Twitter - Experiencing Windows 7 Via Twitter (Rather than Blogs)

Techmeme is filled with major tech sources covering Microsoft's Windows 7 debut (TechCrunch, D6 Highlights, WebWare, Engadget, and many more). But the action is also being covered actively (perhaps even more actively) on Twitter. In the last two minutes, John Battelle, Jason Calacanis, Loic Lemeur and others have tweeted updates, insights and analysis... starting conversations and valuable dialog.

It's well known that Twitter is as much a short-form of blogging as it is an instant source of news. In fact, one of the first users I followed was @redsoxcast - a user that broadcasts nearly every Red Sox pitch. I pay for MLB.com's service - but actually prefer following @redsoxcast because it is portable and always accessible.

What I am struck by, however, is that this is the first robust, instant dialog I have followed on Twitter. I have followed one-person updates before (like the Oscars or Red Sox games... but I haven't yet seen this level of interaction. Of course it's covering a tech event... but if Twitter can amass this sort of activity across multiple, they will be a major player in news and a major competitor to bloggers.

A Twitter search for "Ballmer" on Twhirl:

My live Twitter feed - notice the updates are all Microsoft and Red Sox

Twitter Needs Its Power Users and They Need Twitter's Data

Twitter and FriendFeed have sparked serious controversy over the last few weeks – and now the controversy is surrounding super users like Robert Scoble.

As Twitter searches for a business model and stability, Om Malik argued that perhaps both can be achieved by charging super users like Scoble (@scoble), Michael Arrington (@techcrunch), and Loic Lemeur (@loiclemeur).

I completely disagree. Scoble, Arrington, Loic and the countless other web 2.0 celebrities (Guy, Calacanis, etc) are Twitter evangelists and the type of free marketing that most companies pay for via traditional marketing… they are unpaid spokesmen. Why would Twitter turn around and charge them for usage?

Nearly 20,000 people follow @techcrunch – meaning that 20,000 users find Arrington’s tweets interesting and useful. Does Twitter need @techcrunch more than he needs the platform? It’s tough to argue at this point – but I can argue with certainty that Twitter needed Arrington and other powerful early adopters at launch. Turning around to selectively charge him (as a power user) not only strikes me as hypocritical - it affects 20,000 ordinary users whose first experiences with Twitter likely came from power users.

Moreover, power users on Twitter are only power users because their audience enables - dare I say demands - their frequent postings. I am a big believer that markets correct themselves. If Scoble twitters too frequently or too obnoxiously, he will lose followers.

Instead of charging users for usage, I am a firm believe that Twitter should charge users for data… and perhaps this is where the business model arrives from power users. Let’s use @techcrunch as a continued example. Arrington often pushes out new posts through his Twitter account - reaching 20,000 new potential readers. But, based on my experience on a much smaller scale, he likely has little to no understanding of what happens next. Users start coming in from so many disparate sources that measuring the impact of his Twittering is damn difficult (or even currently impossible). Would Arrington pay for more detailed information about what happens after the tweet? How about relevant on-Twitter search data? Or competition?

I know that I would.

Equally important - I believe that this sort of usage would be good for Twitter (beyond the revenue) as it makes its users more effective communicators. By understanding my usage and its impact, I am likely to use Twitter more often and more effectively. Another example of the market correcting itself.

Compete has taken an interesting step into charging per-query, but I think the solution is likely a monthly charge.

MLB Economics 2.0 -According to Ryan Braun, Hanley Ramirez, Troy Tulowitzki and Evan Logoria

In the last few weeks, the economics of Major League Baseball (MLB) has been rewritten in a way that would make Money Ball's Billy Beane proud. MLB has seen an influx of very talented, very young players (under 27) - and general managers are forced to ask themselves whether to lock them up to big contracts now... or have them hit the open market and potentially sign far bigger deals. The players are forced to ask themselves whether to sign long-term contracts now or continue earning minimum level salaries ($100,000s / yr) until they hit the open market. It's a fascinating time for baseball.

Just a few months ago, a flurry of massive free agent deals were signed: Alex Rodriguez (32 years old): $275m / 10 years Mariano Rivera (38): $45m / 3 Mike Lowell (34): $37.5m / 3 Jose Guillen (32): $32m / 3 Francisco Corderro (33): $46m / 4 Aaron Rowand (30): $60m / 5 Torii Hunter (32): $90m / 5 Jorge Posada (36): $52m / 4

These are all enormous deals for players that will likely decline noticeably towards the end of the contracts. So while the numbers might make sense for the first part of the contract, I assure you that Jorge Posada will not be worth $13m / year when he's 39 or 40. But when a talented player hits the open market, the bidding puts *everything* in his control. Just ask Johnny Damon, Eric Gagne, Barry Zito and others...

