google starts incorporating social network websites

here is another interesting article from the new york times:

FEBRUARY 17, 2011, 12:40 PM

Google Search Results Get More Social

By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

Google is taking its biggest step yet toward making search results more social.

Though Google remains many people’s front door to the Web, people have increasingly been turning to social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter to search for shopping tips, what to read or travel information from people they know. Google said Thursday that its search results would now incorporate much more of that information.

“Relevance isn’t just about pages — it’s also about relationships,” Mike Cassidy, a Google product management director, and Matthew Kulick, a product manager, wrote in a company blog post announcing the new features.

Google has had a version of social search since 2009. People could link their Google profiles to LinkedIn and Twitter, for instance, and posts their friends had created would show up at the bottom of search results. But only a small percentage of people did this, and the chances that one of your LinkedIn contacts has written a blog post on a city you’re planning to visit is relatively slim.

Now, links to posts from friends across the Web, including on Twitter, YouTube and Flickr, will be incorporated into search results, not hidden at the bottom of the page, with a note and a picture telling you the post is from your friend. So if you are thinking about traveling to a beach in Mexico that a friend has visited, a link to her blog could be a top result.

Google will also let you know if a friend of yours has shared a particular link on the Web. This is a big change, because before, Google would only highlight material that acquaintances actually created.

You might be more likely to read an essay on a topic related to your job if a professional contact on Twitter shared it, for instance. That is a point that many Web publishers, including The Huffington Post and Forbes.com, have taken to heart.

Finally, Google users will be able to privately link their social networking accounts to their Google profiles. Before, those connections were made public, which might have discouraged some users. People will see social results only if they are logged in to their Google accounts and have connected their social networking accounts.

Notably, there is no mention of Facebook in Google’s announcement, through the company blog post says social results will appear only “if someone you’re connected to has publicly shared a link.” Facebook posts are generally private, and Facebook has made it difficult for Google to import social information, as several Google executives have complained in the past.

Amazon the new netflix?

here is an interesting article I found in the New York Times:

FEBRUARY 22, 2011, 5:40 PM

Amazon Couples Movie Streaming With Shipping

By MATT RICHTEL

Movie-watching has gotten so confusing. My wife says, “Let’s watch a movie,” and I say, “Sure, satellite, Netflix, Xbox Live, Sony’s PlayStation Network or how ’bout the old-fashioned DVD, or the Blu-ray player?”

And she gives me an exasperated look that says: “I had any number of suitors. Pick a medium and let’s watch.”

Yet the options keep growing. Today, Amazon.com joined the increasingly aggressive suite of contenders for our attention by ramping up its own movie offerings. Members of the company’s Prime Service ($79 a year for unlimited two-day shipping) can now tap into a library of 5,000 movies they can stream for free.

The movies come from 16 studios and include a few recent notable titles, like “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” and a few old big-name titles, like “Amadeus” and “Chariots of Fire,” as well as shows like Ken Burns’s “National Parks,” for when you have no other way to kill 400 hours.

Movies as a complement to free shipping? Sounds odd, right? Like the Postal Service tossing in a Jay-Z single or a bucket of popcorn with the stamps. So what gives with this unusual coupling? And what does it say about the intensifying competition for our attention?

To the first question, Amazon can hope to achieve two aims by offering free movie downloads to its Prime members. One is that it sweetens a service that creates loyalty for Amazon as a retailer. After all, if you’ve already paid it for shipping, you’re more inclined to visit it to buy the toaster or book or loafers.

Second, Amazon is trying to create attention for its movie download business, which sells downloads on a per-title basis ($3.99 for a new release), and which in general hasn’t gotten near the recognition of competitors like Netflix. (Netflix’s cheapest service is $96 a year.) By offering free movies to Prime shipping customers, it begins to associate itself as an entertainment portal in the minds of people already using it regularly.

Apple changes business model for apps

February 15, 2011, 10:24 AM

Apple Offers Subscriptions for Apps

By JEREMY W. PETERS and MIGUEL HELFT

8:31 p.m. | Updated Apple on Tuesday cleared the way for media companies to begin selling subscriptions to their magazine, newspaper, music and video content on the iPad and its other devices.

But Apple is exacting a steep toll: 30 percent of the cost of the subscription and ownership of subscriber data like names and e-mail addresses if the purchase is made through its App Store. The arrangement left many in the media business cool, and few ran to embrace it.

Much of the unease with Apple’s model for selling iPad applications has been in the publishing world, as magazine companies have pushed for the option to offer both subscriptions and single issues, and to gain access to information about who is buying their content.

