Facebook surpasses Google in the number of hits

Facebook had more number of hits than Google for the first time (in US) last week (ending March 13th 2010).This marks a huge shift in the internet usage pattern from the past.
Going by the usage, now connection seems to be more important than information.

Though Google owned sites, Youtube, Gmail and Picassa are widely visited, most of Google's revenues are from its sponsored search results.
Such usage changes could mean that companies looking for online advertisement might first look at Facebook than Google. Since Facebook allows one to join many special interest groups, the chances of landing a relevant ad is higher there. In the world of internet marketing, making the ad relevant is as important as anything else.
Though Gmail also has better targeted ads, based on your email content.

Be that as it may, the market leader has been displaced, and in the time to come, we can be sure of heightened war for the eyeballs.

Artificial markets are just that

First up, Asterix (and Obelix) turned fifty this week - and this line goes out to its creators for giving us such a wonderful hero to look up to. If its not known to the reader (or is not conspicuous by the name of the blog) I am a fan of Obelix. So I was re-reading their series and read this particular story "Obelix and Co."

In this story, Caesar send one of his economists to the Gaulish village to disrupt normal life there. This chap goes and buys Obelix's menhirs at exponentially rising prices and turns the village into a unit producing menhirs and hunting boars. The menhirs don't have an existing market so extensive marketing and brand building is used to create a market for them. But competition lowers the prices and trade unions force policy changes for even more entrants. The profits decline while menhirs are being bought at exorbitant prices. It causes a credit crunch at Caesar's.

Lessons to be learnt from the story -
1) Artificial Markets are Artificial. Only if you serve a genuine want of the customer, do you have a chance when the novelty of the product/idea goes out.
2) Relaying on predictions when the artificiality of the market is not recognised can be dangerous. Augmenting your inventory on rose-colored predictions which don't take into account competition and customer sentiments is as huge a folly as any one else.
3) If you don't have a niche, you wont survive. The competition will always catch up. the head start that you had might not be good enough in most cases - more so in the manufacturing sector than the services sector. The customer must be able to look at the product and say - hey, I want this brand. Not I want this product -any brand will do.

Fascinating how much one can notice when one is not looking!

Reader's digest files for bankruptcy

A sad news indeed.
I remember being a fan of RD as a kid. But it has succumbed, to the rise of internet, more than recession. Print media has been struck real bad by the free content on th enet.

And there is no looking back. I dont think there is anyway that people can be coaxed into reading, and paying for, something that they can read on the internet for free.

The younger generation, the ones who have seen computer from an early age, are often more comfortable reading off the screen than from a printed version. Add to that the ubiquitous nature of free content, you know that the print media is fighting a losing battle.
The only way print media can tide over to the profit side is by providing content on the net. Right now, most media houses have free content on the net.

But this is not sustainable - because it requires the same amount of effort to produce content for the net, as it does for printing. The first thing that media houses must realize s that popularity is not revenue. You might be the most popular news agency on the internet - but that does not give you anything. Sure, you can find some advertiser on the web - but arent there too many websites vying for the same set of advertisers? The law of diminishing returns sets in very soon in such a market.

The only way out for the media houses is to have a free and a premium section, where the free section drives the masses . And the premium section catering to specialized news requirements.

Random signals and parameterization

During my internship at IBM, I was working on a process of verification of hardware implementations by injecting signals into the design under test. Here the verification engineer has to be smart enough to guess the potential breakdown points of the hardware and inject those signals. To further test for robustness, random signals are injected. For another level of robustness, partialy random signals - biased towards the "guessed" potential breakdown points.

The whole idea when applied to life, seems to make so much sense that I was startled when I first thought about it. To test other persons' reaction, dont we drop hints suggesting things that we are not sure of the reaction from the other person?

This same thing, in a different setting sounds so much like a pre-product launch market survey. "Have a look at the need to be catered to(hardware) - Guess the ways which the market may respond in the way we want it to(guess the potential breakdown signals) - Give the market some products that hover around the previous guesses, see how the market reacts(Random signals biased towards the guessed potential breakdown points) - All this is done before the final product (chip) is launched into the market"

Fascinating, how concepts learnt in one sphere of life can be used in other spheres as well.

More popular are the ones more talked about

Just read this interesting article which says that people look for common grounds to talk rather than talking about the better things. This is in a way a reiteration of "Matthew Effect" (The rich get richer, the poor get poorer).

