Google Who?

Woe is me for having branded myself (and my wife) with the Google Me moniker. As rumors fly over a Google social network named Google Me, I'm ducking for cover from Google's lawyers (would they really come after someone who just wrote a book singing their praises!?!) and frantically planning modifications to my t-shirt line (available today via KosherHam.com -- get 'em while they're hot... and legal!)

In last week's Search Insider column, I touch on Google Me (the network, not the shirt... well, ok, the shirt too!) in the context of Facebook's move to use the social graph to influence search results. Will flesh out the Google Me piece more in next week's column.

Here's the blurb...

Link Vs. Like And The Future Of Web Ranking
Posted by Aaron Goldman on Jun 30, 10:12 AM
There's been a lot of discussion about the ongoing fight for Web supremacy between Google and Facebook but, to date, the debate has centered around matters like privacy and metrics like page views and ad dollars. In the past week, however, it appears both companies are taking direct aim at the heart of the other's core business. First, AllFacebook.com reported that Facebook launched an "open graph search engine." Then, Kevin Rose sent the blogosphere into, well, the stratosphere with a tweet suggesting that a new Google social network called "Google Me" is imminent. In today's column, I'll dissect Facebook's search aspirations.
» 2 Comments

Don’t Hate the Mayor. Hate the Game.

Image Source

I’ve been cited in the press twice in the past two weeks regarding social media.

The first pertained to Four Square monetization and the second was re: Facebook and privacy. As always, I’ve posted recaps of the Connectual blog and added an extended POV on each topic and the implications for the digital marketing ecosystem.

So the next time one of your friends annoys you by clogging your social media feeds with check-ins or crop-dusting, just think… it could be worse. Imagine if those notifications came with ads!

SES Chicago Search + Social Session in Pics

After some shameless promotion, my SES Chicago session on the link between Search and Social was well-attended and well-received.

You can see the panel assembling in the pic above. From right to left that's Bryan Simkins of FedEx, Marshall Clark of Organic, Tobias Peggs of OneRiot, Brian Boland of Facebook and yours truly. Hat tip to Chad Richards from Firebelly for the TwitPic.

The content was quite diverse reflecting the individual POV of each speaker and his respective company.

By way of quick recap...

Marshall outlined his Page Rank for People postulate.

Then Tobias broke down One Riot's Pulse Rank algorithm.

In turn, I joked with Brian that Facebook should roll out Poke Rank. He didn't take the bait but did demonstrate how the Facebook ad platform incorporates some of the same concepts as SEM.

Bryan wrapped things up by tackling the recency vs. relevancy conundrum that's surfaced with Google's integration of real-time results onto the SERP by pitting man vs. machine.

I just asked the panelists for permission to post their presentations. As soon as I get that, I'll add their decks as an update to this post. In the meantime, here are some images that represent the highlights of the presos. You'll have to check back for the full context -- although the Alt Tags will provide some clues.

Update 12/18: Rather than update this already long and visual post with the decks from the session, I decided to create a new post to house them -- Search and Social: See You at the Crossroads.

Happy Birthday! Love, Your Wall

We all know that the Internet has changed the way people communicate. Some folks think it will completely replace human interaction as we know it. After celebrating my birthday today, you can now add me to that camp.

The Envelope Please

I decided to tally up all the different ways people sent their b-day wishes today. Here's the final count...

In Person - 5 1/2 (4 of which I ran into at an industry event, 1/2 credit to my 15 month old daughter, Eliara)
Phone calls - 8 (2 live, 6 voicemail)
Cards - 8 (pretty much the same people that called)
Text Messages - 3 (1 of which I'm still not sure who it's from)
Email - 5 (including 1 e-card... thanks Grandpa!)
Twitter - 4 (3 @ messages, 1 direct message)
Facebook - 81 (73 wall posts, 5 comments on my status, 2 direct messages and 1 gift)

It's the Thought that Counts, Right?