Apple’s announcement appeared to do little to assuage those concerns at the nation’s three largest magazine publishers. All three — Time Inc., Hearst Magazines and Condé Nast — declined to say on Tuesday whether they planned to sell subscriptions under Apple’s new terms.

“This is an important step, but it really needs to go further,” said Nina Link, chief executive of the Association of Magazine Media. “There’s probably some sense of frustration because publishers would like it to be more flexible. I think everybody realizes it’s early in the game and there will be other tablets that may have friendlier business terms and that this may evolve.”

The new sales process could have implications beyond publishing, forcing companies like Amazon, Netflix and Rhapsody, the music subscription service, to share income with Apple for the first time. Under the new guidelines, they would be subject to the same 30 percent fee if the subscription — or in the case of Kindle books, a single title — is bought through the App Store, as many consumers are expected to do because they would not have to navigate to another Web site. Only if consumers buy subscriptions outside the App Store — for example, through the Web site of a magazine or Netflix.com — would the companies keep 100 percent of the sale price.

Amazon and Netflix declined to comment. In a sharply worded statement, Rhapsody called Apple’s conditions “economically untenable.”

In an interview, Jon Irwin, president of Rhapsody, said, “I would have no choice but to pull the app out of the App Store.” In the statement, Rhapsody said it would work with its “market peers in determining an appropriate legal and business response to this latest development.” Mr. Irwin declined to clarify what the company meant.

Apple said that it would not allow discounting outside the App Store. A company must offer the same deals to customers buying through Apple as it does through its own Web site.

Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, said in a statement: “Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing.”

Another issue that will most likely prove problematic for those who sell iPad apps is that Apple will no longer allow links in apps that direct consumers to an external Web site where they can buy a subscription. Consumers who wish to buy directly from a site will have to find their way there themselves.

As part of the new arrangement, publishers can provide free access to existing subscribers. This was a major concern for Time Inc., which had an arrangement with Apple to allow print subscribers to People to download the People iPad app free.

A Time Inc. spokesman said that the company viewed Apple’s announcement as a positive step, but that it might not go far enough.

“It seems like Apple is taking a step toward our position on subscription offerings,” said the spokesman, Keith Cocozza. “But the announcement also raises many questions around consumer data that we would need to work through and agree on.”

Though Apple has agreed to share some data about subscribers with magazines — provided that subscribers consent when they make the purchase — publishing companies have been pushing for unfettered access to the information.

Many in the publishing business feel that few consumers would willingly hand over that information, but Apple said the decision about whether to provide personal information would be up to consumers.

“Publishers may seek additional information from App Store customers, provided those customers are given a clear choice and are informed that any additional information will be handled under the publisher’s privacy policy rather than Apple’s,” Apple said in its statement.

On Tuesday at least two magazines, Elle and Popular Science, said they would begin selling subscriptions through the App Store. Elle is owned by Hachette Filipacchi and Popular Science by the Bonnier Corporation.

Beyond economics, Apple’s tight control over subscriber data, its insistence on keeping 30 percent of the sale price and limiting consumers’ abilities to go outside an app to buy a subscription could raise antitrust concerns.

“It is possible that regulators will look into them,” said Brian Pitz, an analyst with UBS. “And I think competition and pressure from others will push Apple to open up.”

Super Bowl

Since its the super bowl I thought I would share this article from the New York Times

February 4, 2011, 3:23 PM

Super Bowl Ads Live On at YouTube and Facebook

By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

Do you remember which team won the Super Bowl last year? Do you remember which was your favorite ad?

For many viewers, the second question is easier to answer. So once again, YouTube and Facebook are taking advantage of that by extending the life of Super Bowl ads online, with contests in which people can vote for their favorites and watch this year’s version of Betty White and the Snickers barover and over and over.

This year, though, there are some new wrinkles. YouTube will run its Ad Blitz contest for the fourth year, but for the first time, it will have a mobile Ad Blitz site. People can vote on ads immediately after the game, and the winning ad will appear on YouTube’s home page a week later.

Last year, 9 percent of Ad Blitz views were on cellphones, which is why the company has made the site mobile.

“The hypothesis there is you’re at a party, at a bar, and say: ‘Hey, what was that Doritos commercial? Let’s go take a look. Who’s got an iPhone?’ ” said Jim Lecinski, managing director for United States sales at Google.

Advertisers upload their ads free and pay if they want to advertise them across YouTube.

This year, for the first time also, YouTube will offer remarketing. That means that if you watch an ad on YouTube, it might follow you and appear again on another Web site you visit in Google’s display ad network.

Half-minute Super Bowl ads cost about $3 million this year, not counting production costs. Ad Blitz is “a great way for marketers to extend the shelf life,” Mr. Lecinski said.

