SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Binary Hodgepodge -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (3297)7/3/2009 2:26:42 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6763
 
The media has reported that the death of Michael Jackson earlier this week precipitated an explosion of activity on the Internet. Not surprisingly, the interest in Michael Jackson's death is not limited to the U.S. According to Google Trends, which tracks how often a specific search item is entered into its search engines relative to its total search volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages, it is currently only the eighth most popular search item in the U.S. and the fourth most popular search item in English.

google.com

How Much Did Michael Jackson Rock the Web?

By Jenna Wortham
New York Times
July 2, 2009, 1:34 pm

As news of Michael Jackson’s death began to spread last Thursday, the crush of people flocking to the Web for information overloaded several Web sites and services, causing AOL’s instant messaging service, news sites, Twitter and Wikipedia to buckle under the strain.

But just how much traffic are we talking about? Compete, a Web analytics firm based in Boston, crunched some numbers and came up with a few data points to help illustrate the surge.

It found that there were 9.98 million queries for the terms “Michael” and “Jackson” across the top 25 search engines and news and social media sites in the week ended June 27. Compete said that was more than 24 times the number of queries for information using the terms “Iran” and “election” during the week before.

Google, which said that its systems initially interpreted the spike in searches as an attack, fielded the most requests, handling 61 percent of the queries.


Yahoo Music pulled in a hefty 45 percent of Web surfers seeking the pop maestro’s albums, music videos and merchandise, according to Compete. YouTube ranked a distant second with 23 percent.

Compete said Yahoo’s dominance was probably a result of spillover from its coverage of Mr. Jackson’s hospitalization. Yahoo said its coverage broke traffic records, generating 800,000 clicks in the first 10 minutes that the story was posted.

The increase in interest in Mr. Jackson’s legacy has been reflected in record-shattering sales of music, both online and at retail stores.

New York Times story link



To: stockman_scott who wrote (3297)7/5/2009 6:43:24 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 6763
 
That Long, Long Road From Idea to Success

By VINDU GOEL
New York Times
Published: July 4, 2009

SAVE paper, save ink, save money, save the planet. Marketing doesn’t get any better than that.

When Hayden Hamilton and James Kellerman started batting around the idea for their printing software in May 2005, it seemed that simple and brilliant.

Roughly one out of five pages that people print are wasted — the stray lines at the end of a Web document, the boilerplate at the bottom of an airline e-ticket, the endless PowerPoint slides before the page with the important conclusions.

Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Kellerman wanted to create software that would make it easy to eliminate the junk: When users hit “print,” a preview of the document would pop up and allow them to quickly choose which pages they really wanted.


Four years later, the two men and the company they founded, GreenPrint Technologies, are still struggling. About 168,000 people have tried the company’s free consumer version, but only about 25,000 are using it on any given workday, by the company’s estimate. Corporations, the gold mine for software like this, have been reluctant to buy it until GreenPrint worked out a host of technical issues.

“It’s more difficult than you’d think it would be,” said Mr. Hamilton, chief executive of the start-up, which is based in Portland, Ore. “We had zero insight into what challenges would be in place for an organization of 50,000 users.”

GreenPrint’s travails are all too common for small technology companies. “The gulf between invention and innovation is often a huge one that many entrepreneurs can’t cross,” said Scott D. Anthony, president of Innosight, a consulting firm.

In other words, it’s not easy to turn a bright idea into a genuine business.

GreenPrint might finally hit its stride with Version 2 of its software. The updated consumer software was released last month (downloadable versions are at www.printgreener.com), and the corporate version is due in a few weeks.

The new software is faster and offers network administrators more reports on who’s printing what and how much money a company is saving. GreenPrint has already landed one big customer — an Asian conglomerate that ordered 50,000 licenses — and says that several more are interested, including the HSBC Group, the big banking company.

But if the past four years have taught GreenPrint anything, it’s that progress can be slow.

Mr. Kellerman, the chief technical officer at GreenPrint, said the company had listened closely to early customers, like the International Finance Corporation, a unit of the World Bank Group.

I.F.C. tested the original version of the software with about 190 people. The verdict was that it was too slow and choked on large documents like PowerPoints. A lot of users turned it off.

“It was preventing them from doing work they needed to get done,” said Sarah Raposa, who runs I.F.C.’s internal sustainability program.

MR. KELLERMAN said GreenPrint hadn’t realized how hard it would be to create a universal “translator” that could handle every application and printer. Ultimately, GreenPrint had to overhaul the entire software engine, switching to Microsoft’s XPS document standard, which is tuned to run especially fast in Windows Vista and the coming Windows 7.

In the meantime, the environmental consciousness that prompted I.F.C. and other early users to support GreenPrint has become commonplace.

GreenPrint’s biggest deal so far is with Xerox, which has distributed 150,000 copies of the software with its line of solid-ink printers as part of a broad, eco-friendly marketing campaign. “It increases the ‘reduce waste’ message,” said Deb Koehler, director of sustainability of the Xerox Office Group.