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sentiment but there's something so very impersonal about a b-day message splattered on your wall after being prompted by a reminder from Facebook.

Of course, I'm guilty of said splattering myself. I used to store people's birthdays in my Outlook calendar and email people on their special day. For a few years, this was quite the effective technique. But I've gotten lazy (not to mention, feel like emails stand out less in a sea of Facebook notifications) and, except for my closest friends and family, just give the ole b-day FB ping these days.

Quantity vs. Quality

So the question becomes -- is this a good thing? I can tell you, I've never had more people remember my birthday nor reach out with b-day love than I did this year. But I've also never had so few phone calls.

There's certainly something to be said for the ease of connectedness that the Internet has brought us. But at what cost?

In the future, will people even talk to each other?

Update 7/12: This post seems to have struck a chord with my friends and family. Apparently I made some people feel a little self-conscious. Sorry, not my intent!

First off, since I published this, another 10 b-day wishes came thru (1 card, 1 email, 1 voicemail and 7 Facebooks).

I also had someone reach out to say that they had wanted to wish me a happy b-day before reading this post but couldn't decide what forum was best. Given our casual but still meaningful friendship, FB seemed too impersonal whereas a phone call would've been too personal. So instead she did neither and decided to wait until we saw each other in person this week. Although she relented after seeing my post and sent an email wishing me a happy b-day and explaining her conundrum.

Over the weekend, this topic came up during a 2-hour roadtrip with some close friends. We talked about how Facebook, and the Internet in general, has changed what it means to be friends with someone. It used to be that if you wanted to know what was going on in a friend's life, you picked up the phone and called. Today, you can keep up with tons of people just by watching your news feed and seeing their updates.

To that end, there was disagreement over whether the Internet helps or hinders friendships. On one hand, it's great to be able to stay connected to so many people and know what's going on in their lives. On the other hand, too often we rely on tools like Facebook to stay up to date on our friends and interact with them much less.

Of course, it's all somewhat semantics and depends on how you define the word "friendship." Personally, I believe the Internet has changed that very definition. To me, now, a friendship is a relationship between 2 people that involves regular offline interaction. Meanwhile, the definition of an acquaintance has been elevated from 2 people that have met in passing to 2 people that stay in touch via the Internet.

It's funny, in so many ways the Internet has facilitated deeper one-to-one relationships -- especially, when it comes to marketers and their consumers. At the same time, though, it has facilitated one-to-many relationships with blogs and social networks allowing us to broadcast our every thought and action to the world. The unfortunate thing is that the true definition of friendship seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Update 7/9/10: The social (media) experiment continues. Today, I posted this update to Facebook and Twitter...

And here's the final tally (well, technically, there are 3 still hours of my b-day left but I will be in no condition to post this at midnight)...

In Person - 5 (2 who work in my office + my wife, daughter, and babysitter)

Phone calls - 13 (8 live, 4 voicemails, and 1 missed call but no message so he resorted to FB)

Cards - 7

E-Cards - 2

Text Messages - 8 (including 2 from South Africa)

Email - 8 (including 1 from Shanghai)

Twitter - surprisingly just 1 (thanks @kosherham) although I did get 1 DM death threat (thanks@saneel) and 1 RT of this post (thanks again @kosherham)

Facebook - 105 wall posts (2 with video), 5 comments on my status, and 1 Like on someone's happy b-day wall post (you're a nerd, Ohloff, but I love ya for it!)

So, once again, Facebook is far and away the most popular method of birthday wishing. And, this year, all my numbers are up (except Twitter) so it looks like 2009/10 featured some good relationship building.

This year, I spent more time thinking about how I responded to the reach-outs than the reach-outs themselves. It's also very telling about this crazy technologically-induced relationship-altered world we live in.