Volkswagen’s Super Bowl ad, involving a child dressed up as Darth Vader using the Force on his dad’s Passat, is already on YouTube, and is currently the most-viewed video on the site.

For the first time, Facebook will have a similar contest, Facebook Replay. It will show Super Bowl ads on its Sports on Facebook page and tally how many people hit “like” on each one to pick the winner.

The contests are a rare opportunity, in this post-DVR world, for television advertisers to show ads to people who want to see them. And that’s one reason that newcomers like Groupon and LivingSocial are trying their hand at TV ads this year.

Some advertisers are also reaching beyond TV to Twitter, where conversation about big events often takes place. Visa, the NFL and Twitter created a sitewhere football fans could view popular topics about the game and see Twitter posts from players and sportscasters.

Audi plans to include a Twitter hash tag in its Super Bowl TV commercial, and anyone who writes a Twitter post with the hash tag will be entered in a contest to win a vacation and a test drive. And Mercedes is marketing its Super Bowl ads with a “Tweet Race.” Four celebrities are racing to Dallas for the game. People can help them win by posting things on Twitter, like a haiku about 2011 Mercedes-Benz cars or a photo of the nearest Mercedes dealer.

Case Study #1

Shoedazzle.com, which founder Brian Lee  describes as “a personal online shoe-shopping experience with a boutique feel” is a way for the general public to buy designers shoes at an affordable rate. Shoedazzle.com is more than just a website to buy shoes, it provides each customer with a level of service that is truly revolutionary. Each shoedazzle.com member takes a style test and then they are assigned a personal stylist who on a monthly basis pick out shoes, handbags and accessories they think the member will like.

Shoedazzle.com uses both mass customization and one-to-one marketing strategies. Mass customization is implemented because there are hundreds of different shoe, handbag and accessory combinations that the shoedazzle.com customers can choose from. The one-to-one marketing strategy is utilized through the way that the stylists choose shoe, handbag and accessory options for each individual. The fact that the website gives each member on the website individual attention is a clear example of one-to-one marketing.       

I feel that the wikinomics principle of peering is being employed very effectively by shoedazzle.com. Shoedazzle.com relies on the principle of self-selection. The stylists employed by shoedazzle.com are all top Hollywood stylists and celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian who have numerous other jobs and projects and have decided to use their free time to provide shoedazzle.com customers with style advice. What is even more amazing is that these stylists choose shoe, handbag and accessories options for each individual customer every month. That is a lot of free time that these stylists and celebrities dedicate to this website. These stylists and celebrities have a lot of valuable experience within the fashion industry and they want to share the knowledge they have acquired with others. The stylists on shoedazzle.com are able to expose the general public figure to the newest shoes, handbags and accessories on the market. The stylists also teach the customers the tricks to looking as fashionable as A-list celebrities. Fashion is something these stylists are obviously very passionate about and they want to make sure that everyone is able to look their best. 

I think shoedazzle.com’s business model is very effective. The fact that each pair of shoes, handbag or accessory is only $39.95 is a very good deal. Most boutiques and other online shopping sites would charge more than $100 for similar quality merchandise. Shoedazzle.com’s very low pricing gives them a big advantage over their competitors. Along with the affordable pricing, shoedazzle.com also offers customers with unparallel customer service. Most boutiques or other online shopping website do not provide customers with their own personal stylist who recommend particular shoes, handbags and accessories and offer tips for how these items should be styled. Shoedazzle.com also provides free shipping which is another big incentive to join the website. Shoedazzle.com also offers the customers with a lot of flexibility. For example, if the customer pays the monthly membership rate of $39.95 and does not find a particular pair of shoes, handbag or accessory they want to buy that month, they can skip a month and their credit card will not be charged for the month. Along with flexibility, Shoedazzle.com gives customers a sense of control. Anyone can register for the website and are not charged until after they make their first purchase. The flexibility and control shoedazzle.com provides to its customers allows customers to feel comfortable with the website because there is limited risk to becoming a member. Once you become a member you are able to get exclusive promotions and preorder new merchandise. All of these incredible incentives to join shoedazzle.com has provided the website with a huge customer base. As of June 2010 shoedazzle.com has raised over $20 million dollars. I personally would not make any changes to shoedazzle.com’s business model because I think that the website is very unique and provides customers with exceptional value for their money.  

Sources:
Los Angeles Business Journal, March 30, 2009 "If the Shoe Fits.MARKETPLACE Kim Kardashian and Brian Lee team up to launch ShoeDazzle.com Maya Meinert."


GlobeNewswire, June 10, 2010 "ShoeDazzle.com Raised $20 Million -- Incorporated Through LegalZoom"