When we think of the web we tend to have a mental picture that looks something like one of those destinations maps you see in the back of the in-flight magazine. We have the major hubs (e.g. O’Hare, JFK, LAX, Heathrow, Hong Kong and Dubai) and the remote locations. The hubs have the most connections. The remote locations maybe one or three. When we think about economies of scale and prosperity clearly everyone wants to be a LAX or a Heathrow. We see the same ideas on the web. Everybody wants to be a Facebook or a Google.
When we think of the web we think in terms of traditional Telecoms Network Theory (i.e. Networks, Nodes and Data and the Stupid Network). We think of Google, WordPress and Facebook – high volume sites with seemingly infinite numbers of outward connections to the smaller sites scattered across the web. We also have the high value content sites with large numbers of inward connections like the New York Times. All of these inward and outward connections powered by the hyperlink.
But what if this network of interconnected nodes is a fundamentally flawed way of understanding the web? What if FLINK (i.e. the Hyperlink) is dead or at least dying? and, if FLINK is dead or at least dying what does it mean for Google and the SOE Industry? … and what if the mainstream theories that we use today to describe the web are fundamentally flawed? What does this mean for the metrics we gather to measure performance on the web today? And is this why Google finds it so difficult to convert traffic into customers?
After all contemporary web theory is based on the simple idea that securing a Page 1 ranking on Google is a fundamental prerequisite for success on the web… But if FLINK is dead or dying what is the real value of a high search engine ranking? (See Let’s call it the Google, So what is a top page ranking on Google worth? and How important is the Internet to the US economy? )
It’s an interesting idea and one I thought worth exploring in the “experiential” metrics I have been gathering over the past 10 months though writing about the MobCon.
So let’s take another look at the data I have accumulated from the journey so far. (See My two cents worth)
At the moment Google (i.e. all search engine traffic) represents about 15% of total page hits while FLINK (i.e. Hyperlink traffic from linked articles embedded in the posts) represents about 5%. Interesting outward FLINK traffic (i.e. readers clicking through to the linked articles) also comes to 5% indicating that FLINK is a zero sum equation.
Now compare these figures to the RSS subscribers who represent nearly 30% of all page hits.
What has emerged over the past 10 months is the existence of three media consumption ecosystems. (See The 3 Ages of Business Intelligence)
The first ecosystem is what I have come to call the TWINK. Here a post receives a bump in traffic at the beginning because it is topical at the time of publication and it receives a FLINK or social media (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, WordPress or eMail) boost. TWINK time is linear and the primary feature is the initial spike followed by rapid decay as support for the topic fades. The initial spike is determined by the number of followers supporting the original source. In the case of a Tweet the ratio of pages to followers is generally about 1 page views per 1000 followers.
The second eco system consists of the regulars. Those of you who visit weekly or monthly to see what has been posted. Here time is cyclical. In the old mass media publishing and advertising model this is where the value is in the business of publishing. Indeed both the TWINK and the RSS ecosystems are consistent with traditional media models.
The third ecosystem is the Google ecosystem. Here we are dealing with non linear and non cyclical time. The question is what is the value of the Google ecosystem compared to the traditional media models? After all the linear and cyclical ecosystems requires the author to be continually feed the machine. Stop writing and the traffic stops visiting and the revenues rapidly disappear.
Non Linear media suggests the model should evolve into something akin to a self perpetuating motion machine – publish the post and count the dollars as Google regularly sends traffic your way. In this model a high page ranking on Google theoretically becomes a predictive indicator for success on the web.
The metrics I have gathered to date suggest that web audiences are still more attune to consuming media in traditional ways (i.e. Linear and Cyclical at 85%) than in non traditional ways (i.e. Google at 15%) and that the potential revenues from Non-Linear media are more like the annuity from a low interest bearing savings account than a perpetual motion money making machine. Yes non linear media generates traffic but it is neither high volume nor sticky- Plus it is mostly driven by Brand name recognition (i.e. 40% of the seach engine traffic so far has included brand or product name in the search string). (See Google Economics).
Put another way if you had a choice between obtaining a high page ranking for your web site in Google or press coverage in the New York Times then go for the coverage in the New York Times every time.
This suggests that a high page ranking in Google is more of a lag indicator than a predictive indicator for success on the web.
So where does all this take me in terms of reexamining conceptual models for describing the web?
Consumption of media is only one side of the equation. Creation of media is the other.
One of the things I have observed over the past 10 months is how fragments of posts are scattered across the web. Some reappear as reference points or images in other pieces of commentary while others become posts or news headlines for content aggregators and 3rd party web sites.
This fragmentation of the media elements and in some cases meaning interests me not just as an expression of the value of FLINK but in the disintegration of media into message elements. Almost conceptually best expressed as atomic and sub atomic “message” particles.
So when you publish a post you are in effect not adding a page to your blog (Think Node) but creating a package of message particles (Think: Electrons) that are released into the web “space”. These particles are repurposed, adopted and adapted by others in much the same way electrons are utilized in chemical bonds.
This leads us to ideas like the hyperlink being a type of weak bond between messages elements. Or perhaps the hyperlink is a type of sub–atomic particle that is shared between two or more web pages. It’s all pretty esoteric I must admit but I suspect it reflects the “reality” of the web more closely than the existing “Air Route” model we use today.
It also leads us to speculate on ideas like building complex “elements” made of web particles and how various states of energy (e.g. user participation, new technologies, VC and Investment) can excite or cool parts of the web.