In person - the officemates got thank-you's and fist knocks, the wife and daughter got hugs and kisses and the babysitter got just a thank you (anything more would've been awkward)

Phone calls - I haven't returned any of the voicemails and don't plan to. Anyone that called during the day while I was working (except my parents) was screened out and will have to be ok with going on record as having called (which is probably what they were going for anyway). All the live chats (again, except my parents) took place early evening when I was done working and able to talk.

Cards - I didn't specifically thank anyone for sending cards. Most were from people I also saw live or spoke with live so I figured I didn't need to thank them twice. And for the few that only sent cards, I thought it'd be weird to reciprocate with a call or certainly a written communiqué mirroring the one they sent me.

E-Cards - replied with short and sweet "thank you" emails.

Text Messages - this format seemed to get the most attention from me. I replied to each one with a personalized message. I found it very convenient to see the message when I was good and ready and reply when I was good and ready. Generally speaking, I think texts are a step up on the personal ladder from FB and represent closer friends as they require knowing my phone number and not having the luxury of FB reminding you it's my birthday and being 1 click away from sending a msg. Although I do suspect many of the texters were reminded by FB but I appreciated them going the extra step to grab their cell and fire off a msg.

Emails - replied to each with a "thank you" plus a short personal message (if you count "good wknd" as personal).

Twitter - replied to the death threat with a jab of my own and haven't yet told @kosherham how much I love them but I think they know.

Facebook - so far I haven't responded to anyone on FB, not even the obligatory status update, "thanks everyone for the b-day wishes. It was a great day and I'm so lucky to have such great friends." BLAH and BAH (as in HUMBUG). I'll probably link to this post again and call out the update. If you were one of the FB wishers that saw this status update and read this entire blog post update then I would like to acknowledge you individually because you're either a great friend who's truly interested in my introspective (and self-absorbed) musings or really, really bored on a Friday night. Either way, deserve a little love so leave a comment and claim the affection that's rightfully yours.

Until next year... seeya on FB... or not!

Update 7/10/10: A few more FB reach-outs to report.... 4 more people slipped in wall posts before midnight and I forgot about the 1 poke I got yesterday (thanks, Ma Bell, haven't been poked in years, forgot what it felt like!)

Also, had quite a few people leave a FB comment on my link to this post. One suggested that I make a guesstimate of the number of people that probably saw on FB that it was my b-day but didn't take the time to reach out. So I did some more math and replied as follows...

Good call, I have 742 FB friends and got wall posts/comments/likes/pokes from 125 uniques so 83% of my "friends" were exposed to my b-day reminder (assuming they logged on to FB yesterday and didn't respond)... but as we online media geeks know, exposure does not = view so, between those that didn't visit FB and those that didn't see b-day reminders, I'd say the percent is probably closer to 25% but that's still higher than the percent of my friends that did reach out. Net net, I'm a nerd and no-one cares as much about me as myself. Yeah, yeah, you could've told me that and saved me the math. :)

Then another old friend called me out for not being the best at keeping touch myself. Here was my reply...

Guilty as charged. Notice I didn't report or analyze how many of my friends b-days I've seen reminders for on FB but didn't so much as send a quick poke. Methinks my percentage of exposure to reach outs is probably less than the 17% that did so for me. Guess I'm just a pot poking the kettle.

Meanwhile, another friend sent me this someecard to which I replied, "I could do a whole post on what it says about someone when they use sarcastic e-cards to convey their true feelings. ;)"

I'm not going to do that but I will leave you all with this one...

I Dream of Bing-y

This ain't the first time I've repurposed a Facebook update as a blog post. But it's the first time I've done so with a call to action. Please take 2 seconds to vote for my picture to be the Bing homepage background. (Be my Bing-man?)

In case you're wondering, those are the ocean villas at the Intercontinental resort in Bora Bora and, yes, it's every bit as fabulous at it looks. The coffee tables in the rooms slide open so you can feed the fish.

