MappingTheWeb //

According to Alexa rankings, Facebook is now the #1 most trafficked property in Canada. This puts it ahead of Google, Yahoo, and MSN among others. Do I believe this to be true? Not likely. As we all know, Alexa ranks are inaccurate at best.

Obviously the social network has witnessed phenomenal growth this year, but I can’t imagine Facebook being bigger than Google - at least not yet. Keep in mind, however, that Canada has had one of the highest Facebook penetration rates among all countries. Most notably, Facebook adoption has reached unprecedented levels in Toronto with over 700,000 registered users. Only London has a larger user base.

Though Alexa rankings may be skewed, one thing is for certain: Facebook engagement metrics are much higher than those at Google or Yahoo. A comparison of the 3 properties by Compete indicates the following:

Page views per visit [source]:

• Facebook: 45.2
• Yahoo: 17.3
• Google: 12.2

Average stay (in minutes) [source]:

• Facebook: 13:53
• Yahoo: 9:57
• Google: 5:43

Keep in mind that the Compete metrics are not exclusive to Canadians, but can provide a general overview of website engagement levels.

What we can conclude from all of this is though overall traffic may be lacking, user engagement cannot be overlooked or understated. Facebook has done an excellent job of creating a ’sticky’ experience. Their traffic numbers may not be as high yet, but their users are more immersed and absorbed than can be said on other sites. I think it is even fair to say that many are hooked or addicted to the service.

I’m not a big fan of Internet soap operas or gossip in general, although I do find the odd Valleywag headline quite amusing. In any case, there comes a time when a soap opera deals with real issues and real people. On rare occasions, respected individuals cross the line and push the boundaries. Only at this point do I feel the need to participate in the discussion and articulate my views.

This weekend I attended Gnomedex 2007 in Seattle. Friday evening Jason Calacanis stepped onto the stage and began speaking about Internet spam and disorder. His thoughts and insights were valuable and much appreciated. Having said that, he began promoting his new venture, Mahalo, half way through his presentation. This caused quite a stir among the audience, myself including. Gnomedex presentations are meant to spur discussions and conversations around trends, standards, principles, ideas, and concepts - not specific companies. In other words, this wasn’t the right time and/or place to engage in such an act. Dave Winer called it “conference spam”. I would have to agree with him. So did everyone else I spoke with.

With all due respect, this isn’t the first time I have disagreed with the actions of a so-called A-lister. Late last year, Jeff Pulver pulled a similar stunt that really pissed me off and left me questioning his credibility.

Both Jeff and Jason are well-known individuals with remarkable track records. They are admired among many, and regarded as pioneers in their respective fields. That is why it is so befuddling and perplexing when situations like these arise. These guys should know better. Suspect intentions and profit-seeking motives often get the best of everyone. Perhaps it was their turn.

The subsequent series of events from this episode on stage caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Jason Calacanis was very upset by the backlash, most notably from Dave Winer - although I felt it was deserved. Dave Winer further expressed his views, only to apologize later. Aaron Brazell of Technosailor expressed his frustration with the whole situation, while Loren Feldman brought some humour to the ordeal.

Let me say this: I do not dislike Calacanis. I was actually looking forward to meeting him, even after this on-stage episode. I think that he is a smart guy with some smart things to say. However, he is living in a prominent role and must watch what he says sometimes. In this case, I disagreed with the way he went about presenting and/or promoting Mahalo. In the future, I think he needs to consider the consequences of his actions before acting upon them. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best with Mahalo and his future endeavours.

I’ve been pondering the following question for quite some time and I’d like to get some reader feedback. What would you rather acquire?

• A) A start-up with a killer product and a mediocre team, or;
• B) A start-up with a mediocre product and a killer team.

It is a very hard decision if you consider both sides. Both have their advantages and downfalls.

Initially, I (and many others I am guessing) immediately chose B. After all, the team is absolutely critical to success. Human resources are at the focal point of the new information / knowledge-based economy. How could you not choose B? 

But consider a revolutionary product or service that sells itself. Assume that barriers to entry have been set in place. Regardless of the team, one is certain that this product is going to take off and eventually reach widespread adoption. Is there really a need for a strong team if the product sells itself?

If you had to put your own money on the line, would you opt for the killer team or the killer product?

Google has always prided itself on aggregating user data. After all, their mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. A social network is a great way to acquire user information and data without bluntly asking for it. Millions upon millions of people have provided a detailed map of their lives in Facebook, for example. This information is priceless. Rather than fill out a lenghty, tedious registration form, users slowly complete their profiles over time.

At this point, Google really only has two options. It can:

1. Create a social network from scratch, or;
2. Acquire an existing social network.

With all due respect, Orkut just doesn’t cut it. I would even wager that the majority of North American Internet users have never heard of the service - never mind knowing that it is owned by Google. Furthermore, the percentage of English-speaking users is less than 8%, based on Alexa stats. 

An English-focused social network would tie everything together and create new opportunities for the company. The search giant would not only be able to leverage its highly successful Adsense platform, but also explore potential new revenue models. Further integration with existing social properties (i.e. Blogger, Picasa, Gmail, etc…) could provide a stunning value proposition for existing Google users, as well as potential new users.

The typical marketing plan of a clueless, old-school Internet company looking to kick it up a notch with some new-school, trendy social marketing strategies. 

Sound familiar? Countless Internet companies have become brain-washed. They are convinced that these new technologies are critical to their future success. In some cases, they may be right. But for the most part, they lack fit. Successful marketing techniques have to be strategized on an individual basis. What works for one start-up may not work for another. In other words, RSS may work for company A, while widgets may be best suited for company B.

My consulting background has really driven this point home. I’ve heard things like: “Our website NEEDS tagging” or “Let’s throw in some AJAX”. My subsequent steps are as follows:

1. I laugh (well, not aloud).
2. I describe the technology in detail and outline the benefits.
3. In most cases, I dismiss the use of the given technology.

My basis is simple: the ‘trendy’ technology MUST further the user experience and/or provide a greater marketing punch. The simple implementation of a technology for the sake of an implementation is pointless. Simply put, the questions that a company needs to ask itself are as follows:

• Will this technology create a more enjoyable user experience?
• Can we reach more potential users if we implement this technology?
• Do we simply find comfort and security in new, buzzword-compliant marketing techniques?

All jokes aside, this is a serious problem. More and more, we are seeing the use of these technologies in places they shouldn’t be. They are a waste of resources and confuse the offering.

Simplicity is key.

If traditional Internet marketing strategies (such as e-mail marketing or SEO) will provide the greatest ROI, then forget about RSS, podcasting, and the rest of their buzzword siblings. With all due respect, I am a huge advocate of all the technologies mentioned. Their place on the Internet cannot be argued, but they must be used in the proper context. 

PS. Another correct answer to the initial question would have been: the typical business plan of a Silicon Valley start-up. Too many start-ups are looking to jump on the web 2.0 buzzword bandwagon - VCs just don’t buy it anymore, literally.