But this research being done in the social domain, could mean a lot about the way marketing is perceived. The gurus knew all along that it works, but to be proved that it does work is a different thing.

Understanding this concept can help a lot in marketing, especially on the web. If somehow one could get their product to be discussed on the "right" forums - it automatically starts generating traffic. If you pay a battery of people to discuss your product on twitter, and it features on the twitter search list, it is very likely that other people will start discussing it - as it will seem like the "IN" thing. Or if you can get your product discussed on slashdot or technorati, it is very likely that it will be discussed beyond that as well.

In fact this love for likeliness is seen in at the school and college level : A popular guy/girl is talked more about, and he/she gets more popular. If a group of 5 people start saying out loud that a certain dress is cool, the whole school gradually comes to accept the same as cool. So it can be used in adolescent marketing too. FMCG markets typically have a huge chunk of the demand coming from teens and just-left-teens . To be able to project the product as cool, they need to be able to make an impression at school, colleges, FaceBook, MySpace - and in all likelyhood, it will catch up.

Functionality is NOT the king!

I was thinking, what makes a product a hands down market leader and an also-ran. One thing I realised was that functionality is not the only criteria. If it were the same, FriendFeed would be much bigger than Twitter. Or for that matter, LinkedIn wouldn't be the market leader either. Or Google might have been oust by one of the many search engines that came up after it.
Same is true for mobile phones too. If functionality was the only criteria, the lot of "prettier" phones would have been replaced by the more "functional" ones. iPhone might just have gone extinct if it were only to be compared on functionalities with the blackberries. I had read somewhere that SAP proudly stated that they never show the product during the selling stage. Reason - because "nobody ever got sacked for buying SAP " !

The race for functionality is never ending. You could go on adding features to your product. It will never reach the marketing stage in this way. Functionality is not the main thing and the marketing people know it too! The product has to be only "good enough" on functionality. The rest is about the acceptability, portability and the perception. "If the whole industry uses SAP, then it must be good enough". "All my friends use Twitter, I don't want to use something else."

If it is all about functionality then it is an argument about diminishing returns, marginal differences and small variations. And often this is not nearly enough to win a client, cause a revolution, or shift opinions.


Frankly, as long as our needs (present, and foreseeable in the near future) are met, do we really care what more is on offer? After this point, perception takes over. If something is viewed as the "poor man's cow", it will not be bought by someone who wants to project a rich image. If google is the in-thing, why would someone use AOL?

The next thing is the change. The trouble of moving from one product to another. People love familiarity. Getting people to switch without showing them the huge advantages is not going to work. That's the reason that analysts claim that despite Wolfram Alpha's great features, it might not be able to overtake google. For the cost and disruptions would be too huge given the present slight edge in functionality.

The top 10 reasons due to which Sun failed

Sun Microsystems - once upon a time a $200 billion company and the owners of Java was bought out by Oracle for $7.4 billion a few days back.

Dan Baigent, was a senior director at Sun microsystems when the company got acquired. He started out to write the top ten reasons why Sun failed. Unfortunately he could write only 3. The company cracked down on it and took the posts off. However, the good (?) google is here to help us.
It has stored a cache of those pages.

The top 10 reasons why Sun failed to leverage its market potential. (Only #10, 9 and 8 are there, Dan never got to write more than that.)

The #10 Reason that Sun is Setting: We failed to understand the x86 Market - "We approached the market in the only way we knew how - as an extension of our high-end, low-volume, high-value approach to network computing. And not just in terms of product features and capabilities, but in terms of sales, partnerships, channel programs and supply chain management."

The #9 Reason that Sun is Setting: Messing with the Java Brand - "numerous attempts by well-meaning marketing folks at Sun to try exploit the value of the Java brand itself and how that ultimately reduced the very value they tried to exploit. To some degree, this is as much about the lack of value in the Sun brand (at least outside our loyal customer base) as it is about Java" ".... and the changing of our stock symbol to JAVA . (It) was a sad attempt to make Sun's stock more recognizable on Wall Street, as if that's what we created the Java brand for."