Update: Social media guru Jeff Campbell pointed out that you need to join the app before you can vote. So search Bing on Facebook (or, shall I say, google Bing) and then join the photo contest and then vote for Pedro! Not quite a 2 second endeavor anymore but much appreciated! Don't worry, I never forget the little people!

Privacy Schmivacy

Just came across an interesting piece from John Markhoff in the NY Times that was published about 6 months ago titled, "You're Leaving a Digital Trail. What About Privacy?"

Long-time Digital Sea Changers will know privacy is a topic near and dear to my heart (and one that I firmly believe has a price).

In his story, Markhoff covers an MIT project in which students agreed to "swap their privacy for smartphones that generate digital trails to be beamed to a central computer."

Markhoff goes on to share a wide range of applications of consumer data in this brave new world from monitoring hot nightclubs based on taxi activity to predictly flu outbreaks using Google search data.

Prudently, Markhoff covers the potential downside of such data disclosure -- eg, insurance companies declining coverage based on disease-related search queries or police identifying protestors via social network connections.

But I think this quote from one of the MIT students involved in the smartphone study says it all -- "The way I see it, we all have Facebook pages, we all have e-mail and Web sites and blogs. This is a drop in the bucket in terms of privacy."

Reminds me of a quip I made in my 2007 Search Insider column, "Should We Fear Ambient Findability?" -- "Curtains? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Curtains."

The article ends with a quote from Dr. Thomas Malone, director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, saying, "In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly."

All in all, you're just another brick in the wall, my friends...

Facebook Ad Network? Say It Ain't So!

The network craze continues. Yesterday, Reuters cited Mark Zuckerberg speculating that a Facebook ad network might be in the cards...

"And with Facebook increasingly taking steps to make aspects of the service available on other websites, like its recent Facebook Connect feature, Zuckerberg said the company could eventually develop a type of online advertising network.

'You can see over time us wanting to offer more ways for people to monetize their site and help out with that, and it could be a pretty natural extension for us to do something with ads or a number of other things that we've considered,' he said."

Good lord. Facebook can't even get advertising right on its own site and now it thinks it can help other publishers?!?

Is Twitter to Facebook as Google is to Yahoo?

Normally, I don't re-post my entire Search Insider Column to this blog but the last 200 words of today's piece got cut off on Media Post so here's the full version...

Is Twitter to Facebook as Google is to Yahoo?

This analogy came to me at the recent Search Insider Summit during the Day 2 keynote conversation moderated by Gord Hotchkiss with Gian Fulgoni and Jordan Rohan. As always, these SIS-staples delivered many provocative thought-starters but I perked up when they started discussing the opportunity for richer brand experiences on the search engines.

History Lesson

Jordan said that what made Google so popular at first was its sparse page with just a search box and textlinks during a period when the trend was towards meta-cluttered portals. Over time, Google evolved its search results pages to include images, video thumbnails, maps, etc. but stopped short of overtly promoting brands beyond text ads. Jordan argued that incorporating any richer ad unit on the SERP would likely cause consumer-backlash.

I quickly wrote up a post for the MediaPost Raw Blog titled, "It Ain't the Blue Links," suggesting that what made Google so popular wasn't its clean white page with simple blue links but its incredible algorithm and relevancy. I closed with this thought -- "The lesson learned from Google is not just simplicity, it’s automation, crowdsourcing and, above all, relevance."

Lesson Learned?

Google was not the first to do search. That honor goes to Archie. And many other search engines came and went before Google. But Google was the first to take the idea of relevancy beyond mere on-page factors, incorporating an element of crowdsourcing by giving weight to inbounds links.

Today, all the major engines take link-juice into account to some extent. However, the 2 biggest contenders for search share after Google -- Yahoo and Microsoft -- still look at search as an add-on to their core offerings.

Now, let's look at the social networking space. MySpace was the first to reach critical mass (Friendster was close but never tipped) before eventually giving way to Facebook, which came along with what was considered a cleaner UI -- read: less graphics, images, audio and other junk -- and more relevancy -- read: less garage bands, porn, and sexual predators.

