I’ve speculated a couple of times in the past that Google’s entry into the “free DA” space had little to do with a business intention to compete with free 411 services, but rather a strategic development initiative that aims to construct a voice vocabulary.

There are many reasons for Google to be in the forefront of a voice-based interface. Nuance’s technology domination (via voracious acquisition) and Microsoft’s capture of TellMe “forced” Google to do what they love to do - build it from scratch.  In order to succeed in voice technology, however, you need a huge base of data (voice utterances) to mine into search ontologies.  While Google clearly have this in text-entered search, it had no source in voice.  Enter GOOG-411. A consumer service on one side, but a massive pipe for capturing large volumes of voice search terms on the other.

As further evidence of this being a means-to-an-end, Silicon Alley Insider reports on the new audio indexing feature announced by Google for Video Search. Cutely/annoyingly named Gaudi, this gives us a more clear sense of Google’s intentions for voice search, and their ambitions in indexing spoken words in video (presumably, podcasts and perhaps music lyrics can’t be too far behind!)

search, 411, Free DA | No Comments »

It’s encouraging to see Kelsey Group take a lead role in sponsoring the industry dialog on the verticalization of local search.

We all have our own definitions of vertical search - most commonly we align around large shopping niches such as automotive, real estate and A&E. However, of late, we’re seeing this expand beyond “classified verticals” into key life event or considered purchase segments such as attorneys (avvo), weddings (wedding channel) and new homes (zillow).

why are YP’s vertically challenged?

Why are publishers watching the development of local vertical search from the wrong side of the podium?

(more…)

search, local shopping, publishing, strategy, local vertical | 4 Comments »

I was very pleased to see John Battelle exposing the “second click” issue from the pulpit at SES, and in his influential SearchBlog. If you have done any occasional reading through my lowly blog, you’ll recognize the concept of the “third page of search“. It’s the same thing - the issue surrounding Google’s shift within its Search Result Page to bias users towards it’s own version of vertical search experiences.

Of late, this issue has become increasingly visible with Google’s blatant behavior of pushing Google owned/operated “third page search services” into top position on the results page. In local we recognize it with the 10-list box, in video you see it with YouTube bias, in real estate we see it with Google’s home search, in auto, we’re starting to see Google vehicle search. With Google’s recently announced “knol“, you see it’s version of Wikipedia in formation.

Because I’m lazy/busy as heck these days, I’ve copied my reply in John’s blog (down below), to give you a bit of added perspective on how I see this in-formation battle.

This is a really important one, and it’s fascinating because - above all else - it is the closest thing I have seen to a shift which creates an opening for Google to be truly challenged. It demonstrates their hunger/greed pushing them to mess with the fundamental trust (and entrenched identity) with consumers - the trust to put the “best answers” at the top, and the derivative belief that Google won’t push product in front of me.

(more…)

web 2.0, search, third page | No Comments »

When you have little time and lots of money, your strategic move is obvious.

I thought I’d push out a few armchair quarterback suggestions on MS-Yahoo’s strategic moves in the local media space.

For simplicity, let’s call it MSY - plus, it just might get kind of MeSsY. (more…)

search, local social, Jabber, YP, strategy, maps, local mobile | No Comments »

Greg Sterling triggered an exchange on his blog last week - the dialog centered on “what would the impact of a US recession be on local online advertising?”

I offered up two possible scenarios, described below. I thought it might be interesting to turn this back over to you all. Which direction do you think makes sense (of these two choices)? You can answer in the poll widget on the right.

1. Recession would be a great catalyst to growth in interactive spending:

In the reasonable recession scenario of tightened ad budgets of local businesses, the appeal of performance-based models is high. I can therefore see this to be a trigger to trial.

Post recession, the print ad business may no longer be the beneficiary of the rebound, this could this just become the catalyst for scaled interactive media spend, to the possible detriment of print budget allocations.

2. Recession would drive a retreat to known, proven models, keeping print alive and well:

In a recession, the need to secure your existing base of business may cause businesses to retreat to “safe havens”. Tried and true ad products are fortified against offers to just “take a little of your budget and try this”.

When small businesses have survival challenging worries, change is often slow. The perceived risk and distraction factors of interactive advertising will cause the SME to retrench. Despite the intellectual argument of low risk and measurability, businesses will simply slow their pace of trying new things.

Greg’s answer, in case you are curious, was:

2. is psychologically probable but 1 is more “rational.”

Proof positive that he was a lawyer in a prior life ;)

search, publishing | No Comments »