A consulting project I'm working on includes helping a global brand optimize and grow a special-purpose professional networking community. After the community had been in place a couple of months the client wanted to ask members what new features they'd like to see. Normally I'm all about putting the customer first, but in this case I thought it was the wrong approach. When you're building a social network in a niche market the steak should come first: get the fundamentals right. Leave the sizzle for later.
First, it's important not to set expectations you can't fulfill. In this case, the client is using a hosted solution built around a template with a limited feature set. Giving community members an open-ended invitation to suggest features the client can't deliver has a high probability of disappointment. They're likely to start listing fun or flashy applications that caught their eye on Facebook...the type of thing that builds engagement once you're a loyal member but may not correlate to establishing the core value that motivates someone to join and return in the first place.
In the early going it's smarter to concentrate on a straightforward presentation (think Google) of basic activities that create value, such as sharing questions and information and facilitating connections between people who want to find each other. Discussion groups, blogs, wikis, ratings, Q&A, and some type of personal matching engine are a good start. Early on, focus marketing efforts on building usage of essential features rather than on proliferating functionality. If the underlying concept of your community is on target, people will sign up and return with or without the extra bells and whistles. After it reaches critical mass and is yielding a positive ROI you can invest in sizzle to generate more usage and time on site.
Furthermore, while it never hurts to open communication channels and invite people to talk back, when you're operating online you don't need surveys to reveal the activities people like best. With recall more perfect than any questionnaire responses, your web analytics disclose what features people do and don't use, where they spend the most time, when they visit, and the paths they take through your site. To understand how your community is working, dive into site stats.
Here's a great example of how, in the world of special-purpose online communities, steak trumps sizzle. Just this week some former colleagues in Brazil launched a community for IT and telecom professionals, CW Connect. To get the community up and running quickly they chose a US vendor's hosted solution. In some cases, page templates unavoidably and a bit awkwardly mix English and Portuguese. But instead of stressing over imperfections, my friends focused on the opportunity of launching the first professional networking site in their market in Brazil. Instead of Facebook "feature envy" they kept it simple. The plan paid off: Brazilian IT and telecom professionals who haven't had a venue for making connections and sharing solutions are flocking to CW Connect. CW Connect is starting with a good steak, which means there will be opportunities for lots more sizzle in the future.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
New Study on PR Measurement
Speaking of PR, the publication PR News has just released its Guide to Best Practices in PR Measurement Vol. 3. The guide costs $399, but you can check out the table of contents and a couple of articles for free. Chapters include Measurement Research, Measuring Media Relations, New Media Measurement, Measuring Integrated Marketing, 360-Degree PR Measurement, Measuring Reputation, Impacting the Bottomline, Measurement Case Studies, and Measurement Resources.
The web-enabled demand for measurability and demonstrable ROI is affecting every area where businesses spend to gain reputation, build brand, and promote products and services. Among the topics in the New Media Measurement chapter: Measuring Web 2.0, Measuring the Impact of Online Influencers, Measuring E-Mail Performance, How to Measure Social Relations, and A Conversation about New Media Metrics among Digital Luminaries. There's additional discussion of online and social media topics in other chapters, too.
The report notes that "measuring the value of PR's contribution to bottomline business results has never been harder--or more necessary." In any case, the focus on measurability is here to stay, and it's good to see various professional specialties specifically calling out the need to learn more.
The web-enabled demand for measurability and demonstrable ROI is affecting every area where businesses spend to gain reputation, build brand, and promote products and services. Among the topics in the New Media Measurement chapter: Measuring Web 2.0, Measuring the Impact of Online Influencers, Measuring E-Mail Performance, How to Measure Social Relations, and A Conversation about New Media Metrics among Digital Luminaries. There's additional discussion of online and social media topics in other chapters, too.
The report notes that "measuring the value of PR's contribution to bottomline business results has never been harder--or more necessary." In any case, the focus on measurability is here to stay, and it's good to see various professional specialties specifically calling out the need to learn more.
Bypassing Media: Is PR the New Advertising?
It’s hardly news that the internet is leading to big changes for the advertising business, a transformation that has important consequences for online media companies that monetize with ad revenue. But in a Web 2.0 world where social media complicates the landscape and yesterday’s hierarchical models of content presentation give way to the audience’s collective wisdom, will brands start shifting resources from advertising to PR? If so, what does that mean for online media businesses?