But what was it that everyone really liked about Facebook? It was the ability not just to connect with people you actually knew -- it was that you could know what they were doing at all times. The status updates were the golden goose.

Over time, though, Facebook began to become more portal-like. It added more tabs, boxes, app's and pages for brands to market themselves. It rolled out advertising programs that, at best, cluttered news feeds and, at worst, offended people. Oh yeah, and then there was that whole Beacon thing.

Paying Attention?

So, along came Twitter, taking the best of Facebook and stripping out the rest. As @ev and @biz told the hosts on the View, the idea for Twitter was hatched as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "a collection of IM away messages."

But they didn’t stop there. Just like Google took what some where doing already and made it better, Twitter put a twist on the idea of status updates by positioning its platform as “micro-blogging.” In turn, rather than just sharing what inane activity they were doing at the time, the Twitterati use their 140 characters to share ideas, POVs, quotes, tips, even RFPs.

As our collective attention span gets shorter and shorter and ADD is hard-wired into our DNA, people will lose tolerance for platforms like Facebook that require multiple clicks to get to the goods. Navigating Facebook is the epitome of Scott Brinker’s Golden Sprinkle.

Heck, people are even losing tolerance for blogs with the average post seeming like a novel compared to a tweet. Case in point -- with this column closing in on 1000 words, I’m sure many of you are thinking you could’ve just gotten the gist by reading the headline and moving on.

Again, there are parallels here back to the search world. In the late 90’s it became clear people no longer wanted to rely on hunting and pecking around a portal assembled by human editors to find interesting information, they just wanted to search for it and have the algo point them in the right direction.

By stripping out all the superfluous features of Facebook, Twitter is more simple and more relevant.

Demerits

So will Twitter do to Facebook what Google did to Yahoo?

Twitter certainly has momentum. Over the past 2 months, its traffic has quadrupled. And it has become pop culture fodder what with all the celebs on Twitter, Ashton reaching 1 million followers, and Oprah getting onboard. And did I mention the founders were on the View?

There's one major hang up, though. While it may have taken the best feature of Facebook and built a company around it, Twitter missed one key point -- you have to own the audience.

Twitter does not own its audience. Applications like TweetDeck and Twhirl do. And while those app providers are beholden to the Twitter API to power their tools, they’re not affiliated with Twitter nor do they share revenue with it.

The fact is, very few people go to Twitter.com. Sure, it may have 17 million monthly visits per comScore but I'd bet there are well over 50 million active Twitter accounts. (Note: as far as I know, Twitter does not release this number.)

Before Google could build out its syndication network and put its toolbar on every browser and desktop, it first got people hooked on Google.com. That afforded it the luxury of dictating terms to 3rd parties that wanted to build on top of it, either by licensing its search results or embedding its ads onto their sites.

Sure, Twitter could just turn off its API one day, locking out all the 3rd party apps and forcing people to come back to Twitter.com but that will surely cause user-revolt -- much worse than if Google subtly introduced display ads on SERPs.

Another major issue for Twitter is monetization. Enough columns have been written on this topic so I’ll spare you my 2 cents other than to say that what made Google so successful was that its monetization engine reinforced its overall mission -- as Marissa Mayer said, “Ads are answers as well.” And, by keeping them relevant (through its Quality Score) Google’s been able to basically print money.

That said, it’s worth noting that Google didn’t rush to monetize either, taking a couple years to build its audience and work out its kinks before running ads.

Homework

So where does this leave Twitter?

Only time will tell if "status updates” or “micro-blogging" are to "social networks" what "search" was to "portals." And it remains to be seen if Twitter will find a way to drive revenue without disrupting the ecosystem.

If, somehow, Twitter can find the right balance of "simplicity, automation, crowdsourcing and, above all, relevance,” it could very well render Facebook the next Yahoo.