The model becomes even more interesting if we start to think of the audience not as traffic but also as atomic particles that can be bonded into complex structures by these sub atomics elements (Think: Tweets and Hyperlink fragments).
These are very early thoughts on discovering a new way of seeing the web (See also String Theory, In the future which box will you call home? , Forget Freemium. Tomorrow we’ll be talking Me-mium and Surfing the Edge of Chaos) but I think it’s worth exploring new ways of seeing and exploring how the web works. Particularly if we are to discover more lucrative and profitable business models than simply putting more ads on the menu.
If you are a subscriber you have probably noticed that things have been a bit quite over the past 2 months. That’s because I have been gathering the metrics of decay. Answering simple questions like does Google still send you traffic even when you are no longer posting? After all, in at least in this set of experiments, measuring the value of decay is as valid as measuring growth through quantity and quality, currency and legacy.
Having had more time to explore my initial thoughts on adapting Dalton’s atomic theory as the basis of a new theory of the web I now think what we should be measuring are the “intermolecular” forces of attraction between the various elements of the web sphere.
In this model people and the web elements (Tweets, Images, videos, Text) are like gas molecules. They are in constant, random motion and frequently collide with each other and with the walls of any container.
In the old web model the potential value of the network is assumed to be equal to the aggregated value of the total number of nodes. In this new model potential value can be counted in the permutations attributed to the relative quality of the connections spreading across the network.
The new equation would be:
- Value of the network = The Total number of Nodes * Level of Internodal Attraction Between the Nodes
The Level of Internodal Attraction Between the Nodes would be a factor based on the quality of the bond. For Example:
- Very Weak (ie Plasma) – Google Search 1-100 parts per Billion
- Weak (ie Gaseous) – Social Media 1 – 50 parts per ten thousand
- Strong (i.e. Liquid) – Twitter 1 – 10 parts per thousand
- Very Strong (i.e. Solid) – Telecom Customer Retention Rates 70-98 parts per 100
“You’re over cooking it again. Anybody else would look at these figures and think looks and feels like blogging is just like the rest of the web. All we are talking about is Media on Demand: Be it pictures, text, video, data, charts, news, information or even apps. The three-time lines (Linear, cyclical and non linear) are consistent with Media on Demand. Your audience just taps in when they want to. Their level of involvement is either Just in time (Search, FLINK, Tweeter, Email or Facebook) or they have become regulars (RSS, Email or Weekly/Monthly Drive Bys) either way all you have proved with this experiment is that 15 years on the web isn’t a revolutionary new medium with a language and syntax all its own… it’s just a flexible delivery platform that is content agnostic.”
Yes he was a Telecoms Engineer but that said I couldn’t help but think he’s perspective provided an insight I was missing after months of gathering and analyzing the data.
He then pulled out his iPhone and proceeded to navigate through the app store, selected an app at random, purchased it, opened it up and then asked the question ” Can you tell me the difference between this and Google?”
I responded with ”You just paid for the privilege of making an impulse buy. On Google you’d get the same emotional response for free”
“Wrong answer”, he replied. “Both Google and the App Store are navigational aids that allow you to rapidly obtain media on demand. The only difference with Apple you pay. With Google the advertiser pays. Both have discovered a way to make lots of money out feeding of my impulsive need for media. Most people think this game is all about making money out of the technology. Best technology wins. Best search engine wins. Best smart phone wins. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This whole game is about aggregating a crowd and then profiting from their impulsive urge to consume media.”
Of course my Telecoms friend was right in his theory that the future of media was all about creating navigational aids that allowed the audience to impulsively consume media. Creating signposts rather than destinations.
The only problem with my friend’s analysis is the simple fact Google never really figured out how to monetize its search engine. Indeed Search is to Google what Journalism is to Newspapers. At best a cost of doing business, at worst a loss leader. That’s why trying to disrupt Google by building a better search engine is a flawed strategy. After all Google didn’t disrupt the Newspapers by hiring better journalists.
What Google succeeded in doing was to position its brand on nearly every web page by offering content providers the opportunity to make money by adding Google’s text-based Ads to their content.
Google’s success hasn’t been about the aggregation of message fragments. What they have done is offered publishers the chance to accumulate digital pennies by offering advertisers the opportunity to place ads on the world’s biggest aggregated content network in exchange for digital dimes and dollars. They simply built an exchange and marketed it as a revolutionary new search platform that required an investment in SEO to secure high page rankings.
So would building a better aggregated advertising network disrupt Google today?
Probably not. The emphasis on SEO that the Google myth has created has made it a lot easier for any programmer to match ads with content. You don’t need a magical Search algorithm to match the content and meta tags on a web page but you do need to be able to track the user as they travel around the web. This is Google’s competitive edge.
That’s why the most obvious way to disrupt Google is via the Window through which the user navigates the web.
It was always going to be easier to disrupt Google by building a better OS and/or web browser that offered content publishers the chance to accumulate digital pennies (perhaps even dimes) by offering advertisers the opportunity to place ads on the Window in exchange for digital dimes and dollars. After all the browser and the OS are the only fixed elements in the equation that are present no matter where you travel as you navigate the web.
Indeed advertising embedded in the browser or the OS has the additional benefit of being user specific and content agnostic. This is why Microsoft would be better off investing in a more intelligent OS and/or Web Browser rather than Bing. Web search should never have been a web site. It should have been an integrated function of the browser, the OS and possibly every application on your desktop.
Further reading:
Posted on August 10, 2010
0