So four teams from four non-major markets have started a new economic wave by signing their own talent to long-terms deals that are favorable for both the player and the team. The Milwaukee Brewers, Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays ALL say their talent leave to major market teams able to pay their players major dollars. To protect themselves, they paid their players handsomely (but far less than the average open-market contract) but locked them into long deals with team options for an additional 1-3 years. Those players are all in their young 20s and have yet to hit a major payday (despite making $100,000s / year). So the clubs are able to secure the future at reasonable rates (should these players be even close to top talent) and the players are able to land deals that will pay them very well... and potentially still enable them to hit the open market and fetch the big dollars:

Player Total Contract Contract / Year Age Years Ryan Braun, LF $45,000,000 $5,625,000 24 8 Hanley Ramirez,SS $70,000,000 $11,666,667 25 6 Troy Tulowitzki, SS $31,000,000 $5,166,667 24 6 Evan Longoria, 3B $17,500,000 $2,916,667 23 6

And soon enough you'll see the Red Sox do the same with Papelbon, Pedroia, Jon Lester, Bucholtz, and Ellsbury. The Yankees will sign Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, and Ian Kennedy (they already signed Robinson Cano). The Mets have tied up Jose Reyes and David Wright.

Even big-market teams like the Red Sox, Mets, Yankees, Tigers, etc understand that you'd rather gamble on upside than on downside... especially when signing people on the downturn of their career can be more expensive.

And it hasn't been proven that it's easier to predict success for veteran players. A couple examples based on recent memory:

- Johnny Damon and Pedro Martinez were signed to long contracts by the Yankees and Mets respectively. Neither played as well as their Red Sox days nor has remained healthy (both are aging as well).

- Andruw Jones signed a monster contract with the Dodgers this year ($36m / 2 years). He's been horrible.

- Eric Gagne got $10m this season after hitting the open market. He leads baseball in blown saves and has relinquished his role as closer.

- Jorge Posada got big money and a four year contract from the Yankees. He's spent most of the year on the DL - and I can't imagine it will get better as he approaches 40.

Player Total Contract Contract / Year Age Years Ryan Braun, LF $45,000,000 $5,625,000 24 8 Hanley Ramirez,SS $70,000,000 $11,666,667 25 6 Troy Tulowitzki, SS $31,000,000 $5,166,667 24 6 Evan Longoria, 3B $17,500,000 $2,916,667 23 6 David Riske, RP $13,000,000 $4,333,333 31 3 Mariano Rivera, RP $45,000,000 $15,000,000 38 3 Alex Rodriguez, 3B $275,000,000 $27,500,000 32 10 Kenny Rogers, SP $8,000,000 $8,000,000 43 1 Aaron Rowand, CF $60,000,000 $12,000,000 30 5 Johan Santana, SP $137,500,000 $22,916,667 29 6 Carlos Silva, SP $48,000,000 $12,000,000 29 4 Luis Castillo, 2B $25,000,000 $6,250,000 32 4 Francisco Cordero, RP $46,000,000 $11,500,000 33 4 Octavio Dotel, RP $11,000,000 $5,500,000 34 2 Keith Foulke, RP $7,000,000 $7,000,000 35 1 Eric Gagne, RP $10,000,000 $10,000,000 32 1 Tom Glavine, SP $8,000,000 $8,000,000 42 1 Jose Guillen, RF $36,000,000 $12,000,000 32 3 Torii Hunter, CF $90,000,000 $18,000,000 32 5 Geoff Jenkins, RF $13,000,000 $6,500,000 33 2 Andruw Jones, CF $36,200,000 $18,100,000 31 2 Scott Linebrink, RP $19,000,000 $4,750,000 31 4 Mike Lowell, 3B $37,500,000 $12,500,000 34 3 Kazuo Matsui, 2B $16,500,000 $5,500,000 32 3

Google AdSense Introduces 3rd Party Ads; Click Through Rates +2x

On Monday May 19th, Google notified AdSense publishers that they are now accepting 3rd party image and rich-media ads... a potentially significant upgrade considering that Google's image and video inventory is very weak as compared to traditional text ads. This is makes sense considering that it is magnitudes more difficult to produce video units than it is to produce graphical units; and the same can be said for graphical vs. text units. But it is in the publisher's best interest to have strong inventory in image and video ads:

- they usually have better EPCs / ECPMs. In a 728 x 90 unit, for instance, Google requires the graphical unit to out-value all of the text ads that would appear in its place.

