MappingTheWeb //

Here is a stunning revelation: the BETA invite system has nothing to do with actual testing. Rather, it is simply a marketing ploy aimed at attracting new users. Is this truly a stunning revelation? Or did I just state the obvious?

Historically, a start-up would quietly seek out BETA users to test the product. These individuals would try to break it and take note of any bugs. Feedback was key. This was back in a time when the BETA system was legitimate. Does this sound like a typical ‘BETA tester’ of today? It seems that every start-up graduates from the cliched ’stealth mode’ to the cliched ‘BETA mode’ at some point. Nowadays, these terms are so common that their marketing value has diminished to zero. In other words, these buzz words do not attract the attention and exposure that they once did. Furthermore, the misuse of the term ‘BETA’ is so widespread that rectification cannot be achieved.

Not surprisingly however, this tactic has been succesfully leveraged many times in the past, most notably by Gmail. More recently, Joost caused quite a stir with a similar strategy. But such a system is just not cool any more. People frown upon BETA logos and invite systems. They have become overused to the point of saturation.

BETA products are supposed to be full of bugs. They are supposed to contain errors. But nowadays, it seems that these BETA products are shipped in perfect condition. Why? Because they are intended for the end user, not the supposed BETA tester. Think about it. Who uses a BETA product nowadays? Everyone. This isn’t the way it’s supposed to be. If everyone is truly ready to use the product, the ‘BETA’ badge should be dropped. Here’s the way the system should work: if a company is truly in need of BETA users, they should methodically seek out a specific subset of people, rather than proclaim the need over a figurative megaphone. This will attract the wrong crowd.

So just how hot is the BETA invite market? Well, many hard-to-acquire invites have landed on eBay and sold for much higher than their actual value ($0). In addition, TechCrunch recently purchased InviteShare, a BETA invite-sharing community. Interest in the area is obvious and this will further change the shape of this newfangled marketplace/industry.

To close, I have some words of wisdom for any new start-up… “The BETA invite marketing tactic has been played out. It’s really not that sweet any more. Do us all a favour and drop the BETA… Ok? All the best.”

You’d expect that when a new player enters a space, it hopes to attract users from competitor sites, right? That isn’t the case with Mahalo. But then again, Mahalo claims to be in a space that it isn’t actually in. You follow? Mahalo is a search engine in an identity crisis. Heck, it’s not even a search engine. It’s a directory. The search function is nothing more than a glorified shortcut to an individual directory page. “Guide Notes” and “Fast Facts” aside, this is really nothing more than DMOZ.

Mahalo lacks a dynamic, continuous crawl process - it’s static. Therefore, I don’t see how it can be called a search engine. Personally, I’m not convinced that you can define a search engine as such without an algorithm. Having said that, it is of my opinion that Mahalo won’t be able to compete with the big boys. Simply put, I can’t see people switching from Google or Yahoo. Mahalo has quickly realized this and since introduced Mahalo Follow. Now, users don’t have to switch services - they can continue to use Google or Yahoo at their leisure. In the event that a Mahalo result is available, it is automatically displayed in the sidebar.

It seems that Mahalo Follow is a good, passive approach for the company. It may even be the business model in the end (in my mind at least). I respect that the company has only been around for a few months, but the fact that this ’search engine’ lacks ’search results’ for many popular queries is inexcusable. I won’t even touch on unique, long tail queries…

On another note, Mahalo founder Jason Calacanis has been quoted as saying, “SEO is bullshit. If you generate a web page with good content, Google will rank the page properly”. Hmmm… that seems pretty hyprocritical. You see… directories thrive on SEO. Their very structure and nature are tailored for search engines. Even quasi-directories like Wikipedia and IMDB drive a significant portion of their traffic from search engines.

Consider this: both Mahalo and a given directory site contain unique pages with keywords and phrases stuffed into important areas such as the page title, URL, and header tags. In other words, Mahalo is a ’search engine’ dependent on other search engines. SEO is a primary traffic source. Instead of competing against Google and Yahoo, Mahalo has cleverly positioned itself to reap the benefits of these search giants via SEO.

Basically, Mahalo plans to profit from the search results of the other search engines.

If you are still not convinced, type in “Berlin vacation” or “save on your energy bill” into Google? Which directory ’search engine’ has a front page result?… You should never see a given search result in another search engine results page - it’s ridiculous. Need I say more?

What’s your take on the situation? Do you think Mahalo is a search engine?

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.