Peter Yared's Musings

Facebook Pages were only introduced last May and have grown massively... for example Lady Gaga's Facebook Page has nearly 5,000,000 fans, one of the Top 10 pages on Facebook. Transpond has created several Apps for the Lady Gaga fan page such as song cards and the amount of user engagement in newsfeed posts, comments, likes, etc. is mind-blowing. Last week I was in Katoomba, Australia (you probably haven't heard of it and that is the point here) and River Deep, Mountain High , the outfit that was taking us climbing and abseiling in the Blue Mountains was running a Facebook promotion. If you get 10 of your friends to Fan their Facebook page, River Deep, Mountain High will give you a coupon for $350 AUD, roughly $300 US. That is a $30 CPF, or cost per fan. In 1:1 marketing terms, a fan is the rough equivalent of someone who has opted into an email list, and a CPF is the equivalent of cost per email to acquire relevant mailing lists. Now why would a small business pay $30 for...

I have been writing for a while about how Google's search results stink, and how vertical search is far better. Some companies might continue on their existing trajectory towards failure, but not Google. Over the past six months, Google has been steadily adding vertical search features, although of course in a very Google way. Rather than having the user pick a category such as music or stocks and then search, Google guesses what vertical your search is in and puts that result at the top of your search results. Examples include: Addresses -> Maps Businesses -> Map & Reviews Stock Quotes -> Stock Chart Music Artists -> Artist Tracks For some types of searches, Google just shows the results in the Google Suggest feature, so you don't even have to click search! Examples include: Weather Flight Status Missing are Facebook & LinkedIn for people searches and shopping comparison for product searches. I can understand Google's reticence about integrating su...

Everyone is writing Microsoft off, including the New York Times epitaph last month. I think that it is premature to discount Microsoft. The Cloud The overall transition to cloud computing has been incredibly slow. Most small and medium sized businesses are still running their own mail servers, file servers, wikis and applications, and the fact remains that most of these businesses are running Microsoft software on their desktops and servers. When these businesses finally transition to cloud computing, what are they likely to do? Try to migrate everything to GMail and Google Apps? That is a huge pain and requires a ton of user training. Microsoft is going to come in and say "we will migrate your Exchange to hosted Exchange, your files to hosted NTFS, your Office to Hosted Office, your SharePoint to hosted SharePoint and your .NET/MS SQL Server apps to Hosted Azure. All for less than the cost of an upgrade cycle." And then Microsoft will turn their license revenue stre...

This post was also published in BusinessWeek . So what happened to open source as a business? There was a wave of “commercial open source” companies that were going to change the world, including SugarCRM, Alfresco, Jasper, Pentaho, and ActiveGrid, a company I started in 2003 to bring open source software into businesses. Each of these companies were going to lower costs with the open source business model and displace existing vendors in categories such as CRM, Document Management, Reporting, and Business Intelligence. It’s been over six years, and no commercial open source companies other than Red Hat, MySQL, and JBoss have had liquidity events. So what happened? Oracle and IBM, which derive the vast majority of their software revenue from proprietary software, have an increasing share of the software market. And there’s a bunch of commercial open source companies still trudging along. 1. The only successful open source companies sell commodities. Linux, MySQL, and JBoss are the on...

You may have read in BusinessWeek or TechCrunch when iWidgets closed an A round in January, despite the tough economic climate. In addition to having a strong product that solves a big headache for content publishers, a big part of why we got funded is our capital efficiency. iWidgets spent only $1.5M in 18 months to bring our iWidgets platform to market, launch it with a major customer (CBS), and then sign three more customers. Our leading competitor spent $10M in the same amount of time, just laid off a large portion of their staff, have no business model, and a product that solves yesterday's problem. While you can’t build a business without a plan, capital efficiency is the often-overlooked key ingredient for a successful startup. Capital efficiency isn’t just about not wasting money, it’s also about not having any fat. Too often, bloated, fatty companies are insulated from market realities — you can’t feel it when the road starts to get rough. So it is not just in this eco...