Unless, of course, a Twitter-killer like Flutter or Shttr emerges, stripping out just 26 characters or even going down to 10 and ditching the vowels.

Update: MediaPost corrected the error and my full column is now live on the Search Insider site. Some good chatter in the comments section too. Apparently I was not the first to notice the parallels between Twitter/FB and Google/Yahoo.

Will SPAM derail Social Media?

Is it just me or is there a lot more spamming and phishing going on out there in social media-land lately?

It seems like I'm getting a least a couple spammy messages in Facebook every day now, whether it be via inbox or wall post. And I've already long since given up checking my MySpace account after it got flooded with solicitations from porn stars. Now, the Nigerian princes seem to have migrated to Twitter. Over the past couple weeks, I've been followed by a good 25-30 bots.

When I first broke into the online media biz in 2000, email was the toast of the town. Acquisition email was getting a good 25-50% of our clients' internet advertising budgets and delivering strong response rates. We all know how that story ended. As the channel got cluttered with spam, open and click-rates deteriorated, as did email marketing budgets in turn.

I'm wondering if Social Media is headed for the same outcome. Will people begin to tune out the communications they receive from anyone they don't directly know (including, of course, advertisers) as the platforms become inundated with spammers?

Now, of course, Social Media has gained nowhere near the traction that email marketing did in the late 90's. Facebook, MySpace, et. al. would be thrilled to have 25-50% of marketers' budgets. So their fall may not be as precipitous, if it can be called a fall at all.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I'm sure the social networks are going to great lengths to keep their channels spam-free but where there's a will, there's a way. And those Nigerians seem to have a lot of will. In fact, one just offered to cut me in on his if I just give him my bank account number.

CIMA Survey #6: Trends in Interactive Marketing

Tonight I'll be moderating a panel at the first CIMA byte of the year. We'll be kicking it off with the release of the results of CIMA's 6th bi-annual survey on the state of the interactive marketing industry.

Troy Mastin, analyst to the stars, er... CIMA will be presenting the research and has given me a sneak preview. Here are the 5 key insights he's pulled out of the data (along with my comments.)

1. A sharp decline in the health of the industry noted. (No surprise here.)

2. Economic conditions and industry dynamics impacting vertical categories. (CPG up, auto/finance down... again no surprise.)

3. Rich media and search seen as strongest established tactics; Mobile and social represent the most interesting areas of growth. (The fact that rich media outscored search suprised me. I've seen display budgets getting cut faster than search but maybe all the buzz around Hulu skewed people's responses.)

4. Google and Facebook seen as the Industry leaders but “up and coming” solutions continue to fragment the landscape. (Interesting that Facebook is seen as a leader despite very poor monetization.)

5. Direct marketing viewed as better insulated than advertising for the first time. (When in Rome, er... Recession...)

After Troy presents the research, I'll lead a discussion with this esteemed panel:

-Brian Mandelbaum, Vice President, Interactive Group Media Director, Cramer-Krasselt
-Michael Kahn, SVP, Marketing, Performics\VivaKi Nerve Center
-Julie Wainwright, CEO, SmartNow.com
-Joe Laszlo, Director of Research, Interactive Advertising Bureau

If you weren't able to pre-register for this event, unfortunately we're not taking walk-ups. But I'm pretty sure we'll be recording the event and posting to the CIMA site so you can catch up on the dialogue and what color shirt I was wearing. (Hint: some might call it lavender.)

UPDATE 3/25: Troy's presentation has been posted to the CIMA site and event pics are up on Picasa. Here's one of me getting cozy with the panelists:

Yes it was a good discussion...

Don't Police Privacy, Just Pay People!

In case you've been under a rock the past couple weeks, there's been quite the uproar over online privacy in the press.

On Feb. 4, Facebook announced changes to its terms of service including its data retention policy, which the Consumerist interpreted as Facebook basically saying, "We can do whatever we want with your content. Forever." This prompted some indsutry "watchdogs" to ask, "Is Facebook really using its new terms of service to own your data?"

