastic resource for cutting through the spammy, link-swapping www of today.
Also I believe he has a point. And found his message to be more lucid, clear and entertaining than 90% of three paragraph ramblings about this and that around here.
And just as a conclusion. Bill Gates was once a radnom person, as was Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Paul Graham, etc...
Maybe you should focus more on originality and evaluate merit of these ideas instead of only craving for more stuff to be fed down your throat by current status Quo holders.
And I believe that this is what HN is about. HN is curated, by HN community - and it's obvious that HN community believes this contribution's place is at the top of the front page.
I don't think you understand the meaning of curation. Curation doesn't imply censorship or that a certain group of people filter content based on a certain set of value, rather it means that they would ensure a high signal to noise by removing posts that don't really contribute to a discussion.
Any great strategy is merely speculation also is figuring and/or anticipating other peoples moves. A great strategist needs to have a great gut feeling and be lucky. When Napoleon was presented with a new officer and after his merits have been presented to him, he supposedly asked "Very well, but is he lucky?".
That is why bean counters never get to do anything great. And that is why people love good speculators. And all the guys I mentioned are incredible speculators.
Not everything can be quantified and analyzed. And regarding curation - the community has decided that this specific piece of speculation is interesting and insightful. I hope I don't need to remind you that this particular mob is not you average Joe Sixpack mob?
Even so, with a smallish population of users and the spammers still figuring out how to operate, G+ has some serious usability problems (like you can only see 2-3 items in your stream at a time on a high resolution display) and it's already getting kind of spammy. In to succeed, Google needs to maintain laser-like focus of usability and continue to innovate on a small number of features -- it can't just glom random stuff onto it or integrate random GoogleLabs projects.
For those whom Google Docs is a suitable replacement for Sharepoint, I doubt integrating G+ will make a huge difference. For those for whom Google Docs is inadequate, G+ won't tip the balance. If G+ takes the proposed approach it will actually alienate many potential users. It's better to embrace the outside world than replace it. (And, in fact, it contradicts the "blue ocean" strategy.)
Frankly, from a big picture strategic viewpoint, it's great to see Google annihilating Facebook, but it's fiddling while China burns. It's losing search, and no-one in China aspires to own an Android phone -- they're saving up to buy iPhones and using non-Google Android phones while they wait.
My feed has interesting/funny comments and links... because I just put interesting and funny people in my circles. And I don't consider the fact that I can only see 2-3 items on a high-res display bad if the quality of the content is higher than other sites I visit. There are some blogs whose index page have the same issue and I'm fine with it because I know that every single piece of content posted is well worth the surface area.
Cloud is a buzzword, it doesn't really mean anything here.
G+ is just a Buzz (thus, GMail) + GTalk + Picasa + Latitude + Google Profiles, covered under one convenient interface. You can't peer with it, you have to actually use it itself (i.e., have and maintain an account there). Yes, there are some APIs to control that account (FB has some, too), and you could have a backup copy of your own data, but doesn't really matter.
It's still almost exactly the same as Facebook.
As far as Cloud hype & buzzwords goes. I was of same opinion until I started doing my startup. Now basically all infrastructure I have (besides my personal computers) is of SAAS nature somewhere in yes Cloud.
We could say Internet, but that would be confusing - since Internet is such a broad term.
For what its worth as a reformed nonbeliever I'm telling you. Cloud is awesome and its here to stay. So you better get used to it.
Sure, some cloud providers have compatible APIs (as this is the case with Amazon S3 API), so the data could be moved between "clouds" easily. Compatibility is not a general property of a "cloud", and moreover - this is not a case with G+.
And SAAS is not a "cloud", it's just that nowadays most SAAS are marketed as "cloud" because they internally rely on some distributed storage or processing system. It's just that "cloud" quickly became a buzzword, replacing cumbersome "SAAS" abbreviation.
We've had SAAS in 90's (and, probably, earlier). Remember hosted forums, webchats and guestbooks? This was certainly SAAS, and probably not a "cloud".
Great, so G+ is yet another attempt to get people to stop using common communications standards like email and instead break the internet up into a set of distinct one-provider-oriented services that can't talk to each other?
The problem is that your social graph on Facebook is probably everyone you've ever met. Google+, on the other hand, feels much more like using email. Circles are kind of like mailing lists which we use to keep in touch with real friends and colleagues. Incidentally, these are also the people we email photos, documents and presentations to.
Circles is at the heart of Google+ because it makes everything they own better. More and more apps are going to move into the cloud and I'm betting that Google+ is going let developers take advantage of this.
I would expect that idea to apply to apps and the sharing of documents as well. If your friend is not using google plus, the document could be sent to their email instead, but the though process would be "I need to send them this document" instead of "I need to email this document to them" or even "I need to send them this document using google docs".
Sometimes I believe this...sometimes I don't. Any thoughts?
I agree with it regarding Android & Chrome OS, but I'm not sure that it applies to web apps like G+, gmail since those have per user costs.
The other stuff is already happening, and Google is winning.