Future Search

Roger Barnette has taken an interesting look at the future of search engines in a recent post on the Search Insider blog.  The post looks at a number of recent events that could foreshadow dramatic changes in the online search environment.
   First, recent reports from big online metrics firms ComScore and Hitwise showed small declines over the last year in use of traditional search engines.  There's always been some volatility in the use of specific search engines, as new entrants come into the field, existing search sites expand coverage and work on improving their search and selection engines.  In particular, the traditional big search sites have taken hits recently by the rise of non-English language search sites and the growing globalization of the Internet and the rise of niche search alternatives.
  One of those new entrants in the search market is likely to be Facebook, which has the corporate size to challenge the big search sites and has the niche potential of integrating Facebook likes and friends' preferences into its recommendation engine.  Another possible big entrant is Apple.  While Apple hasn't publicly announced its intent to enter search, it has made two big moves lately to internalize standard app features that had relied on external services.  With Apple's release of iOS6, it has dropped YouTube and GoogleMaps as standard included apps in favor of its own mobile apps.  When those moves were announced, many felt it was just a matter of time before Apple internalized search as well.  (However, Apple has since formally apologized to users for its troubled and buggy Maps app - which may have Apple reconsidering entry into mainstream search, or at least delaying announcement and implementation until they've developed a fully competitive option).
  Another major shift impacting search is the rapid growth in mobile, which has helped expand interest in, and use of, location-based and context-based searches.  Not only are mobile searches expanding the ability to search, studies are indicating that people use mobile search differently - much more of an emphasis on location-based searches, comparison-focused searches, and situational searches.  These can pose a challenge to legacy search engines to develop mobile-optimized applications, lest they lose market share to alternatives.
   Speaking of alternatives, niche search alternatives have also been on the rise.  There are, for now, two basic types of niche alternatives - one is the rise of content-specific search sites, the other are sites that aren't primarily designed for search, but incorporate search and recommendation engines. 
  The best examples of the latter are Amazon, and to some extent Netflix.  Both excel in terms of recommendations (tailoring search results to user preferences), and are comprehensive enough in their coverage to satisfy most search activity. As Barnette states, "When people skip over a search engine and go straight to Amazon for product search, it’s clear that either Amazon is doing something very right, or search engines need to improve their results."
   There seem to be two predominant types of niche search engines - language-based and content-hosting based.  Historically, Internet use and content has predominantly been English language based.  More recently, however, the proportion of English-language content has declined as Internet use has expanded globally.  While many of the large search sites developed sites and search engines in other languages, they've been challenged by native language search engines in many cases.  Native language search sites may be better equipped to capture nuances and differential preferences of local users/  In addition, users may feel more comfortable using native-language focused sites, or think that it would provide better results.  Recent years have also seen a rapid rise in focused content archives or hosting sites.   YouTube is the classic example - with its focus on videos and offer of free hosting, it's become the place to go for many users looking for video content.  But similar archives/hosting services exist for many fields of academic research, photographs, fan fiction, movie information and credits, and myriad other topics.  Users looking to search within those topics often will go to these niche search sites first - so they don't have to sort through the extraneous results a more general search engine would provide.

  Barnette suggests that all these factors suggest that the big general search sites will continue to experience erosion in their use - although that could be ameliorated somewhat by acquisition (such as Google's purchase of YouTube), developing their own niche search products, or optimizing applications for emerging search types (such as Bing's new search app optimized for mobile use).  As for "search marketers," volatility in the general search market is likely to keep the value of search sites for search marketers somewhat uncertain.  On the other hand, most search marketers are interested in reaching targeted users - and the fragmentation of search by niches, and the additional targeting opportunities offered by mobile, can be quite valuable in some cases.

  Search sites are starting to experience the evolution in audiences and market that all general-interest media are facing - where an increasing number of competitors start nibbling at the niches, and changing user interests and preferences will begin taking users to alternatives that better match their interests (if the dominant sites aren't nimble enough to provide their own alternatives and niches).  Internet sites and services aren't exempt from the general trend effects of the digital/telecom revolution.

Source -  The Future of Search,  SearchInsider

The Growing Importance of Search for TV

As media markets continue to expand, become more competitive, and with the flood of content availability and options, helping people find the information and content they want becomes more and more important - and valuable - to potential consumers.
  John R. Osborn offers some thoughts on the importance of search for TV firms in the Online Video Insider blog.  I'll offer my own insight that search will remain important, and become increasingly valued, for all media forms and formats.

  Osborn starts by reminiscing about TV's Golden Age of the 1950s, when there were limited channels and programming schedules were fairly static - so that most everyone knew where and when to find the programs they were interested in viewing.  Today, he notes, more than half of US TV homes have DVRs, about 90% use multichannel video providers (cable, DBS, etc.) to access TV content from some or all of the 500+ networks available in the U.S.  And then you also need to consider a number of other content sources that Osborn doesn't list - the huge backlist of movies and TV programs available through home video (DVDs, BluRay); the rise of multiple streaming services offering access to TV content and movies (Netflix, Hulu+, etc.) - including many current programs; and the explosion of online video.  A quick stat from YouTube can give you an idea of the wealth of online video content available - on average, users upload to YouTube more video content each hour than the major U.S. networks have produced in their 60+ years of operation.
  Today, it's not enough to produce good TV programming to successfully attract an audience - potential viewers have to first learn that the content is available, and then to find it.  And to  become successful, the content has to be engaging enough to get them to not only view the program, but to come back for new content as it becomes available.  Search can be incredibly useful in meeting these goals.
  Osborn's post outlines the importance and value that good search options can provide viewers, advertisers, content producers, cable/telco/satellite distributors (PayTV) many of which currently offer a variety of search options - and are applicable for local stations and outlets as well.  There are some good exemplars and templates out there - Tivo's search and recommendation system, Microsoft's new X-Box Live technology, Amazon's recommendation platform, and Netflix's recommendation system.
  The full post is worth a read.