The #8 Reason that Sun is Setting: Fumbling Jini - "The real problem was that the engineers had built this technology using the latest Java platform...When launched, Jini could not run in anything smaller than a device with 64MB of memory and a Pentium-class processor.... Meanwhile, Marketing and PR were off describing uses of the technology that were all about small devices (cameras, printers, cell phones, etc.) that were completely unable to run RMI, nonetheless the Jini on which it was built. Jini should have been first-and-foremost about distributed computing. ... worse still, we left the door so wide open on distributed computing that Microsoft and others were able to walk through it."

Probably Sun does not believe in learning from mistakes or worse, thinks that letting the mistakes out in the open could mean lower respect for the brand image. The only way that is possible is when while knowing your mistakes, you still go on commiting them.

Business Scalability in the Manufactoring sector

As promised earlier, here's my post on how to shape your business for scaling up, if you are in the manufacturing domain.
Most of the articles that I have read talk about up scaling the business in the web or the software domain. None really talked about applying the same principles to achieve scalability in business in the manufacturing domain.

I strongly believe that the principles of business scalability transcend the boundaries of the business domain. When we say that we need to structure the business model for scalability, we need a revenue model that is self perpetuating. One first needs to find out who the customer is. The next thing to figure out (and this is the most important thing) is to figure out what is it that will further your product's demand. And create your revenue model based on these answers.

Now lets focus on the manufacturing industry, If lets say it is a electrical machines manufacturer - that specialises in precision control. The company would probably then want to create a assembly line type product chain. So that each product sold in the market would create demand for more similar products. (If you want to have a more detailed/customised revenue model, you will have to pay me)

Logic of a "free" customer

For the past few days, I have been thinking about how much is a 'free' customer worth.
For example, All the social networking sites like Facebook, Orkut, MySpace offer free logins for anyone. Similar is the case for eBay.

For example on eBay, all buyers are free registrants . Only the sellers pay - and that too when they get a product to sell. This gives rise to an interesting situation - without 'free' buyers, there are no sellers - and without the sellers the revenue model fails.

Similar is the case with Orkut - without the free users, there are no ads, and hence no money. But its slightly complicated here as Orkut is owned by Google. so there might be opportunity costs involved. like for example, when someone clicks on ads by google from a third party site, google must be paying something to that site as well (as it does in adsense). So when Google values its Orkut users, it will also factor in these savings.

Facebook epitomizes this type of revenue model - it allows advertisers to select their target group very effectively. Allowing them to streamline their ad via features such as
* Location
* Age
* Sex

* Keywords
* Education
* Workplace

* Relationship Status
* Relationship Interests
* Languages



But exactly how useful are these customers? there might be some customers who never click on any ads. Or for that matter, sell products on eBay. So these people never make money for the company. On second thoughts, these might still generate some revenue for eBay - by increasing the selling price through competitive bidding.


This thought cropped up in my head while listening to a presentation on the revenue models followed by browsers. Since then I have not been able to stop thinking about it. So HAD to publish it. Anyone who has some idea on this, please do comment/ contact me. I wish to learn more about this fascinating concept.

Ways of market endorsement

Every time you buy something, you endorse the way the company does its business.

When we buy a product or service from a particular company, we are promoting the company, its policies, its business model, its work culture - everything. As long as a company is doing good, (by good I mean achieving its target sales and revenue) it wont feel the need to drastically change its model. Ultimately, its the signals from the market that the company responds to.

Of course its products will follow its own life cycle, question marks will turn into stars, if proper sales push is effected. The cash cows will remain so until competition forces pushes it to the dogs status.

As long as there is high growth in a particular segment and the company is having a high market share, the company will never change its policies. Let's say, if the company is heavy on environment pollution, but its products do not find any difficulty in the market, it wont bother much about self regulating the pollution. But once customers start drifting away from the company, then the company will need to change its stance. It will try to bring in regulation and more efficiency, so that its products can regain lost ground.

Likewise,let's say a chip manufacturer brings in faster chips but with poor power dissipation. That is, the comp would get heated up easily.If people are willing to live with the higher heat, the company will continue trying to produce faster chips without caring much about the heat dissipation systems. But once the customers find the heat too annoying or the increased speed not worth bearing with the heat or an alternative product that generates lesser heat, the company will feel the impact (Or if their market research people are savvy enough, and see it coming) and they will devote more effort towards reducing the heat.

Markets are the deciding factor for all business decisions.As long as it keeps the markets happy , the company is doing good.