MappingTheWeb //

When MyBlogLog launched in late 2006, it caught fire. Many of the big tech blogs immediately jumped on board and started using the service. This fueled massive PR and popularity shot to unprecendented heights. Soon, all the big tech blogs were taking advantage of the service. Then, only a couple of months later, Yahoo buys the company for $10 million. Since then, very little has changed and not much has been said about the company.

This simple, yet ingenious idea sparked for one reason: it provided value for both the blogger and the reader. The blogger was provided with a tool that encouraged repeat visitor loyalty, while the reader gained awareness and exposure (via the displayed avatar) in return.

After the Yahoo acquisition, the success and appeal of the service seemed to die off. To some degree, it became overrun with spam. Some were adding as many contacts as possible to market their blog, while others advertised via their personalized avatar. This was predictable. As is the case with Digg, any social media property that vaults to fame and attracts a large user base becomes susceptible to cheating and gaming.

Nevertheless, I am itching to know when the company will make some sort of announcement or launch a new version. Furthermore, how Yahoo plans to integrate the service is even more of a mystery. I assume this will become more clear in the days ahead with the transition strategy now in full-tilt.

How do you think MyBlogLog should proceed? How should Yahoo integrate the service?

The advent of the Internet and the proliferation of cell phones essentially wiped out the need for a Rolodex. Business contact information could now be managed via some sort of electronic device. All of a sudden, connections and relationships seemed much more manageable without the need for a tangible organizational system. Microsoft Outlook served as a main hub for many. Plaxo was the next step. Then along came web 2.0…

LinkedIn was born and quickly became the business contact tool of choice for the tech-savvy. As opposed to many of the other social networks, LinkedIn focused on an older, more established business crowd. The ability to meet contacts through established connections was a main driver for the site. Subsequently, LinkedIn quickly became known as the place to network with business contacts online.

Nowadays, the leader is starting to see competition from an unexpected source. More and more business professionals are starting to use Facebook as their main means of networking and relationship-tracking.

This may seem odd to some, as LinkedIn is focused specifically on business professionals, thereas Facebook provides a more general offering. The reason I see many making the switch is this: Facebook simply has a much larger user base than LinkedIn. In other words, there is a higher likelihood that a given contact will be using Facebook. Keep in mind that Facebook is tailored for an older demographic as well, as opposed to say MySpace or hi5. Having said that, even though Facebook is a generic social utility, great value can still be derived from the depth of connections and the internal communication mechanisms. Personally, I also find LinkedIn a bit confusing at times. The more simplified Facebook experience may also be a factor.

The transition is still in its early stages. Many still live by LinkedIn and may be unlikely to switch due to their strong ties with the service already. Nevertheless, Facebook may provide an added networking tool, if not the networking tool, for business professionals in the future.

Do you think Facebook will thwart LinkedIn in the networking space? Or is the more tailored offering going to win out in the end?

As Mark Evans points out in a recent post, there is a Facebook application “gold rush” taking place right now. Everyone and their dog is scrambling to launch an app to capitalize on this fad opportunity. Many are seeing astonishing growth - from zero to tens of thousands of users in a mere couple days. But is this truly sustainable? Even more importantly, is it really worth it? I don’t think so. But don’t tell that to Facebook or the application creators.

Anything that vaults to stratospheric popularity levels in a short period of time is bound to see a fall-out or backlash of some kind eventually. In this case, the novelty of apps will eventually wear off. Some may disagree, but I would wager that ’superpoking’ and ‘throwing food’ are only cool for so long. Frankly, I’m already tired of all these ridiculous app invites after only a couple months.

The promise of monetization or a sale is what is driving this boom. But let’s be honest here - how many will actually profit from a sale or achieve reasonable revenues? My guess is under 1%. In other words, Facebook is almost creating a false sense of hope for developers. Subsequently, facebook profits from additional PR, user growth, and developer evangelism.

To me, Facebook applications are no more than a marketing funnel to an outside web presence. If you plan on making the app the entire business, you are walking a dangerously fine line. Forever more, you will be at the mercy of Facebook. If they decide to change course, you could be screwed.

My intuition tells me that the introduction of the developer platform was simply a move by the company to create short terms success and fuel PR ahead of an IPO or potential sale. Let’s analyze this further:

1. Facebook launches the developer platform.
2. Developers experience exponential growth and boast about their success.
3. The press takes notice; widespread PR ensues.
4. More developers jump on the bandwagon.
5. A positive feedback loop is created: success feeds PR, which fuels further applications. Repeat.
6. Eventually, a bubble is created as the app market is saturated and over-crowded. The dilution leads to a fall-out.