Source -  The Importance Of Search In Next-Gen T/V Business Model,  Online Video Insider

Tracking Social Media chatter over News Events

  One of the fun things for researchers is the huge amount of public data available online, and particularly the ability to capture snippets of public opinion and reactions through social media.  (Although the methodologist in me needs to remind everyone that social media content is not necessarily representative of general public opinion.)  For example, here's some summaries of reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

 

  In addition to tracking social media, many search engines provide the capacity to track trends in the use of search terms.  Google, for instance, provides access to current trends as well as the ability to track term usage over time (or at least back to 2004) for general usage, as well as in terms of news references.  Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Twitter, and YouTube all offer similar services.  Many of these also can provide user information in aggregate, and can be further broken down by geographic location.

Online metrics firm Crimson Hexagon recently provided a demonstration of some of its Online traffic tracking services though an analysis of the reaction to the Supreme Court's health care ruling.  They posted some screenshots of their real-time analytic platform ForSight that provided both descriptive summaries and more qualitative analysis of themes expressed through social media.  

   As I said at the beginning, the online world's providing a lot of interesting ways to quickly capture and analyse public opinion, comments, and reactions.  Get to work, folks.

Source - Healthcare Ruling Sparks 12,000 Tweets Per Minute, Mashable
What People Search For - Most Popular Keywords, Search Engine Watch
Obamacare: Online Reaction to SCOTUS Ruling (Update)  Crimson Hexagon press release

What's With Yahoo?

Once dominant search engine and Internet icon Yahoo's been having a rough time lately.  Trampled in most every market by Google, it's shifted focus from search engine, to Internet portal, to it's current emphasis on content provider (through Yahoo Sports, Yahoo News, Yahoo Finance, etc.).  That's led in part to Yahoo going through four CEOs in the last three years, the most recent in trouble for fudging his resume.
  Patrick Houston, former Yahoo executive, offered his perspective on the fall of Yahoo in an Information Week commentary.  Here's his three "Lessons" learned from Yahoo's decline

1. Don't deny your strengths - even when others do.  In other words, focus on what you do well, and competitively.  Don't wander off in search of new markets in unrelated areas.
2. Beware of Belonging to a Club.  This can be rephrased as being cautious of adopting an insider mindset, or understanding what your real business is and how it's changing.
3. When it's no longer time to persevere, don't.  This one's easy - know when it's not working and stop - get out of the market before it drags you down.

Patrick sums it up neatly - 

Yahoo (continued to hang on) to its gloried past--when it enjoyed the same stature Facebook does today... A Microsoft-Yahoo combo would have made a far better rival to Google in search, and sooner. And, paired with Microsoft's MSN/MSNBC brands, it would have been a media juggernaut, one too big to fail.

The lessons, I think, go far beyond the case of Yahoo - they're good advice for any media or technology firm in a rapidly evolving competitive environment.  Firms can no longer rest on their laurels and their traditional business models - they need to continually evaluate their markets and their role in them - shifting and adjusting as needed.

Source -  3 Lessons From Yahoo's Meltdown, From An Insider,  InformationWeek

News, Search Engines, and Copyright Infringement

The AP (Associate Press wire service) recently filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against a company, Meltwater, for providing summaries of news stories that include keywords of interest to their clients.  Some of these digests include portions of the news stories, arguably providing a basis for the copyright infringement claim.  In the suit, the AP contends that Meltwater is undercutting AP's news business by providing its content without paying AP for it.
  The AP argues that Meltwater is a clipping service that doesn't pay for the papers it "clips" from.  In addition, while recognizing that their summaries do not violate copyright, that if you add up the headline and "a short snippet of text," Meltwater clients might obtain a significant percentage of a story, violating the limits of fair use.  The AP also argues that that Meltwater, by providing a link to the original story, may be contributing to later copyright violations by the clients.
  Those claims, Meltwater alleges in a formal response filed in the suit, that the type of violations AP alleges challenge the core functions of search engines.  The Courts long ago found that search engines use of such content fell under fair use.  It is difficult to see how Meltwater differs, except in providing their own summaries, which in fact would be original stories that Meltwater held copyright to.
  In commenting on the suit, one blogger noted the dangerous precedent of the AP's "contributory" argument -

Because users can cut and paste AP stories from their original websites and “save” them in a Meltwater archive, Meltwater is guilty of violating copyright law. Under that argument, so is any email program or word processing program.

  The filing also contains the foundation for a countersuit,  arguing that the AP's very public pursuit of the infringement claim has disrupted its business relationships and scaring away prospective clients.

  Its hard to see, from the reports anyway, that the AP even has the standing to sue (that would depend on whether Meltwater uses AP wire reports, or newspaper articles based on them).  It also seems like the AP is trying to argue that Meltwater's actions might result in infringement (by themselves or their clients), rather than basing the suit on actual evidence of wrongdoing.  That last is a disturbing trend in IP policy and Court cases - using the possibility of infringement, rather than actual violation, as the basis for legal action.

Source - Meltwater says AP's copyright lawsuit threatens all search engines,  Poynter MediaWire