Wednesday 29 June 2011

I like the Nieman Journalism Lab. As could be expected from a site focused on quality journalism, their stories are usually insightful and well researched. Here are a couple of interesting ones that I've seen recently:

Google plans for “the second phase of the display ad revolution” with a focus on smartphones and tablets
This story details Google's plans to develop a one-stop-shop, where online advertisers and publishers can go to manage campaigns etc. It cites first-hand sources within Google and lays a good foundation for those new to the field of internet advertising. But what it fails to do is examine Google's display ad plans in the context of what Google says the company is all about. In short, how does their display ad revolution measure up to their philosophy?

1. "Focus on the user and all else will follow": It seems that these plans all revolve around focusing on the advertiser and the publisher. The user, where she exists at all, is an afterthought. The final line of the story does quote a Google exec as hoping that these new mobile ad formats can 'delight users', but it's safe to say that the focus of this initiative is on making money, and that user delight is a possible (though unlikely) side effect.
2. "It’s best to do one thing really, really well": Google's core is in search - and search advertising. It's been said before by many others, but their expansion into TV, mobile operating systems, music, etc. does not jibe well with doing one thing really well. Perhaps if the 'one thing' were to organize all the world's information, many of the above examples could fit into that mission. But the purpose of display advertising has long ceased being about informing people.
3.  "Fast is better than slow": Sure. Why not?
4. "Democracy on the web works": In fact, this point is almost completely in direct opposition to their main philosophy. Democracy (at least in terms of the exchange of information) relies on abundance. The more access to information - and the more meta-conversations about that access and information - the better for democracy and for Google's search systems. Display advertising, however, hinges on scarcity. Publishing networks do not have infinite inventory for ad space, and advertisers must compete for the attention of a limited set of eyeballs. All of which is to say that Google's display advertising business works best when they are able to harness this scarcity, and charge a premium for helping advertisers solve the scarcity problem.
5. "You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer": Nor indeed do you need to be at your desk to view an ad. This maxim is in complete alignment with their plans.
6. "You can make money without doing evil": Ask anybody. Almost nobody likes ads, except during the Superbowl. People put up with Google's search ads because they are unobtrusive and relevant to the context in which people are searching. Search ads and search results are both part of the content of a results page. But display ads are another story. They compete against the content of the pages on which they appear. They may not be evil, but most people would rather have their news article, game, TV show, etc. without them.
7. "There’s always more information out there": True.
8. "The need for information crosses all borders": Also true.
9. "You can be serious without a suit": Couldn't agree more, but have you ever seen an ad sales guy who wasn't wearing a suit?
10. "Great just isn’t good enough": Google definitely has a great search engine that needs to continually get better. And I think that Google can also be great at selling and serving display ads, but the questions is whether that greatness is for the benefit of Google shareholders, advertisers, publishers, or the guy who just wants to reads an article on his mobile phone while they wait for the bus. The Nieman Journalism Lab would have done well to ponder the same question.

And speaking of killing time, this other article cites some very interesting statistics:
I have found the cognitive surplus, and it hates pigs

• It turns out that Americans watched enough TV last year (200 billion hours) to have written 2000 wikipedias. As someone who a) has previously worked in encyclopedia production, and b) now works in television, one of the learnings that I can take away from this piece is that I have clearly gone to where the audiences are.