- Simply put: Graphical and Rich-Media units are classier. I feel a lot better when branded ad units run on my site. It looks more professional, conveys credibility and seems to translate into increased CTRs.

But Google's inventory to-date has been quite poor. That's why the below news is exciting. It's difficult to determine how much new inventory has been flighted and what the change in value / revenue is... but it is apparent that new units are running and that they look far more professional. Additionally, without making any other changes to the site, my AdSense units have seen a 2x improvement in click-through-rates. As Google continues to strengthen their ad inventory and as the DoubleClick integration progresses, I expect continued improvements.

Greetings from Google!

We're happy to announce that the Google content network now accepts display ads served from qualified third-party vendors. During this initial release, only ads in English are eligible, although we look forward to offering more options in the future.

By accepting third-party ads, we can attract a greater variety of advertising on the Google content network, which we believe will result over time in increased revenue for publishers and more relevant advertising for end users.

If you're currently opted in to image ads, you're already able to receive third-party ads. If not, you can enable image ads to start receiving third-party ads immediately. (Learn how to enable image ads at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=9741.)

If you choose to allow third-party ads on your site, please update your privacy policy to inform your visitors that third-party vendors may serve ads on your site. Please also provide links to these vendor websites and inform your users that they may opt out of cookies (if the vendor offers this capability). For more information about updating your policies, visit https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=94150.

You'll continue to have full control over which ads appear on your site with tools like competitive ad filtering and the Ad Review Center. Also, only advertisers with whom we have proven relationships and who've clearly demonstrated commitments to our quality standards may participate in this program. Our policies governing ad content and formatting remain unchanged.

To learn more about third-party ads, please visit our blog post at http://adsense.blogspot.com/2008/05/introducing-third-party-ads-on-google.html and our FAQ at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/topic.py?topic=14535. If you have any questions or feedback, feel free to contact us at adsense-support@google.com.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043

Should Facebook Acquire FriendFeed, Twitter and/or Digg?

Over the last few years - in *numerous* settings - I have heard different variations of the following: “Why should we build it internally when we can let it be proven elsewhere… and either build or acquire then?” This logic makes sense if you: 1) have the resources and manpower to build and/or integrate the product 2) have enough users that you can either catch up to competitors or accelerate an acquired company

I’ve thought a lot about this as Twitter and FriendFeed continue to grow and as Facebook has begun to experience declining traffic. My personal feeling is that, as products and consumer services, Twitter nor FriendFeed should really exist on their own; rather, they are products (pun intended) of Facebook’s oversight. Think about it – Twitter and FriendFeed are more powerful, distributed versions of the social feed.

And as Facebook’s traffic begins to decline, it’s increasingly obvious that they are taking note of this new generation of social interaction. Just yesterday, Facebook expanded their Feed product (making an obvious push into FriendFeed’s territory) and they are including more and more native profile enhancements (seemingly) modeled after utilities and applications built by 3rd parties and proven successful by the community.

What will become interesting is whether Facebook is able to push either Twitter or FriendFeed aside (or the next upcomer) … and with their massive user-base, that is a real possibility. Or, will Facebook become a web 2.0 acquirer (like Yahoo, Google and eBay)? Acquired web 2.0 sites like Delicious, StumbleUpon, and Flickr - and potential targets like Digg, Twitter and FriendFeed – might make a lot of sense to Facebook (and help invigorate their site usage).

Relevant reading: Techmeme's top few headlines are all about FriendFeed today

Grand Theft Auto IV Makes $600m, Niko Bellic's Actor Makes $100k

Grand Theft Auto IV will go down as the most successful video ever:

- Sold 3.6 million units in the first day - Sold 6 million units in the first week - Hit $500 million in sales in the first week

Michael Hollick, the actor and voice behind lead character Niko Bellic, will go down as the worst negotiator ever:

-15 months spent on GTA IV - $100,000 salary for his work - that's $0.016 per unit sold in the first week

The New York Times has a fascinating piece on Michael Hollick, "A Video Game Star and His Less-Than-Stellar Pay", and how the video game industry hasn't adjusted its pay scale for actors (despite seeing marked growth and revenue. Like the writer's strike, there is a discrepancy between traditional media and new media (video games and internet).

