Category: E-biz

Posted on

If You Really Dislike Google, Just Do A Better One

The usual, questionable and acritical article raises “awareness” about the “danger” represented by the way Google handles the results of users’ queries, this time the “victims” being the “consumers”. The source of this article is a study supported by Yelp.

While I’m not a statistician, I wonder how is possible to give general credit to a study based on a “random sample” (no method to build the randomness is disclosed) of less than 3.000 people compared to the billions of users that daily query the web through Google, furthermore without taking into account the huge ethnic and cultural differences of the countries whose users come from.

And I wonder why the journalist wrote it ? without asking an independent expert opinion. She just released what ? seems just a summary of the study’s summary, without ? actual knowledge of the topics involved. In other words, this article is somehow in between disinformation and misinformation. And, to be clear, I’m not questioning the integrity of the journalist (for instance she duly exploited the Yelp’s involvement in the study);what I criticize is that she didn’t actually deliver informative contents. No matter if this comes from a poor grasping of the mathematics methods, or by way of a lack of knowledge of the digital business world. Fact is the her readers aren’t given sound information, and what they got, instead, is the usual “Is-Google-evil?” article that, from time to time, appears all around the net.

Moving to a general issue, at the end of the day, things are pretty straightforward: Google neither is perfect nor necessarily “friendly”, but if you dislike Google, just build a better one, instead of using spin, FUD and the law.

Of course, If you ????.

—

Post Scriptum: I neither work for Google, nor have other kind of involvements with it.

Posted on

Giuffrè Editore (Lexis-Nexis partner)’s Update Disturbing Policy

consolleLexis-Nexis Italian partner, Giuffrè Editore, is active in both the editorial and software business. One of its tool is a java application to handle the electronic document filing to the Court’s dock.

As the screenshot shows, the OSX version of this software requires on outdated java version because Giuffrè didn’t update its code. As they write on the website: “last java versions have problem. Download from here the recommended version”.

In other words: we don’t want to fix the software you paid, so stay stick with an older java version.

So ? a lawyer wanting to continue using this software faces these alternatives:

  • downgrade the Java version installed on his computer, thus risking incompatibilities with up-to-date application and having his computer possible stability issues,
  • buy a computer (or virtualize one) “just” to use Giuffrè softwares,
  • move to another software and start using it for scratch.

Whatever the option, the customer is the losing part.

Posted on

When Digital Automatic Advertising Fails

badadThis is what happens when you leave to a machine the handling of a sensitive task.

The advertising engine used by Repubblica.it coupled fashion photos with a dramatic picture of a Syrian kid scared by a camera that she thought was a weapon.

While whenever you click the link to the picture the ads change (more fashion brands, mobile companies and so on), the final effect remains rather disturbing because of the feeling of misery exploitation transmitted by the whole image. So, putting aside ethical consideration, the outcome is that Fay.com got its brand associated to the wrong message.

The lesson to learn (or to remember) is that to deliver an effective advertising campaign, automatics doesn’t work.

 

Posted on

Monetizing Your Internet Self. The Uros Baric Case

At the beginning of the Internet-Era marketing “experts” led people into thinking that the simple fact of having a website would have made them “rich”. To some extent this legalized scam (turned out into the infamous Internet-bubble) has worked efficiently luring the greed-part of our “self” and still preserves its momentum. ? Time passed but the song remains the same ( ?Led Zeppelin :)) “Make Internet-monies fast!” the “marketers” shout, “go blogging-tweeting-socialnetworking and get rich!” (yes, websites and e-mails aren’t mainstream anymore.) The (booby)trap of this new scam is – again – the focus on empty technologies rather than on ideas, contents and experiences. It worth nothing to have a fancy Facebook page, a zillion of (purchased) “like” or “+1” ? if you ain’t nothing to share. That’s the triumph of Aristophane’s Inferior Argument over the Superior.

Introducing Uros Baric, a young, talented classical guitarist from Slovenja. Baric runs a blog plenty of useful, firts-hand information about playing, (video)recording, digital audio and video workstations, blogging, classical music self promotion, and runs his own recording label too.

What makes Baric’s Internet presence unique is that instead of re-posting someone else’s re-post of something, he shares his own experience. He explores ideas, tries ?it into the wild and ? shares the results: in one sentence, he builds knowledge.

Thanks to his experience, just to provide a couple of examples, I spared a lot of time and money not purchasing a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera and, on the contrary, I discovered the brilliant MuseScore notation software. That’s definitely turned me into a “customer”.

So, unless you’re a big company whose drive is, for instance, the price (and maybe even if you are), monetizing the Internet-Self implies time and effort to “give” people your experience and establish “confidence” to create a business relationship. This is nothing new, as Giancarlo Livraghi wrote back in 1997 is his “Price, Service, Trust” quoting Jonatha Moules:

Many of the virtual shop windows highlight massive discounts in colored flashes, apparently in the belief that cut-price offers are a key factor in successful selling …..

Massive discounting is certainly viable online ….. And since only a small proportion of Internet surfers currently use the medium to shop, low prices appear to be a good strategy for drumming up business.

But the assumption that electronic commerce requires less marketing spending, or is only viable through pile-it-high-sell-it-cheap strategies, is to misunderstand the new medium. One of the most important characteristics of electronic commerce is that it re-writes the rules of selling, but not necessarily in the way you expect.

Werner Knetsch, managing director of the German arm of the consultancy Arthur D. Little, argues that many assumptions about selling online have proved wrong.  ?The real challenge is creating a clear value proposition for customers. In marketing, being first and attracting customer “hits” on the web site have not proved as important as being well prepared for your new market. Remember, only 6% of visitors will buy something. ?

Think of it, when you will assess the ? “digital marketing strategy proposal” from the next “Internet Marketing Guru” knocking at your door.

Posted on

What the US FCC Ruling on Net Neutrality Actually Means

The US FCC Ruling favouring Net Neutrality is a definitive step toward the shift of ? Internet-regulation-power from the Parliament to the Government.

It is of little importance whether the FCC endorsed or rejected the (notably wrong and unjust 1) idea of Net Neutrality. What actually counts is that somebody else than a Parliament self-advocated a ruling power affecting fundamental rights that should have remained under the legislative assembly shield.

The US case is not the first and is not alone. Italian Autorità garante per le comunicazioni (a sort of FCC-like independent body) has since longtime passed regulations and opinions about issues that should be a prerogative of the Parliament.The most notably case is the anti online piracy regulation that superimpose a due-process infringing, parallel investigation and trial system to the actual, court-led criminal trials.

  1. The idea of an equal, non discriminated access to the Internet is not bad as such. But if a State wants to provide this opportunity, it shouldn’t be done at the ISPs and Telcos expenses. In other words: traffic shaping and – in general – the techniques that make possible to prioritize the packet’s transit – allow small companies to compete with bigger ones without the need of huge infrastructural investments. Why smaller companies should be banned by the competition “just” because somebody “wants” a free access? This “need” ought to be satisfied by the State itself with a Net-Neutral, publicly-owned and managed network leaving the private sector free to compete. I understand, of course, that this “socialist” approach is out-of-history and is not backed by an economic rationale. And this is exactly the reason why Net-Neutrality is wrong or – at least – non sustainable if its burden is on the private-sector only. ↩