This post was also published in AdWeek. Over the past couple of years, the decreasing effectiveness of banner ads has led to increased hand-wringing. When I give talks nowadays, I start off by asking who clicked on a banner ad that day. No hands go up. Banner ads were all the rage for many years, culminating in 2007 with Google's $3.5 billion acquisition of DoubleClick. But as more people spend more time online, banner ads are becoming the billboards of the Internet. Billboards can be very effective. Ubiquitous Coca-Cola billboards build the brand. Billboards placed in highly visible locations like Times Square and Giants Stadium attract a premium. But it's quite the exceptional billboard that actually makes you take action -- calling a listed phone number to learn more about the business, for example -- just like it's quite the exceptional banner ad that gets you to click on it. And well-placed billboards, such as one on a highway advertising a restaurant in a ne...

A monumental shift in web traffic happened over the holiday season. Sites ranging from gossip such as PerezHilton.com to live streaming such as UStream.com suddenly began getting more of their traffic coming from Facebook than from Google. As reported in HitWise , last week PerezHilton.com had 8.7% of its visits from Facebook vs. 7.62% from Google. PerezHilton.com is a very popular site that recently scored its best traffic day ever in late February with 13.9 million page views. Content sites have spent billions of dollars — $12.2 billion in 2008 according to a recent eMarkerter report — on search engine optimization and search engine marketing in order to get traffic from Google and the other search sites. Yet organic traffic from Facebook is beating hits from Google. Why? The answer is pretty simple. It’s the same driving force that’s behind so much of social media. You are much more likely to click on a link that your friend recommends than you are to trust the arbitrary d...

I have blogged in the past about how Google's PageRank algorithm is providing decreasingly useful search results, and how vertical search is much more targeted and useful. The main issue here is that most searches are context-driven, for example when you type in a word and hit search, are you looking to buy something, a definition, or a review? The vast majority of my searches are vertical searches from the Firefox search toolbar. I have installed the following search engines into the dropdown: Amazon Dictionary.com EBay Facebook Google Maps IMDb LinkedIn MySpace Songza TheFind.com Thesaurus.com WhoIs Lookup Wikipedia Yelp YouTube Mycroft (to find more search engines to add!) For example, if I hear of a new artist on the radio and want to check out more tracks, I select Songza. If I want to check out their fan presence I select MySpace. And if I want to buy tracks or the album, I select Amazon. Picking the search vertical and then typing the search term is much more efficient ...

A thought occurred to me today while reading Virginia Hefferman's latest The Medium column in the Sunday New York Times, one of the best columns covering transitions in the media industry. Her article Content and Its Discontents laments how old media is becoming decimated. Yes, clearly reading a magazine or newspaper cover-to-cover is very old school, or as Jon Stewart poignantly nailed it with a joke newspaper entitled "Cincinnati Dump Accompaniment". But does it necessarily mean that content is dead just because newspapers and magazines are effectively dead? A newspaper column is to a newspaper as a track is to an album. The music industry has gone through a very similar transition as newspapers and magazines. Albums are definitely dead. Labels are pretty much dead. But music is flourishing! Fans can purchase tracks for a $1. A band of two like Ghostland Observatory or Trifonic can create amazing music that used to take bands of at least four.  Distributing a music vi...

Apple's next move occurred to me while I was walking by my local Apple store: Apple iTV, which will be:     Wall-mountable 37", 42", 50", 60+" LCD screens Look cool, with a hip Apple logo Stream iTunes video and audio content from the web and from your Mac Have special apps on the appstore that run on your TV (sports scores, etc.) Cable card compatible so you won't need a cable box Wirelessly display your MacBook's video feed iPhone-like touch screen remote control Include a browser controllable by above remote control's keyboard Built-in DVR So a very cool looking TV that is plug-and-play capable of showing video rentals and playing music. This will do to Sharp/Sony/Samsung/Comcast what the iPhone did to the Blackberry and AT&T: cost more, eviscerate the market, and bypass the network operator. Sweeeet.