Advertising and PR exist side by side, as complementary strategies for shaping opinion and motivating behavior. Traditionally, advertising has been a more direct investment in an anticipated outcome, where the advertiser has lots of control of the message and presentation—and pays for the privilege. PR, on the other hand, is about more subtle influence that attempts to work its way through the audience’s network of influencers and authority figures. It’s the network idea that makes PR an interesting option in the social media environment.
In classic PR, the “PR man” (or woman), either at an agency or a company, has a powerful file of media contacts to leverage when it’s time to get the word out. That model is endangered as change roils the media industry: there’s rapid turnover in newsrooms, and in any case, audiences now rely less on the voice of big media to tell them how to think. In a world where social networking and Web 2.0 put the “me” in media, people are more likely to depend on their favorite blogs, discussion groups, RSS feeds, wikis, online Q&A, and direct online networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr, or Twitter. For an old-school PR traditionalist that could be a challenge; for a PR 2.0 professional, it’s a big opportunity.
That’s because PR’s classic strength of developing opinion-influencing messaging, and its intuitive grasp of how to navigate the web of persuasion, map well to Web 2.0’s proliferating content channels and network-based communication structure. The savvy PR professional can insert himself or his brand directly into the network without having to rely on a third-party introduction from a journalist—not via subterfuge, but by establishing the client brand as a valuable information resource. Then, through strategies such as tagging, RSS, voting, and old-fashioned hyperlinking, the content is disseminated virally.
The viral uptake model is also coveted by online advertisers, who look to social media to drive deeper engagement with products and brands. To be sure social media has many benefits for advertisers, especially in uncovering preferences, needs, and affinities that can provide better targeting, higher conversions, and an advertising experience that feels less intrusive. But the fundamental quid pro quo of the advertising value proposition can only go so far in social media. There’s a point where efforts cross the line into PR. That might mean companies will shift some budgets from advertising to PR as social media gains traction, cutting media sites out of the revenue stream.
The online medium constantly challenges us to rethink assumptions about boundaries between business categories. Advertising and PR will continue to exist as the conjoined twins of the persuasion industry. But in this new world we’re creating online, don’t be surprised if the bright line that used to divide them begins to blur around the edges.
Advertising and PR exist side by side, as complementary strategies for shaping opinion and motivating behavior. Traditionally, advertising has been a more direct investment in an anticipated outcome, where the advertiser has lots of control of the message and presentation—and pays for the privilege. PR, on the other hand, is about more subtle influence that attempts to work its way through the audience’s network of influencers and authority figures. It’s the network idea that makes PR an interesting option in the social media environment.
In classic PR, the “PR man” (or woman), either at an agency or a company, has a powerful file of media contacts to leverage when it’s time to get the word out. That model is endangered as change roils the media industry: there’s rapid turnover in newsrooms, and in any case, audiences now rely less on the voice of big media to tell them how to think. In a world where social networking and Web 2.0 put the “me” in media, people are more likely to depend on their favorite blogs, discussion groups, RSS feeds, wikis, online Q&A, and direct online networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr, or Twitter. For an old-school PR traditionalist that could be a challenge; for a PR 2.0 professional, it’s a big opportunity.
That’s because PR’s classic strength of developing opinion-influencing messaging, and its intuitive grasp of how to navigate the web of persuasion, map well to Web 2.0’s proliferating content channels and network-based communication structure. The savvy PR professional can insert himself or his brand directly into the network without having to rely on a third-party introduction from a journalist—not via subterfuge, but by establishing the client brand as a valuable information resource. Then, through strategies such as tagging, RSS, voting, and old-fashioned hyperlinking, the content is disseminated virally.
The viral uptake model is also coveted by online advertisers, who look to social media to drive deeper engagement with products and brands. To be sure social media has many benefits for advertisers, especially in uncovering preferences, needs, and affinities that can provide better targeting, higher conversions, and an advertising experience that feels less intrusive. But the fundamental quid pro quo of the advertising value proposition can only go so far in social media. There’s a point where efforts cross the line into PR. That might mean companies will shift some budgets from advertising to PR as social media gains traction, cutting media sites out of the revenue stream.