And Hollick recognizes the gap between his earnings and Rockstar's:

“Obviously I’m incredibly thankful to Rockstar for the opportunity to be in this game when I was just a nobody, an unknown quantity,” Mr. Hollick said. “But it’s tough, when you see Grand Theft Auto IV out there as the biggest thing going right now, when they’re making hundreds of millions of dollars, and we don’t see any of it. I don’t blame Rockstar. I blame our union for not having the agreements in place to protect the creative people who drive the sales of these games. Yes, the technology is important, but it’s the human performances within them that people really connect to, and I hope actors will get more respect for the work they do within those technologies.”

Can Michael complain? Sure. But I disagree for a few reasons.

First, GTA IV is not successful because of the actors. In fact, I am pretty confident that you could fill any actor's voice in there and the game would be just as successful and just as fun. Hollick may be a terrific actor (I have no idea) - but it really doesn't matter....

... because the real stars of any video game are the programmers (who enable the 'acting'). And they, like Michael, are salaried. If I was running Rockstar and was asked whether to remove the top few programmers from the team or replace the actors - I wouldn't even blink.

And Hollick agreed to the terms put forth. He agreed to accept $100,000 for the work - regardless of whether the game was an utter flop or a massive success. The entire industry knew it would be a success - so perhaps he should have asked for more? Or perhaps he knew that there were dozens of people willing to do that same job for the lowest available rate... and that Rockstar would be completely comfortable hiring other talent.

April Search Data: Google 61.6% of Market, Yahoo Falls to 20.4%

Much of the news today was around Facebook's 10% month-over-month decline in unique users - but the search query data out of Comscore is equally interesting (and important, particularly in light of the Microsoft-Yahoo deal).

Google gained nearly two points in search share - now representing 61.6% of US search queries. Google had sat around the 58% mark from October - December of 2008 and surged in April (breaking 60% for the first time). Meanwhile, Yahoo fell nearly a full point to 20.4%. Since January, Yahoo has falled 2.5 points (11%) compared to Google's 3 point gain (5.3%).

As Yahoo attempts to remain independent, their rapidly declining search share does not bode well or instill confidence.

Using Compete.com to 'Understand' Techmeme and Its Audience

If you’ve read this blog often enough, you’re aware that I’m a big fan of Quantcast. I’m also a fan of analytics software / providers and was excited to try out Compete’s new pay-per-usage analytics program. Compete now offers detailed data about websites or verticals – providing:

- Top Keywords, ranked by volume. - Site Share, percentage of all search referrals to a site via that keyword. - Keyword Engagement, index representing average amount of time spent after entering the site via that keyword. 100 represents that term resulted in the most time spent on the site. - Keyword Effectiveness, index that combines the total number of people referred by the keyword and the amount of time those people spent on the site. 100 represents the most effective term.

Conceptually, I love Compete’s model and would be willing to pay for usage… of course assuming that the data is accurate. I was skeptical at first considering that, unlike Quantcast and Google Analytics, Compete doesn’t have the most accurate form of data: embedded tracking on my site.

… My hypothesis was right. I pulled data on Techmeme and the results appeared fishy:

#1. Techmeme (12.4% site share, 100% keyword effectiveness)… obviously #2. Fred Wilson Venture (2.6%, 0.14%) #3. Techmeme Mesh (2.5%, 17.5%)… obvious again #4. New coach signature faye wedge shoes slides sandals (2.4%, 3.4%)… wtf? #5. Techmeme.com (0.9%, 3.8%)

Would you pay for data that accurately suggests that your branded keywords are effective? Even more problematic is that the unbranded keywords (what you really want) are clearly way off. Fred Wilson is thematically relevant, but shouldn’t be the #2 keyword by volume (or any other measure) - if it really is a blog, it would be TechCrunch (which represents 8% of Techmeme headlines). The below chart not only shows the bizarre variety of keywords, it shows the problem with including brand-related keywords within such data sets: they represent such a large portion of traffic that the it becomes impossible to compare the remaining data:

I obviously don’t have access to Techmeme’s logs, so just to validate that this data is troublesome, I ran the same report on my blog. The results were better (probably because I have less traffic and data to work with) – but still raised some serious questions. I’ve charted out the top queries below and, for the most part, am impressed with the keyword portfolio (except for bizarre entries like “Ryan Spahn” and “gorilla convict blog”, #3 and #8) - but the keyword volumes are way off.

I applaud Compete for pushing metrics into new, potentially powerful fronts. Unfortunately though, I’m not sure the data supports it yet. Additionally, Quantcast provides the same sort of keyword, audience and demographic data … which better accuracy… and for free. The first rule of thumb with analytics is accuracy is critical. And if you’re charging for that data - it really needs to be accurate.