Sure enough, one week later, Mark Zuckerberg caved to the pressure and reverted back to the old terms while it sorts out this mess.

Meanwhile, the FTC put out a 55-page report on "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising." Many privacy "advocates" say that these guidelines are not sufficient -- Wendy Davis at Media Post has a nice recap of the debate.

Then, a couple days ago, came word that mobile network operators in the UK are going to be selling behavioral data to advertisers. This, no doubt, will set off a firestorm among the populace across the pond.

Why does everyone keep missing the boat here? The way to get consumers comfortable with sharing their data with marketers is not by changing terms of service, imposing self-regulation of opt-in/outs or unilaterally deciding to sell it to advertisers.

As I proved in my Highly Targeted experiment, the best (dare I say, only?) way to get people to part with their beloved data is to pay them for it. There is no quid pro quo in sharing data to receive targeted advertising. People don't want targeted advertising. Sure, if they're going to get bombarded with ads anyway, they'd prefer they be relevant but they'd really rather get no ads at all.

I can think of no better economic stimulus plan than paying consumers for sharing their data. Who needs a one-time tax break when you could be pocketing $20+ a month for looking at targeted ads?

Allow me to show my work...

There are roughly 240 million people over the age of 14 in the U.S. And there is about $3.3 billion spent on advertising each month in the U.S. (for the top 10 categories not including Internet or B2B ad spending). Add in the $1.6 billion spent on online advertising in the U.S. each month and you're looking at $4.9 billion it total U.S. monthly ad spend (again, not including traditional ad dollars from categories outside the top 10 and B2B).

If we cut out the media companies and gave those dollars directly to consumers in exchange for viewing (and rating) ads, every person over the age of 14 in the U.S. could net a minimum of $20 per month in perpetuity.

Forget a CTO, the Obama administration needs a Chief Advertising Officer. Hey Barry, call me!

Reviewing My 2008 Predictions

On Tuesday, I linked to my post on the RM Blog outlining 10 predictions for search marketing in 2009.

Today, I thought it would be fun to review my predictions for 2008 to see how I did. At the end of 2007, I used my Search Insider Buzz-o-Meter column to lay out the following predictions:

1. "Google to bow display ads on SERPs after the DoubleClick deal closes."

2. "More consolidation in the [agency] space, with large shops scooping up specialized search firms as they acknowledge how critical search is to all aspects of marketing and realize how hard it is to build search expertise in-house."

3. "More and more search firms [will] stick a flag in the sand regarding their core expertise -- some will embrace all forms of performance-based media, others will develop full-service digital marketing capabilities led by 'search-think,' and still others will remain true to query-based marketing only."

4. "Facebook to have a major impact on the search marketing landscape in '08, whether it be incorporating Web search (via MSN?), reacting to news feed optimization or spawning regulation around data portability."

5. "A[n economic] pullback could actually be good for search -- when times are tough, marketers load up on platforms with proven ROI -- I also think it could stunt innovation, with the Big 4 unwilling to take chances and upstarts unable to get funding."

6. "Search marketers to figure out how to leverage widgets beyond the mere link-popularity benefits."

7. "The next wave of opportunity is likely in the torso -- after all, as the tail gets longer, the belly gets fatter."

8. "[Microsoft's KSP platform aka AdIntelligence] will make search marketers smarter in '08, and hopefully it will push Google and Yahoo towards becoming more transparent with their data (although I'm not betting on that.)"

Now, to steal a page from Paul Harvey, "for the rest of the story..."

1. Wrong. Didn't happen outside a tiny pocket of experimentation with banners on Google Image results.

2. Sorta. iProspect gobbled up Range Online Media. Publicis snapped up Performics. That was about it though. Instead of acquisitions, we saw a trend towards large agency holding companies infusing resources from their search specialist shops into individual agency brands (eg, WPP creating Group M Search and infusing search talent into Mindshare, Mediaedge, and MediaCom).