The online medium constantly challenges us to rethink assumptions about boundaries between business categories. Advertising and PR will continue to exist as the conjoined twins of the persuasion industry. But in this new world we’re creating online, don’t be surprised if the bright line that used to divide them begins to blur around the edges.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Life After Facebook: Alternative Futures for Social Networking
I had an interesting discussion today about the future of social networking. It got me thinking that this functionality is being applied in two opposite directions. One you might call the Facebook-style umbrella approach. The other is more a la carte.
Sites such as Facebook are aggregating every social connection and sharing feature they can think of under one roof. Everything you’d want to do with your friends, relatives, business contacts, and other acquaintances—or even people who aren’t yet acquaintances but whom you’d probably like to know—is facilitated or enabled under a single social networking brand. It’s very efficient: create one profile, upload photos and videos to one place, enter one friend list, etc. More important from the business perspective, the brand gains tremendous insight into each network member, information that can then be used to target advertising or in other monetization schemes.
In the Facebook scenario there are only a few winners and many losers—similar to how EBay is on top with online auctions, Google wins web search, and Amazon corners the market for online book sales.
At the same time, though, there’s an alternative trend with many winners. These are the sites that are picking and choosing social networking features to enhance businesses across the spectrum of online services: media, e-commerce, financial services, games, informational sites, and all the rest. They aren’t Facebook rivals; they just want to harvest some of the engagement, loyalty, content creation, cost savings, insight into user preferences, and other benefits that various social strategies have to offer.
Sites that use these features well will enhance their businesses. Also, there are significant opportunities for third parties to provide software-as-a-service functionality to customers who lack the technical proficiency to develop applications themselves. While the universe of possible interactions online expands, the user experience paradigms converge. Business opportunities multiply. Sometimes the sum of the parts exceeds the whole.
Sites such as Facebook are aggregating every social connection and sharing feature they can think of under one roof. Everything you’d want to do with your friends, relatives, business contacts, and other acquaintances—or even people who aren’t yet acquaintances but whom you’d probably like to know—is facilitated or enabled under a single social networking brand. It’s very efficient: create one profile, upload photos and videos to one place, enter one friend list, etc. More important from the business perspective, the brand gains tremendous insight into each network member, information that can then be used to target advertising or in other monetization schemes.
In the Facebook scenario there are only a few winners and many losers—similar to how EBay is on top with online auctions, Google wins web search, and Amazon corners the market for online book sales.
At the same time, though, there’s an alternative trend with many winners. These are the sites that are picking and choosing social networking features to enhance businesses across the spectrum of online services: media, e-commerce, financial services, games, informational sites, and all the rest. They aren’t Facebook rivals; they just want to harvest some of the engagement, loyalty, content creation, cost savings, insight into user preferences, and other benefits that various social strategies have to offer.
Sites that use these features well will enhance their businesses. Also, there are significant opportunities for third parties to provide software-as-a-service functionality to customers who lack the technical proficiency to develop applications themselves. While the universe of possible interactions online expands, the user experience paradigms converge. Business opportunities multiply. Sometimes the sum of the parts exceeds the whole.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Trendwatch: What Can Web 2.0 Do for [Your Business Here]
In the past few weeks I’ve heard from several companies that are interested in using Web 2.0 techniques and technologies to enrich their online businesses. The interesting twist is that they aren’t media companies; they’re leading brands in fields such as e-commerce, financial services, and hardware. The Web 2.0 phenomenon has become such a vital element of the online user experience that audiences are demanding it on all the sites they frequent. It’s changed the way people see their own role in terms of interacting with businesses and information.
Web 2.0 started as a media tool that enriched content, generated more pageviews to monetize through advertising, offered a low-cost alternative to content creation, and opened additional channels for distributing content. Using strategies such as AJAX, it provided a richer and more information-dense environment with less visual clutter. It gave the audience a seat at the table rather than a glass pane to press their noses against. The response was highly favorable: sites that adopted a Web 2.0 approach noticed they had more visitors who returned more often, spent more time on the site, and created lots of content. Web 2.0, it turned out, leads to the prized results of deeper brand engagement and loyalty.
If you need a refresher course in Web 2.0, Tim O’Reilly defined it in detail in a well known article he wrote in 2005 (now available in your choice of eight languages). As a quick primer, he contrasts the 1.0 and 2.0 web experiences like this:
The time that’s passed since the Web 2.0 concept was defined is like eons in “internet time,” yet surprisingly many major sites still haven’t gotten the message, and some Web 1.0 sites are still attracting investment and launching, seemingly oblivious to progress in the last five years. Against that backdrop it’s exciting to see online businesses beyond the media industry starting big initiatives to tap into Web 2.0’s power to engage customers, expose them to more products, solve problems, and spend more time on the site. Tools such as community, platforms for user-generated content (discussion groups, blogs, wikis), ratings, RSS feeds, AJAX, multimedia, tagging, and facilitating peer-to-peer interaction vs. a linear business-to-customer approach, are quickly becoming the norm for a spectrum of online activities, not only defining the user experience in the media niche.
Web 2.0 started as a media tool that enriched content, generated more pageviews to monetize through advertising, offered a low-cost alternative to content creation, and opened additional channels for distributing content. Using strategies such as AJAX, it provided a richer and more information-dense environment with less visual clutter. It gave the audience a seat at the table rather than a glass pane to press their noses against. The response was highly favorable: sites that adopted a Web 2.0 approach noticed they had more visitors who returned more often, spent more time on the site, and created lots of content. Web 2.0, it turned out, leads to the prized results of deeper brand engagement and loyalty.
If you need a refresher course in Web 2.0, Tim O’Reilly defined it in detail in a well known article he wrote in 2005 (now available in your choice of eight languages). As a quick primer, he contrasts the 1.0 and 2.0 web experiences like this:
| Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 | |
| DoubleClick | --> | Google AdSense |
| Ofoto | --> | Flickr |
| Akamai | --> | BitTorrent |
| mp3.com | --> | Napster |
| Britannica Online | --> | Wikipedia |
| personal websites | --> | blogging |
| evite | --> | upcoming.org and EVDB |
| domain name speculation | --> | search engine optimization |
| page views | --> | cost per click |
| screen scraping | --> | web services |
| publishing | --> | participation |
| content management systems | --> | wikis |
| directories (taxonomy) | --> | tagging ("folksonomy") |
| stickiness | --> | syndication |
The time that’s passed since the Web 2.0 concept was defined is like eons in “internet time,” yet surprisingly many major sites still haven’t gotten the message, and some Web 1.0 sites are still attracting investment and launching, seemingly oblivious to progress in the last five years. Against that backdrop it’s exciting to see online businesses beyond the media industry starting big initiatives to tap into Web 2.0’s power to engage customers, expose them to more products, solve problems, and spend more time on the site. Tools such as community, platforms for user-generated content (discussion groups, blogs, wikis), ratings, RSS feeds, AJAX, multimedia, tagging, and facilitating peer-to-peer interaction vs. a linear business-to-customer approach, are quickly becoming the norm for a spectrum of online activities, not only defining the user experience in the media niche.
In the next waves to break, Web 2.0 is expanding to mobile (the “phonetop”) and ideas about Web 3.0 are starting to coalesce. These days, whatever your online business, envisioning the future in 1.0 terms is like trying to get a clearer picture by adjusting the rabbit ears on a black-and-white TV.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Kauffman Foundation Study: Characteristics of Startups
Last month the Kauffman Foundation released results of its annual survey of businesses that launched in 2004, which explores the unique character of startups from perspectives such as financing, staffing, intellectual property, and owner demographics. The foundation calls the Kauffman Firm Survey, which is tracking the fortunes of about 5,000 companies, "the largest longitudinal study of new businesses ever conducted." The results so far cover the cohort's operations in 2004 and 2005.
Unfortunately the research buckets businesses into antiquated categories that make it impossible to drill down to specifics for online or web services companies (for example, the categories in "high tech" are based on 1991 definitions limited to "chemicals and allied products, industrial machinery and equipment, electrical and electronic equipment, and instruments and related products"). Nevertheless, with startups being such a critical component of Silicon Valley culture and a major driver of innovation in the online and social media space, the survey's findings are interesting. Some highlights:
Unfortunately the research buckets businesses into antiquated categories that make it impossible to drill down to specifics for online or web services companies (for example, the categories in "high tech" are based on 1991 definitions limited to "chemicals and allied products, industrial machinery and equipment, electrical and electronic equipment, and instruments and related products"). Nevertheless, with startups being such a critical component of Silicon Valley culture and a major driver of innovation in the online and social media space, the survey's findings are interesting. Some highlights:
- More than 91 percent of the businesses survived their first year
- Consistent with Silicon Valley mythology, almost half the new businesses reported operating from home or a garage
- About 2 percent received patents during their first year of operation, 9 percent received copyrights, and 13 percent received trademarks
- Almost 60 percent reported no employees and about a third had 1-5 employees; less than 4 percent had 11 or more employees
- Less than 30 percent offered health insurance and only 6 percent offered stock options
- 37 percent reported no revenue and 17 percent had annual revenue above $100,000; less than 5 percent had profit in excess of $100,000
- 56 percent of the companies used debt financing in their first year of operation; 23 percent borrowed $25,000 or more. Of those with debt financing, 48 percent used personal debt, often credit cards. About 25 percent took on business debt.
- 80 percent used equity financing and 9 percent had equity greater than $100,000
- 69 percent of owners were men; 81 percent were white, 9 percent black, and 4 percent Asian. 19 percent were under 35, 63 percent were 35-55, and 18 percent were over 55.
- About 23 percent had some education beyond a four-year college degree; 53 percent did not receive a bachelor's degree
- For 58 percent of owners, this was their first startup. 6 percent were serial entrepreneurs who had launched four or more companies.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Social Networking the Next Generation: Kids' Sites
I've been checking out social networking sites for kids. Although the idea seems like a natural it's a more challenging market than for adults because of extra concerns about safety, privacy, and marketing. From the business perspective these add cost and complexity that can slow the growth rate and concern investors.
I haven't covered the full spectrum of options yet, but so far it seems like this is one area of the web where the US is in second place. From what I've seen the Japanese site Sanriotown--populated with the wildly popular Sanrio characters such as Hello Kitty--is the leader, with the most full-featured, fun, and not overly commercial features that include the requisite games as well as blogging, polls, discussion groups, videos, and more.
US sites are more specialized. Imbee is an independent site with a strong content creation platform, including blogs, audio, video, photos, and trading cards. Disney's Club Penguin (purchased from the founders last year for $350 million) focuses on games and chat and touts the fact that it's ad-free...but there's a prominent shopping link. Disney also maintains the Virtual Magic Kingdom (VMK) site, which offers gaming and a tie-in to the theme parks. Webkinz has an unabashed tie-in to the stuffed animals sold by its parent, Ganz. They offer games and chat. Nickelodeon's Nicktropolis is connected to the parent TV network, offering lots of Nickelodeon video plus games. Mattel's Barbiegirls also has games and chat, plus a "design fashions" feature. Most of the sites with gaming also offer the opportunity to create and decorate a personal space, or "room."
Interestingly, the kids' social networking sites are adopting more gaming-derived virtual world technologies than their adult counterparts. This seems to validate the vision that some day (perhaps when these kids grow up!) many web interactions that now occur in static media such as text will migrate to a 3-D virtual reality format along the lines of the Second Life platform.
Just as with social networking for adults, the kids version is attractive for its powerful engagement and loyalty attributes, as well as highly scalable model of user-generated content.
Because of the somewhat higher barrier to entry there's currently less competition among kids social networks than in the comparable adult space. As clear winners emerge on the adult side, expect competition to pick up significantly in the kids arena. Looking at the products currently on the market, there's lots of room for innovation and better quality before this niche is mature.
Hello Kitty Online: virtual (sur)reality integrated into online social networking:
I haven't covered the full spectrum of options yet, but so far it seems like this is one area of the web where the US is in second place. From what I've seen the Japanese site Sanriotown--populated with the wildly popular Sanrio characters such as Hello Kitty--is the leader, with the most full-featured, fun, and not overly commercial features that include the requisite games as well as blogging, polls, discussion groups, videos, and more.
US sites are more specialized. Imbee is an independent site with a strong content creation platform, including blogs, audio, video, photos, and trading cards. Disney's Club Penguin (purchased from the founders last year for $350 million) focuses on games and chat and touts the fact that it's ad-free...but there's a prominent shopping link. Disney also maintains the Virtual Magic Kingdom (VMK) site, which offers gaming and a tie-in to the theme parks. Webkinz has an unabashed tie-in to the stuffed animals sold by its parent, Ganz. They offer games and chat. Nickelodeon's Nicktropolis is connected to the parent TV network, offering lots of Nickelodeon video plus games. Mattel's Barbiegirls also has games and chat, plus a "design fashions" feature. Most of the sites with gaming also offer the opportunity to create and decorate a personal space, or "room."
Interestingly, the kids' social networking sites are adopting more gaming-derived virtual world technologies than their adult counterparts. This seems to validate the vision that some day (perhaps when these kids grow up!) many web interactions that now occur in static media such as text will migrate to a 3-D virtual reality format along the lines of the Second Life platform.
Just as with social networking for adults, the kids version is attractive for its powerful engagement and loyalty attributes, as well as highly scalable model of user-generated content.
Because of the somewhat higher barrier to entry there's currently less competition among kids social networks than in the comparable adult space. As clear winners emerge on the adult side, expect competition to pick up significantly in the kids arena. Looking at the products currently on the market, there's lots of room for innovation and better quality before this niche is mature.
Hello Kitty Online: virtual (sur)reality integrated into online social networking:
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Social Networking: Connections and Reconnections
A current trend in social networking is empowering real-time connections--think Twitter's up-to-the-minute mobile tweet-streams. A startup I'm working with, iPling, helps you connect to others nearby who share your needs and interests at the moment. But there's another side of social networking, reconnecting with people you may have lost touch with. Venerable sites such as Classmates.com have offered that service for years. Now it's getting more sophisticated.
Last weekend I tried out the reconnection angle by creating a group on LinkedIn for colleagues at a former company, GoTo.com. An Idealab spinoff during the dotcom boom, GoTo--based in Pasadena, California--was founded in 1997, went live with a product in 1998, and morphed into Overture Services in October 2001. In 2003 the company was acquired by Yahoo; the name changed again, to Yahoo Search Marketing (YSM), and operations moved to Burbank. GoTo was notable for originating the world's first successful pay-for-performance bidded marketplace for search advertising--the product concept Google improved upon when it created AdWords.
The company also gained a bit of notoriety as the object of one-time celebrity stock analyst Henry Blodget's hypocrisy, when he publicly touted it, pumping up the price, while privately disparaging it--an action that eventually attracted securities fraud charges from the SEC.
My first day on the job at GoTo was Monday, March 13, 2000...a date memorable as the first business day after NASDAQ hit its all-time high of 5132.52 on Friday, March 10. In other words, my first day in the internet sector coincided--hopefully in a random rather than correlated way--with the beginning of the bubble bursting. For a few weeks I worked in the helium-headed environment of the bubble days--a time when GoTo still aspired to be a consumer portal rivaling the likes of Yahoo. As 2000 wore on and we began to accept post-bubble realities a new, less costly business model was needed. The biz dev team began talking to large portals about a back-end service to monetize their search traffic. In the fall of 2000 we went live with a partnership with AOL and GoTo v2.0 was born. The new strategy was so successful that we were one of the few dotcom winners in the difficult 2000-2001 period.
As is often the case, competition eventually eroded our success. Google launched its competing cost-per-click version of AdWords in 2002, luring away AOL. Because we were completely dependent on partners for distribution, and therefore for all-important scale, our stock price became quite volatile, shooting up and down as big partners signed or departed. Also, as the partners recognized their critical role, they bargained harder and our margins shrank. Ultimately, acquisition by a large portal that could guarantee a steady traffic stream made good business sense.
In any case, I left GoTo--by then Overture--in February 2002 for a job at Yahoo. When I arrived at GoTo two years earlier, it was in the midst of ramping up after an IPO the previous summer. There were about 250 employees when I joined and close to 1,000 when I left. It was a pretty tight-knit group that had been through highs and lows together and bonded accordingly. When Yahoo bought Overture in 2003 it was a reunion with old colleagues, many of whom I continued to work with until I left Yahoo in 2005.
Recently, with the corporate turmoil at Yahoo, I noticed a number of connections from the GoTo days were reaching out to fellow GoTo "alumni" on LinkedIn. Since I have a special interest in social networking and media, I decided to take the small step of creating a GoTo group. LinkedIn makes it easy to set one up and invite a seed group of members. From there, virality takes over, as friends and friends-of-friends show up in one another's updates and display the group logo. Already, less than two days after inviting the seed group, there are more total group members than initial invitees.
My biggest gripe so far is that I have to hand-approve membership requests from people not on the invite list. I would prefer that people be allowed to join by default, then inappropriate individuals could be removed if needed. However, LinkedIn doesn't offer that feature. One thing's for sure: with hand approval required, LinkedIn gets a lot more pageviews.
By the way, if you worked at GoTo before it was Overture and want to reconnect with old friends, you can join the group here
Last weekend I tried out the reconnection angle by creating a group on LinkedIn for colleagues at a former company, GoTo.com. An Idealab spinoff during the dotcom boom, GoTo--based in Pasadena, California--was founded in 1997, went live with a product in 1998, and morphed into Overture Services in October 2001. In 2003 the company was acquired by Yahoo; the name changed again, to Yahoo Search Marketing (YSM), and operations moved to Burbank. GoTo was notable for originating the world's first successful pay-for-performance bidded marketplace for search advertising--the product concept Google improved upon when it created AdWords.
The company also gained a bit of notoriety as the object of one-time celebrity stock analyst Henry Blodget's hypocrisy, when he publicly touted it, pumping up the price, while privately disparaging it--an action that eventually attracted securities fraud charges from the SEC.
My first day on the job at GoTo was Monday, March 13, 2000...a date memorable as the first business day after NASDAQ hit its all-time high of 5132.52 on Friday, March 10. In other words, my first day in the internet sector coincided--hopefully in a random rather than correlated way--with the beginning of the bubble bursting. For a few weeks I worked in the helium-headed environment of the bubble days--a time when GoTo still aspired to be a consumer portal rivaling the likes of Yahoo. As 2000 wore on and we began to accept post-bubble realities a new, less costly business model was needed. The biz dev team began talking to large portals about a back-end service to monetize their search traffic. In the fall of 2000 we went live with a partnership with AOL and GoTo v2.0 was born. The new strategy was so successful that we were one of the few dotcom winners in the difficult 2000-2001 period.
As is often the case, competition eventually eroded our success. Google launched its competing cost-per-click version of AdWords in 2002, luring away AOL. Because we were completely dependent on partners for distribution, and therefore for all-important scale, our stock price became quite volatile, shooting up and down as big partners signed or departed. Also, as the partners recognized their critical role, they bargained harder and our margins shrank. Ultimately, acquisition by a large portal that could guarantee a steady traffic stream made good business sense.
In any case, I left GoTo--by then Overture--in February 2002 for a job at Yahoo. When I arrived at GoTo two years earlier, it was in the midst of ramping up after an IPO the previous summer. There were about 250 employees when I joined and close to 1,000 when I left. It was a pretty tight-knit group that had been through highs and lows together and bonded accordingly. When Yahoo bought Overture in 2003 it was a reunion with old colleagues, many of whom I continued to work with until I left Yahoo in 2005.
Recently, with the corporate turmoil at Yahoo, I noticed a number of connections from the GoTo days were reaching out to fellow GoTo "alumni" on LinkedIn. Since I have a special interest in social networking and media, I decided to take the small step of creating a GoTo group. LinkedIn makes it easy to set one up and invite a seed group of members. From there, virality takes over, as friends and friends-of-friends show up in one another's updates and display the group logo. Already, less than two days after inviting the seed group, there are more total group members than initial invitees.
My biggest gripe so far is that I have to hand-approve membership requests from people not on the invite list. I would prefer that people be allowed to join by default, then inappropriate individuals could be removed if needed. However, LinkedIn doesn't offer that feature. One thing's for sure: with hand approval required, LinkedIn gets a lot more pageviews.
By the way, if you worked at GoTo before it was Overture and want to reconnect with old friends, you can join the group here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
