MappingTheWeb //

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.

eBay has been at the top for a long, long time. It is one of the few to have successfully weathered the dot-com crash of the late 90s and early 2000s. In doing so, it has established itself as the premiere online auction spot. Ask anyone to name an online auction service. Chances are they will name eBay 99 times out of 100.

Why has the company been so successful? Why hasn’t any other auction site been able to make a run at eBay? After all, an auction is not sophisticated technology. The underlying concept itself has been around for centuries, perhaps even milleniums. The reason eBay has been at the top for so long is because of the Network Effect. Please read the preceding post to gain a full understanding of the rest of this post.

So what is it going to take for someone to challenge eBay (if indeed it is possible)? eBay must have an Achilles’ heel………. right? I sure hope so. Anytime a monopoly emerges, the best interest of the consumer is in jeopardy.

The way I see it, some company is going to have to pour a ton of money into a killer auction app to have a fighting chance against eBay. Even then, I’m not so sure the giant can be beaten. eBay isn’t trying to create a market. eBay is the market.

Anyone have any idea how eBay can be conquered? Or what it might take to do so?

There are two things that Google needs to do in the next year to maintain its current momentum and market position:

1. Reinvent itself.
2. Explore new revenue channels. 

Yes indeed, Google needs to reinvent itself. People like to cheer for the underdog. Google used to be in that position. It is no longer the case. Due to its control and substantial market share, Google is now the big kid on the block. With this dominating presence comes a certain level of community backlash and disapproval. Microsoft experienced this and continues to do so.

Google has always had a habit of not only meeting expectations, but also exceeding them by a wide margin. Product launches have caused phenomenal buzz. Product quality has been second to none. Google needs to continue this tradition to be successful and well-liked by the Internet community. Marketing can only go so far. The products must speak for themselves. The lack of innovation, launches, and recent news (acquisition aside) has put the company in a stagnant position. I am not being critical - I am just making an observation. Having said that, I think that big things are in the works. I expect to see a full office suite (obviously), as well as a surprise in the coming months. A social network? A Google browser? A Google wi-fi network? I don’t know, but I have high hopes.

Secondly, Google needs to rethink its revenue model. Putting all their eggs in one basket has worked well for them up until now. Increased competition, click fraud, and lack of diversification are all now working against the company. Something like 98% of Google’s revenue is derived from advertising. This is not sustainable over the long term. The company needs to explore alternatives. Who would have ever thought Rome would fall? What about Enron? The big guy is never at the top forever. Nevertheless, things can be done to hedge against a collapse. For Google, this starts with revenue diversification and perhaps even an overhaul of the current AdWords/AdSense system.

If Google is able to reinvent itself and adopt new revenue channels, I think it has the opportunity to stay on top longer than it would otherwise. I have confidence that the current management team will make the right decisions. Although I doubt any of them read this blog, I hope that they are thinking the same things as I. It would be a pity for Google to run the same course as Microsoft.

Search has come a long way since the glory days of WebCrawler, Excite, and Altavista. The introduction of Google’s PageRank system forever changed the search landscape. Algorithms have evolved and innovation continues to occur. But what is next on the horizon for search?

Verticals, verticals, verticals

I know I keep emphasizing the importance of verticals over and over. However, their value is priceless. I will not rant about them again in this post. Instead, if you want to read more about my stance on verticals, you can do so by reading the following:

• The Proliferation of Verticals
• Dethroning the Internet Giants
• Evolution of a Hot Internet Space

Search engine education

Most users are unaware of the full capabilities of a search engine such as Google. Did you know, for example, that Google search can be used as a calculator? A stock quote tool? A parcel tracker? A flight status checker? A dictionary? Chances are you probably don’t. Further education and instruction is needed to maximize the user experience and provide exposure for these little-known functions.

Indexing of ALL pages

This has been a topic of discussion for quite some time. It is 99.99% likely that not all of the web pages on the Internet have been crawled or indexed. Search engines strive to reach the 100% milestone, although it will never happen. The constant surge toward this target (and the innovation that goes along with it) is critical. Making as much information available as possible creates more relevant search results and more efficient browsing.

Removal of clutter and SEO landing pages

As we all know, the web is riddled with redundant, meaningless clutter. Parked pages and SEO-tailored landing pages continue to appear, decreasing overall efficiency on the web. Add to that duplicate content that has been ripped off and republished, and there is a widespread problem that needs to be dealt with in a systematic manner.

The notion of removing pages seems to contradict my last recommendation of ‘indexing ALL pages’. However, as I’m sure you’ll agree, these clutter pages are useless and do nothing more than make life on the web a pain.

Personalized search

Over and over again, the concept of personalized search seems to resurface. What fails to surface is exactly what this looks like and what it means to us. Painting a clear picture of personalized search will be the biggest obstacle. Obviously, behavioural search patterns and trends will play a key role. But how? Are search results displayed in a new way? Are SERPs tailored to your individual profile? I have no idea. Yahoo and Google are making strides in the area, but it will be years before we can truly realize and appreciate the true potential of such a concept.

Conclusion

The way I see it, search is still in its infancy. Anyone who’s read the book “The Search”, by John Battelle, would probably agree with me. Soon, we will be able to search for anything, at any time. He sees a day when you can Google your lost luggage in an airport. I see a day like that as well.

Try and say that ten times fast. Tongue-twisters aside, the topic has spurred endless debates and countless discussions. Though a successful business requires more than just a great idea, the idea itself plays a key role in the vision and evolution of company. Perseverance, determination, and dedication are all critical to any new venture, but the basis for any new company must start with the core offering. This leads us to the original question: do the most successful start-ups stem from the identification of a market need and/or inefficiency, or from a simple problem-solving exercise that happens to bring about an unlikely business opportunity?

Science

Some believe it is more of a science. These entrepreneurs start by identifying a potential market inefficiency or flaw. Research and due diligence is then conducted. If the idea is validated and a significant opportunity presents itself, then a business venture is launched.

This systematic approach usually follows a more traditional path, which includes the likes of an incorporation, financing, and strategic business plan. Specific goals and milestones are set forth and board meetings ensure that these targets are being met.

The key to this approach is tactical planning and pinpoint execution. If the idea is good and the implementation is smooth, then success is probable.

Serendipity

Often times, serendipity plays a role in the business creation process. An average citizen, likely with little business knowledge or expertise, attempts to solve a nagging problem. In doing so, he/she stumbles across an ingenious solution which may help others with the same problem. This discovery stage leads to a entrepreneurial stage when a business is created.

A more sporadic, less formalized business direction is usually followed. This dynamic form of business bodes well for flexiblity and change, but lacks in terms of guidance. Nevertheless, such an unplanned strategy has worked successfully for many in the past. Craigslist is a great example of this. Initially, Craig Newmark launched a simple, regional list of current events. His idea eventually blossomed into the world’s largest online classified ads site.

Conclusion

What can we all learn from this? Successful start-ups can stem from either origin. Essentially, this means that we haven’t learned anything at all, other than the fact that a great business idea can be conceived at any time, under any circumstances.

In order to gauge the success rate of both approaches, comprehensive research would need to be conducted. Even then, a case-by-case analysis is the only way to truly extract any reasonable conclusions. Therefore, an idea should be judged based on innovation and opportunity, not origin.

What’s your take on successful start-ups? A science? Serendipity? A combination of both? Neither?