3. Right. Search agencies definitely chose sides this past year. As I pointed out in yesterday's Search Insider column, Didit is positioning itself as a "company providing bid management services." 360i kept its "Search-Informed Marketing" approach but acquired creative shop i33 to deliver full-service solutions. Meanwhile, Resolution Media stuck with its laser-focus on Query Marketing (although per prediction #9, look to see expansion here). There were more examples but these 3 check each of the boxes I outlined in my prediction so we'll move along.

4. Sorta. As I suspected, Facebook finally launched web search in tandem with Microsoft but it didn't exactly set the search world on fire. Data portability was a hot topic with the launch of Google Friend Connect but regulation in the space came not from the government as I expected but self-imposed practices from folks like Yahoo shortening the duration of personal data storage to 90 days.

5. Wrong. The recession might not have been bad for search (after all, flat is the new up, right?), but it wasn't good for it either. And innovation among the Big 4 may have slowed but it certainly wasn't stunted. Google rolled out SearchWiki, Microsoft rolled out a number of cool features like Farecast integration and more (see my comments on this post), and Yahoo, despite being battered the most, still managed to roll out Search Monkey as part of its open initiative. Meanwhile, the search for the Google killer continued as startups like Cuil raised cash and launched to very little acclaim.

6. Wrong. 2008 was a big year for widgets, although they're now more commonly referred to as applications thanks to Facebook and the iPhone. Not much application for search marketers though.

7. Wrong. The power of the long tail shone mightier than ever in '08, helping Obama take the White House. There was much debate at the recent Search Insider Summit over the relevance of the long tail to search marketers with no clear consensus. The torso did emerge in a big way this year, just not from a search standpoint. Rather the torso reared its ugly, er, head as vertical ad networks become the "it" thing in online display media.

8. Right. MSFT AdIntel made Resolution Media much smarter search marketers this year. And, sure enough, Google followed suit becoming more transparent with absolute search volume data and a nifty Insights for Search tool.

If I take half-credit for the sorta's, the tally puts me at 38% accuracy. I certainly went out on a few more limbs with my '09 predictions so it will be interesting to see how I fare this coming year. One thing we can all bank on (sorry, bad word choice) for '09 -- it ain't gonna be pretty.

What a Difference a Year Will Make

Today I peered into my crystal ball (not to be confused with my Magic Obama 8 Ball) to see what 2009 would bring for the search marketing community.

Below are my 10 predictions. Check out the full post on the Resolution Media blog.

1. Yahoo will be broken up and sold off.

2. Google will offer DART Search for free.

3. Omniture will acquire Covario and incorporate it into its Genesis suite.

4. One of the Big 4 search engines will bow display ads on SERPs.

5. Microsoft will enhance its search results by incorporating the social graph.

6. Google will have a major privacy slip-up and experience serious consumer backlash.

7. Mobile will become a staple of search marketing programs.

8. Search marketers will focus more on post-click activity.

9. Search agencies will expand their offerings beyond “pure” search.

10. I will finally get around to launching GoodSEMBadSEM.com, GoodPPCBadPPC.com, and GoodSEOBadSEO.com.

How Many Ad Agency Execs Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

I've sunken to a new low -- passing off screenshots from Facebook updates as blog posts. But I'm not apologizing...

As I ruminated in my last post, in today's sound-byte culture, very few people (readers or writers) have the time or patience for excessive verbiage.

To me, this blog is a personal brand portal of sorts -- a central location for me to sound off on all things digital media and marketing. I use Twitter, Facebook, and my 17 other blogs for a combination of personal and professional musings. For those people out there who only care about my indsutry-related rants, you can quit following me on all those other platforms -- Digital Sea Change is the only destination you need to monitor.

Now, enough excessive verbiage -- here's the punchline...