In other words, I believe that the developer platform is a short term ’stunt’ to raise awareness and exposure for the company. Over the long term, I see the move as being more detrimental than beneficial. I, for one, am already starting to get disgruntled by the addition of clutter and useless knick-knacks. The Facebook crowd, for the most part, is an older group. Such silly applications should be left for the MySpace or hi5 crowd. They degrade the quality of the experience. A seeming endless amount of scrolling is now needed to browse most profile pages. Is this the Facebook that we all remember?

Note: I refuse to make any parallels to MySpace or Geocities just yet…

Today, News Corp and NBC Universal announced the name of their much anticipated YouTube killer - Hulu. A couple of weeks ago, the unnamed venture raised $100 million via Providence Equity Partners in exchange for 10% of the company. A quick math calculation equates the valuation to a whopping $1 billion. While many scoffed at this ridiculous valuation, I’m not so quick to count out this potential industry player.

Why is YouTube as big as it is? Obviously their video widget provided a viral marketing channel, but that only funnels potential users to the site. It still doesn’t explain the ’stickiness’ and allure of the video-sharing portal. Nonetheless, it quickly becomes clear that illegal content is the driving force. YouTube is nothing with it. Millions of users hit the site everyday to watch music videos, TV shows, and movie clips. Not many care that Joe from Connecticut can juggle. The only exception I can think of are how-to videos. These non-commercial, useful UGC clips provide value to the viewer, regardless of whether you know the creator or not.

So how can Hulu compete against YouTube and the other big boys? Simple. Hulu has one thing that nearly all of other video sharing sites lack - the rights to production-quality content*. Sure, YouTube and others will continue to stream illegal content, but is this truly a sustainable long-term strategy? I’m not so convinced. What catapulted YouTube to the top in the first place may ultimately lead to its demise in the end. This is imminent flaw of social media. Just ask Digg.

So now anyone can watch legitimate, high-quality episodes of Heroes, madTV, 24, The Office, Family Guy, and Las Vegas (to name a few) for free, on-demand, anywhere in the world? Sounds pretty compelling to me. What does all this mean for traditional TV? Well, traditional folk can still view News Corp/NBC programming via the old tube, whereas tech-savvy users will turn to the Internet. Moreover, if you were to miss a given episode on TV or you happened stuck in Kenya without a TV, you can still tune in and watch on Hulu.

This brings up another huge advantage that Hulu has over the competition - a stunning revenue model. Hulu can command huge ad dollars and premium CPMs as they have complete control over the content. Furthermore, the site can leverage pre-existing relationships with advertisers at News Corp and NBC Universal. As opposed to traditional TV where viewers can’t click or ‘follow’ the ads, this form of programming is interactive and opens the door to new advertising opportunities. This conversion process is not only more effective, but also measurable.

It’s still too early to speculate the potential features and functionality of the offering. For what it’s worth, the portal may only stream old episodes or segments of episodes. I highly doubt this, but we will soon find out. Hulu isn’t currently operational. The home page is simply a landing page where interested parties can enter their e-mail to get a sneak peek of the BETA product when the time comes (apparently sometime in October according to Hulu).

I look forward to catching of glimpse of this potential industry-changing venture. Many aren’t giving it a chance, but I wouldn’t be so quick to make a judgment just yet.

*Note: As far as I know, there will be no user-generated content (UGC) on the site. It will strictly consist of company-owned premium content. Please inform me if you know otherwise.

This evening, Digg launched an all new interface. The new design is even more clear and intuitive than before. Some of the changes include:

• The ability to view both news and videos on a single page. This is due to feedback received indicating a high interest in videos.
• Tweaks to the page and story summary layouts.
• Streamlined navigation.
• Increased customization options.
• Simple one-click bury with no explanation needed.

All in all, small cosmetics changes such as added icons, new colour palettes, and shuffled page elements add to the overall clean experience. The service description has moved from the right sidebar to the main navigation column. This provides more concise site messaging for new visitors, as well as a clear call-to-action for potential new users (i.e. Join now). As a side note, Digg continues to minimize page views by maximizing AJAX functionality.

From a more broad prespective, I think Digg is trying to bring the service mainstream. The dead simple navigation and clear messaging indicate a marketing push to regular folk. That being said, it also appears as though Digg is making a big push toward monetization. A very large, prominent inline rectangle ad is now visible on the home page. Article pages are also riddled with two ads - both a leaderboard and an inline rectangle ad. It will be interested to see how the Digg community reacts to such changes.

From an initial glance, I really like the new changes. Digg has done a really good job of simplifying the experience, yet adding functionality. Such a counterintuitive feat can only be the result of brilliance. Kudos to the Digg team.