Ms. Koehler said that Xerox had been patient with the 28-person start-up. Despite the initial sluggishness of the software, “we also had a lot of feedback that if someone really cares about reducing the waste, it’s worth the wait.”

It may be worth the money, too. GreenPrint says its software, which costs about $70 per corporate user, will shave an average of 17 percent from the cost of paper and ink — about $100 annually for a typical employee printing 10,000 pages at 6 cents a page. In the case of Savills, a British real estate brokerage firm whose agents briefly tested the software, the projected savings were more than $800 per user a year, GreenPrint said.

With that kind of money at stake, a successful GreenPrint could nip at the profits of the big printer makers, like Hewlett-Packard and Canon.

H.P., the leading maker of printers, makes a 40 percent operating profit on ink, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. As a result, H.P. is trying to bolster, not reduce, consumption of printer ink, which costs customers $40 to $80 an ounce (making Dom Pérignon Champagne look cheap at about $5 an ounce).

“We’re seeing this explosion of digital content,” said Stacey Wueste, a vice president for environmental strategy in the imaging and printing group of H.P. “That all drives a set of printable opportunities we didn’t have a few years ago.”

H.P. deflects talk about the cost of ink, preferring to discuss carbon footprints. The company has directed its conservation efforts toward cutting the energy used by its printers, recycling ink and toner cartridges and making it easier for machines to print on both sides of a sheet.

As GreenPrint tries to establish its niche among the giants, its attitude is promising, said Mr. Anthony, who is also author of “The Silver Lining: An Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times.”

“You see again and again the companies that succeed are not the ones that have the brilliant strategy,” he said, “but the ones that course-correct along the way.”

New York Times story link



To: stockman_scott who wrote (3297)7/6/2009 4:28:19 PM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Read Replies (9) | Respond to of 6763
 
"Free," Chris Anderson's new book, will be published later this week. Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting review last week. Msrk Cuban had some comments earlier today. The highlights are Cuban's:

When you succeed with Free, you are going to die by Free

By Mark Cuban
Jul 5th 2009 1:40PM

The problem with companies who have built their business around free is that it is far from free to remain successful.

The more success you have in delivering free, the more expensive it is to stay at the top. The more success you have, the more important it is to management to remain successful. The more important remaining successful is to management, the more money they will spend, the more chances they will take, the more infrastructure they will build, the more people they will hire. All of the things that will prevent them from staying lean , mean and flexible. All of the things that distract them from innovating within their core competency.

Lets look at the rule that eventually KILLS all freemium based content plays:

There will always be a company that replaces you. At some point your BlackSwan competitor will appear and they will kick your ass. Their product will be better or more interesting or just better marketed than yours, and it also will be free. They will be Facebook to your Myspace, or Myspace to your Friendster or Google to your Yahoo. You get the point. Someone out there with a better idea will raise a bunch of money, give it away for free, build scale and charge less to reach the audience. Or will be differentiated enough, and important enough to the audience to maybe even charge more. Who knows. But they will kick your ass and you will be in trouble.


For Google, who lives and dies by free, we dont know who their BlackSwan company will be. But we all know it will happen don’t we? The only question is when. Of course Google knows it as well. Which is exactly why they invest in everything and anything they possibly can that they believe can create another business they can depend on in the future. They are spending incredible amounts of money in search of the “next big Google thing”. When their BlackSwan competitor appears, they won’t be in a position to compete with the newly presented model, particularly if its free based because their ecosystem has bloated to the point where they can no longer create anything for free.

Google is not unique. The same happens to all companies based on free.

The same will happen to Facebook, Twitter, pick any company who lives off of free.

Its not that they can’t make money offering free. They can , have and will. The problem is that they know that its literally impossible to be the king of the mountain forever. But that won’t stop them from trying. And that is exactly what will kill them.

Their better choice would be to run the company as profitably as possible, focusing only on those things that generate revenue and put cash in the bank. More importantly, when you see your BlackSwan company appear and you know they will kick your ass, rather than ramping up to try to compete, get out. Sell. Or maximize cash and pay your shareholders every penny you have.

Like every company in the free space, your lifecycle has come to its conclusion. Don’t fight it. Admit it. Profit from it.

Which is exactly what MySpace should do. Rather than trying to reinvent itself to compete better with Facebook, they should do the exact opposite. They should try to optimize whatever monetization opportunities it has. Cut costs to the bone. Maximize revenue per user. Think purely in terms of business. Squeeze every nickel out of it that they possibly can, knowing its going to die a long, slow death. Meanwhile, they have the opportunity to take that money and invest it where they think some young company is preparing to become Google/Facebook/Whoever’s black swan. They can invest alone, or along side others. It doesnt matter. What does matter is recognizing that they have a better chance of beating Facebook by investing in a company they think can pre empt Facebook than by trying to reconfigure MySpace to be that company.

When you succeed with Free, you are going to die by Free. Your best bet is to recognize where you are in your company’s lifecycle and maximize your profits rather than try to extend your stay at the top.

blogmaverick.com