Local Sale Finder | Find Discounts & Vouchers Near You

Local Sale Finder

Available on the App Store

Posts Tagged ‘google’

Exclusive indexing deals on the horizon?

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

I just received an email from Jason Calacanis. I think his rants are brilliant and, despite being the master of self promotion, gets things about right about most times.
I didn’t receive the email personally, rather, I am on his distribution list for the “Jason List” which he created because he got pissed with people using his blog for SEO, to write pointless responses, etc. To subscribe go here: http://www.bit.ly/jasonslist
Today’s email is a spin on Rupert Murdoch’s series of decisions to protect his content:
1) put a pay-for-cotent mechanism in place i.e. you pay to access the content his company has spent money to create because the value of the content is pressumably higher than the various ads display upon the page generate amd;
2) stop allowing Google et al to index news pages because Google creates significant value for its self without paying for access to the content (I do believe Google pays Twitter for instand access to its content but Twitter has the benefit of its content only being valuable within a certain time range)
The crux of Jason’s arguement is that Murdoch missed a trick: he should have done an exclusive with one search engine, namely Bing, in order to capture value for himself and allow Bing to differntiate itself from the big G via its content. This throws up a few other missed opportunities for Bing:
Twitter – Sign an exclusive for indexing Twitter content as $100 million is chump change for Bing.
Digg – Microsoft has an exclusive on Digg advertising so why not block the Google crawlers.
Facebook – Microsoft owns a chunk of Facebook so use it to get exclusivity on indexing.
Delicious – As part of the Yahoo! deal grab Delicious data to augment search
Flicker – AGain as part of the Yahoo! deal, build the best image search engine with exclusive access to Flicker images.
Is this the future of part of the search wars? A lot of social services don’t need Google traffic to survive. Does Google need them more. It did with Twitter. Will search engines start to buy exclusive indexing rights and differentiate based on content access?

I just received an email from Jason Calacanis. I think his rants are brilliant and, despite being the master of self promotion, gets things about right about most times.

I didn’t receive the email personally, rather, I am on his distribution list for the “Jason List” which he created because he got pissed with people using his blog for SEO, to write pointless responses, etc. To subscribe go here: http://www.bit.ly/jasonslist

Today’s email is a spin on Rupert Murdoch’s series of decisions to protect his content:

1) Put a pay-for-cotent mechanism in place i.e. you pay to access the content his company has spent money to create because the value of the content is pressumably higher than the various ads displayed upon the page generate and;

2) Stop allowing Google et al to index news pages because Google creates significant value for its self without paying for access to the content (I do believe Google pays Twitter for instand access to its content but Twitter has the benefit of its content only being valuable within a certain time range)

The crux of Jason’s arguement is that Murdoch missed a trick: he should have created an exclusive deal with one search engine, namely Bing, in order to capture value for himself and allow Bing to differentiate itself from the big G via its content. This throws up a few other missed opportunities for Bing:

Twitter – Sign an exclusive for indexing Twitter content as $100 million is chump change for Bing.

Digg – Microsoft has an exclusive on Digg advertising so why not block the Google crawlers.

Facebook – Microsoft owns a chunk of Facebook so use it to get exclusivity on indexing.

Delicious – As part of the Yahoo! deal grab Delicious data to augment search

Flicker – Again as part of the Yahoo! deal build the best image search engine with exclusive access to Flicker images.

Is this the future of part of the search wars? A lot of social services don’t need Google traffic to survive. Does Google need them more. It did with Twitter. Will search engines start to buy exclusive indexing rights and differentiate based on content access?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Google to buy Admob

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

So – Goole intend to buy Admob? There is a caveat on this news story – they might not be allowed to buy Admob. Allowing Google to buy Admob will effectively create an early monopoly for Google in mobile display ads and this is probably bad news for the industry. The DoubleClick acquisition should acquisition should have been blocked, the Yahoo! deal was going to be blocked and there should be significant concern over this acquisition.
So let’s assume that it does go through.
Publishers of mobile apps don’t have much choice on who to go to to monetise inventory. This deal reduces options even more and runs the risk of monopolistic pricing abuse (to be fair, Google’s acquired adsense platform has helped thousands of sites make cash where once they didn’t albeit potentially to the detriment of web display advertising CPM rates). Monopolistic pricing would cut both ways of course with advertisers being forced to pay more for inventory.
Another big upside for Google is traffic knowledge across a huge number of new apps. Soon it will have more knowledge about app usage on the iPhone platform than Apple do. I may be wrong but Apple’s iPhone (unlike the Palm Pre I believe) doesn’t call home on app usage. If it did the privacy concerns would be huge – imagine the sense of injustice with Apple when Google gets to cull this data and they don’t (hint to Apple – buy an ad platform fast).
There may be some upside for the industry though. Mobile ad display is pretty unintelligent. I am looking at a twitter app, I am standing in London and I get an ad for comedy central where the ad displays some US celebrity I do not recognise and never heard of. A platform has to emerge which provides value to all parties: ultra local adverts that are liked by users, better monetise for content owners and allow more efficient marketing for business.
Where does Local Sale Finder sit on this? We don’t use a mobile ad display partner. I don’t think we ever will. Why? We allow small businesses to post discounts to every with the application installed. Yes, we get paid, and yes, that sound like a 3-way win to me.
</end rant

So – Google intends to buy Admob? (there is a caveat on this news story – they might not be allowed to buy Admob)

Allowing Google to buy Admob will effectively create an early monopoly for Google in mobile display ads and this is probably bad news for the industry. The DoubleClick acquisition  should have been blocked, the Yahoo! deal was going to be blocked and there should be significant concerns over this acquisition.

So let’s assume that it does go through.

Publishers of mobile apps now don’t have much choice on who to go to to monetise inventory. This deal reduces options even more and runs the risk of monopolistic pricing abuse (to be fair, Google’s acquired adsense platform has helped thousands of sites make cash where once they didn’t albeit potentially to the detriment of web display advertising CPM rates). Monopolistic pricing would cut both ways of course with advertisers being forced to pay more for inventory.

Another big upside for Google is traffic knowledge across a huge number of new apps. Soon it will have more knowledge about app usage on the iPhone platform than Apple do. I may be wrong but Apple’s iPhone (unlike the Palm Pre I believe) doesn’t call home on app usage. If it did the privacy concerns would be huge – imagine the sense of injustice with Apple when Google gets to cull this data and they don’t (hint to Apple – buy an ad platform fast).

There may be some upside for the industry though. Mobile ad display is pretty unintelligent. I am looking at a twitter app, I am standing in London and I get an ad for comedy central where the ad displays some US celebrity I do not recognise and never heard of. A platform has to emerge which provides value to all parties: ultra local adverts that are liked by users, better monetise for content owners and allow more efficient marketing for business.

Where does Local Sale Finder sit on this? We don’t use a mobile ad display partner. I don’t think we ever will. Why? We use the BView API which allows small businesses to post discounts and local vouchers in their area to everyone with the application installed. Yes, we get paid, and yes, that sound like a 3-way win to me.

</end rant>

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

|

Local Sale Finder | Find Discounts & Vouchers Near You is proudly powered by WordPress 2.9.2 Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS).