Blekko is soon opening its new search engine, and getting some good coverage. Microsoft's Bing is spending hundreds of millions (billions?) trying to dog chase Google in search. Countless companies tried competing in search before - Cuil, Wolfram Alpha, etc.
It would be fantastic for the internet to have a real #2 player in this space, but unfortunately I'm afraid none of these efforts will be a real contender to Google in the long run, and not because they fall short on product quality. In fact, most of these products (and Bing is the best example) offer a far superior experience to Google's in many ways.
But search is a strange category to compete in. I think it has a special dynamic to it -- sort of a weird variation on the "Innovator's Dilemma" -- that makes it so tricky to take any meaningful market share from Google...
The Search Innovator's Dilemma
The trouble is that search companies (and reviewers) evaluate new search engines based on what they do well. Bing does travel search great (as well as images, and many other categories), Wolfram does data-intensive search great, Blekko apparently does vertical search great, etc, etc. It's common wisdom to focus on the things you do well, and do them better than anyone else in the world. But what works well for mostly any other category of company in the world is, I think, precisely the achilles heel of all non-Google search engines.
Because users, subconsciously, place less value on the queries a search engine handles exceptionally well, than they do on queries the search engine doesn't. In other words - a great search result for a travel query on Bing will matter less to users than getting no good results on a query for say "italian vespa collection poster" (compare to Google...)
Google might lose in the areas where its competition shines, but it doesn't matter. Our habits as users don't form there... they form on those multiple-keyword, 1-off, "non-important" queries, and that's where Google absolutely kills its competition.
Hence the 'Search Innovator's Dilemma'... to win search market share from Google, it hardly matters to one-up Google on quality, or UI, in any specific type of search. The search habits don't form there. Where you'd need to focus is on consistently delivering OK results on all those billions of queries that "don't matter", and that's a task that, it seems, is nearly impossible for a company to take on.
Flipboard launched this week with levels of hype not seen since Wolfram Alpha or Google Wave (coverage by Scoble, AllThingsD, etc).
I installed it on the iPad, and like it - very well done app indeed. But I'm a bit skeptical about how revolutionary this will actually turn out to be. After the crazy hype goes away, I think people will realize this is a little less useful than it first seems. Here are two reasons why:
Duplication - Flipboard is a content aggregator, and aggregators are only useful if they make you stop using the sources they aggregate. A good example (at the time) were RSS readers like Bloglines or Google Reader - if you used those, there was no reason to visit the actual websites of the blogs you subscribed to on your RSS reader. The RSS reader became a much more efficient interface to consuming those blogs. But if the aggregator does *not* completely replace your access to the aggregated sources (as I suspect will be the case with Flipboard), you start running into an annoying duplication issue which seriously deteriorates your user experience. This is exactly why FriendFeed had no chance in becoming a mainstream success (IMHO). So while Flipboard offers a very nice UI to consuming content shared on Twitter and Facebook, I doubt that many people will actually abandon those services and stop checking their streams. Flipboard is a nice UI, but not a sufficient replacement. And in the long run I think that's going to be it's weakest spot.
Copyright - bear with me on this, because it will eventually get back to user experience. From what I can tell, Flipboard will be running into copyright issues with the owners of the content it aggregates. They are scraping a significant amount of that content, sans-advertising. I suspect many publishers are not going to like this eventually. Now you could claim that this is not different from any other RSS aggregator that ever existed, and they had no issue with content owners. But the difference is going to be in advertising. RSS readers have always been in the twilight zone of copyright, and never caused too much debate because none of the major ones placed advertising along the content. So content owners could see the value of getting some exposure and traffic from the RSS reader, yet didn't feel threatened by them monetizing the content via ads. Flipboard will likely be different - the app is free, and I suspect their long-term business model is to introduce advertising into the magazine/app. They may be able to pull that off if the usage is low. But if they become very successful AND place advertising - they will have the best publishers blocking their content from being pulled into Flipboard. And that's where it gets back to the user experience... the quality of the content on Flipboard will be limited to blogs that are not publishing as a business.
I'm not betting against the company here... Again - the app is very well done, and they have a fantastic team (both the entrepreneurs and investors) so I'm sure they'll pivot their way to a solid path. But I seriously doubt that this will revolutionize the way we consume content as all the hype this week seems to suggest.
I recently had the pleasure of hearing Dan Senor, author of Startup Nation, at the most recent TechAviv meetup. I just bought 10 copies of the book, and will be giving them away to 10 Outbrain customers. More details on that below.
Yaron Samid did a great job describing what Startup Nation is about:
"...the book asks and answers the question; How is it that a nation only 60 years old, 7 million people strong (smaller than New Jersey), literally surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding and with no natural resources, has:
Highest concentration of startups in the world
Most VC investments per capita in the world
More NASDAQ listed companies than any country besides the US, more than all of Europe, India, China and Japan combined
Economy barely hit by global economic crisis
In short, how do we kick ass with such little feet? The book and its answers are particularly timely for a world struggling out of a global economic crisis. Most agree that there’s only one way out; Innovation, and Israel is its hotbed..."
If you're interested in the book, and want to help get more people to read it by pushing it to the Amazon Best Seller list, go ahead and buy your copy here.
Or, if you want a better deal, I will be giving away 10 copies of the book to the first 10 people who submit a link to Outbrain's sponsored link service - Outloud. With Outloud you can amplify an article or blog post of your choice on our network of thousands of sites and newspapers (including USA Today, Slate, Fox, Tribune, Golf.com, SportingNews, etc, etc). The cost is only $10/month for each story you choose to submit, and there is no long term commitment. You can promote any story you want to on the web - it could be about your company, a blog post you wrote, or a great article about a cause you'd like to support. Hey - you can even help get the word about Startup Nation out to more people by sponsoring this article on Newsweek!
All you need to do is go to Outloud, submit your story, and let me know (either by Twitter, or on a comment here, or shoot me an email to galai[at]outbrain[dot]com). The first 10 people to do this will get a copy of the book (which, btw, sells at book stores for $27, not including the shipping... so you'd get over $40 in value for a $10 investment, and help promote a great book in the process).
In the mean time, here's a short interview with Dan Senor, author of the book:
Today we (=Outbrain) are announcing the launch of our sponsored link program called Outloud. Outbrain now powers the recommended/related article links ("People who liked this article also liked these:") on thousands of blogs and newspapers including USA Today, Slate, Fox, Tribune, Golf.com and SportingNews.
Using Outloud, companies and bloggers can now submit links to stories into our index. We then show links to those stories on the most relevant pages in our network. The cost is a flat $10-per-month for each story you choose to submit via Outloud. There is no long-term commitments or anything like that, so this is practically risk-free.
Here are a few examples of what Outloud is perfect for:
Amplifying earned media - Having bloggers write an authentic, positive review of your company or product is one of the most powerful endorsements you could ever hope for. But once that blog post is written - how many people actually read it? How do you get more, interested people to read those reviews? With Outloud you can submit links to authentic reviews of your company or product, and we'll show them to people who are actively reading related content.
Amplifying PR - Similarly, PR folks are focused on getting press and blog coverage for their clients. But once your client gets the PR, how can you maximize its effect. For $10/month on Outloud you can amplify great press coverage and get many more people to hear about it.
Getting new readers - If you're a blogger looking to get new readers exposed to your content, Outloud is a great and affordable way to do it. Choose the 5-10 stories on your blog which you think are best, and submit them to Outloud for $10/month each. We will then show your links on the most relevant pages in out network of thousands of blogs and newspapers.
The idea around Outloud is simple - we want to be able to show the best sponsored links possible on each page using our service. And to do that, we don't want you thinking twice of whether you should or shouldn't be submitting stories to Outloud - we've reduced the price barrier to the lowest reasonably possible.
The links you submit can be on your own blog, or on any other website in the world. If Walt Mossberg covered your company on WSJ, you are more than welcome to submit that link to Outloud as well. In fact, we think that the best links to submit would be authentic stories writen about you by other people.
But what we do insist on is that all links in Outloud be pointing to interesting, real content. We will be gladly rejecting any links to spam, scams, non-disclosed self-promotions, fake content, splogs, etc. Outbrain has always been about providing readers with the most interesting and relevant links, and we plan to continue doing so whether the links are free or sponsored.
Here's an example of how Outloud links might look on a site using our service:
I'll be speaking at two events in the next couple of weeks:
The Israeli Business Forum of New York (IBF) is an apolitical, nonprofit organization facilitating quality business discussions among Israeli professionals in New York. I'll be speaking there on Tuesday, July 28th at 6:30pm. Details and registration here.
On Wednesday, July 22nd, I'll be speaking on a panel at an event benefiting Rabin Medical Center in Israel. Registration is here.
With me on the panel will be Joel Naroff – Chief Economist of TD Bank and Dr. Lindsay Rosenwald – Founder of Paramount BioCapital. Cost is $75, and it all goes to benefit the new emergency and trauma center at Rabin Medical Center.
I am sick and tired of all this swine flu craziness. Does anyone remember the last pandemics which were going to wipe out humanity? - avian flu, SARS, ebola, anthrax, etc... Where did they all go?! And hey - weren't we all supposed to have been mad cows by now?!?
I want to suggest a new formula for evaluating the real risk of pandemics like the swine flu:
# of infected people / $$'s made by the media
Anyone out there have the numbers re swine flu? Regular flu? Bee stings? Fire ant attacks?
Based on my proposed formula, I bet swine flu is probably one of the safest and mildest diseases in the world.
Globes published today an obnoxious article (Hebrew) about Better Place - Shai Agassi's electric car venture. From the first word through the last, it was clearly setup as a hit-job by a clueless nobody "journalist" who has obviously never tried to accomplish anything meaningful in her life.
Disclosures: I'm not an expert on the subject matter. I'm not very familiar with the company. I've never met or spoken with Shai Agassi, and have no other connections I'm aware of with his company.
The "article" attacks Better Place for failing to deliver on a variety of milestones that the "journalist" had apparently expected them to. For example, they did not yet start manufacturing cars or employing 50,000 people in Israel after less than two years since the company was founded. The writer of course has started multiple successful companies, and has extensive experience in building factories within months....
This seems to have been going on for a while now - On the one hand Better Place has gotten some incredible press, and on the other hand "journalists" ripping apart Shai and the company, as if they owed them or the public anything (they don't...). It's sad to see this kind of hit-job journalism which is designed to do nothing more than sell a few more copies of the newspapers. The cost of hit-jobs by mediocre writers is much cheaper than actual journalistic work by journalists. And unfortunately, tabloid crap like this sells newspapers...
So as an FYI to Ms. Shlomit Lan - startups in general, and specifically one as ambitious as Better Place, take years or decades to build. During those years, as long as it's a law-abiding, private company, it owes *nothing* to the public as it relates to timelines, milestones, business models, pricing, etc, etc. Building a great company is never as simple or quick as it seems, and if they figure out half of the challenges they currently face in say 5 years, that will be an incredible achievement. Passing this kind of judgment on the company so early in the game proves you're either clueless, or jealous, or you've intentionally setup a hit-job.
A couple of years ago I attended a conference where Yossi Vardi was part of a panel judging startups. After passing criticism to a couple of the entrepreneurs, Yossi stopped the conference, took the microphone, and said he has something critically important to remind all the judges, journalists and investors dealing with entrepreneurs. He quoted Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech (also covered by TechCrunch here):
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Shai Aggasi is the man in the arena. He might fail miserably, but he will do so while daring to make great things happen.
I know too little to determine whether Better Place is good for the environment or bad (I suspect it's a pretty good alternative to buying oil to fund the bad guys and burn it to destroy the world...). I simply dread the day that "journalists" kill innovation and innovators by abusing their power to run hit jobs like this on the men in the arena. Therefore I had to respond.
Finally - to anyone who is genuinely interested in this project, I highly recommend this hugely inspiring talk that Shai Agassi recently gave at TED:
A key to a successful startup journey is to always know where you're headed. The company has to always have a single lighthouse that it is pursuing. More importantly - everyone on your team has to know exactly what that lighthouse is. This might sound easy, but in reality most startups fail miserably on choosing a lighthouse, communicating it clearly to the team, and sticking to it obsessively.
A healthy lighthouse can usually be reduced to a chart. Curiously, the most trivial chart - the revenue chart - is hardly ever a good lighthouse to choose... I'll explain why below. The lighthouse, if properly communicated to every single person in the company, should determine pretty much everything that gets done by by each team member. In a company with a clearly communicated lighthouse, everyone - junior or senior, engineer or biz dev, in NY HQ or in the Israel R&D - should prioritize tasks nearly identically. If your company is struggling often with priorities, your problem is extremely simple to diagnose - you are most likely missing a clear lighthouse.
For a web company, the trivial lighthouses are - page views, unique users, etc. Choosing trivial metrics as the company's lighthouse is acceptable, but the problem is that it will likely be the same lighthouse used by many other companies. That means that that the faster/bigger boat, not necessarily the smarter one, will likely win. If you are the biggest baddest boat around (aka "Google") - you should be fine. If you're among the 99.9% other startups, you might want to dig deeper and find your unique lighthouse.
A good lighthouse is also clearly actionable. A lighthouse that implies action will help everyone focus on the biggest opportunities. For example - when all search engines were focused on ranking sites based on keyword counts, Google's lighthouse was to perfect the ranking of results based on the site's authority. Later when Google was a late entrant to the PPC search advertising market, their lighthouse was maximizing the yield of each ad shown while their main competition was focused on maximizing the bids.
Which brings me to another attribute of a good lighthouse. And this one isn't always achievable, but it's beautiful when it is -
A great lighthouse is fairly invisible outside the company. In Google's example, it isn't immediately clear to an outsider how search results are ranked, and is therefore very difficult to play the same game. A good lighthouse let's you compete in a crowded market while playing a game that's completely different from your competition.
Revenue is therefore almost never a good lighthouse. It is not actionable and it does inherently not let you play a different game in the same ball field. But unless you're doing not-for-profit work, revenues is probably a primary goal for you and your shareholders. The right way to reconcile this gap is to ensure that your chosen lighthouse has a reasonable eventual linkage to revenues. For example, if your lighthouse is to maximize unique users, that can later (if successful!) be translated to advertising revenues.
The lighthouse cascade
Most importantly for startups - a lighthouse is *not* permanent. It should change as the company grows and develops its product. The important thing is to know when to transition lighthouses, how to do it, and most critically - how to communicate to everyone what the current lighthouse is.
Each lighthouse should have a logical connection to the next one. For example, your 1st lighthouse might be to focus on building a big user base, while your 2nd lighthouse might be to maximize the page-views (so the actionable parts are to grow both the user base, as well as page-views-per-user). Each metric should eventually be a supporter of those future metrics.
The lighthouse metrics should not only cascade logically from one to the next, but also eventually have a strong connection to revenues. Choosing a good lighthouse and planning how your metrics will eventually cascade into revenues does not ensure your company's success, but it is nearly impossible to succeed if you (and your whole team) don't know what your lighthouse is at all times.
So here is proof that something good can emerge from a war situation. Israeli TV has pretty much become 100% reality shows this year, importing all the American/European junk TV formats (Survivor, Big Brother, etc). Ugh...
It took a war in Gaza for Israel's Channel 2 to come up with an original, and incredibly good, reality show format. The kids in southern Israel have not been going to school for over two weeks now, and are at homes and shelters with not much to do. The idea for the TV show (named "Learning Together") is super-simple - Put cameras inside a classroom and bring the most interesting people in the country to give a lesson on a subject of their choice. There are several "classes" each morning, passed by people like: Presidents of Israel, book authors, etc. For example - as a kid (and even an adult) - could you hope for anything more interesting than getting a class in citizenship by Nobel Prize winner, President Shimon Peres?... Wow.
I'm not sure what the ratings are for this show, but I love how for a near zero production cost a new format emerged which is intelligent, educational and original.
~~This is my personal blog, and any opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Quigo and outbrain, my employers, are not responsible for anything I write, comments posted, or anything else in Web X.0 blog.
Recent Comments