Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Microsoft recently gave us a glimpse of their latest gaming technology known as Natal. The concept basically takes the Wii a step further by incorporating image recognition software to completely rid the user of controllers. So, what impact does this have on us as marketers? Well, this technology may open the door to (one day) providing accurate metrics for television viewers and gamers. Instead of the antiquated manual Nielsen tracking methods, in-home image recognition software will enable real-time metrics of anyone sitting in front a television. A little too big brother for you? Maybe. Privacy will definitely be a major hurdle. But, the possibilities of what this technology will lead to are endless. For instance, imagine if your television could recognize you and then customize the advertising to products and services in which you are interested. To take it step further, imagine actually interacting with the characters on a primetime show.   

It’s going to be fun to watch where all of this goes in the next few years...

Most communications professionals - even those who practice their craft online - will tend to shy away from the geeky technical detail stuff. That's a good thing. Even a Web developer like me is well advised not to lose the plot - to stay focused on the communication challenge rather than the technical challenge.

Every so often, though, things happen that we all need to stop and pay attention to, even though it seems like just propeller-head geekiness. Now's one of those times.

Yesterday, I started writing an article in which I intended to proclaim that we're no longer in that period where nerds and tech bloggers were speculating over a possible upcoming browser war. We're now, I intended to announce, smack in the middle of a new full-fledged Browser War.

I realize that I can't even say "Web browser" and count on folks knowing what I mean. But newer, stronger Web browsers are out now, the prevalence of Internet Explorer 6 is waning fast, and that is big. It's really expensive, time-consuming and creatively limiting to dial back to the 2001-era lowest common denominator IE6 represents. As we finally start cutting the IE6 boat-anchor loose, you'll be able to offer your clients more, and it will cost less. (Or you'd better be able to, anyway).

Then this morning, I saw this: Introducing the Google Chrome OS

Over at TechCrunch, one of the most popular tech blogs, the headline is less subtle: Google Drops A Nuclear Bomb On Microsoft

The idea is that you'd use this Google operating system instead of Microsoft Windows, and you'd do your computing primarily in your Web browser (Google Chrome, naturally). As browsers get better (remember, IE6 is dying out), the trend toward through-the-browser applications like Google's GMail, SalesForce and Google Apps will accelerate. In short, your Web browser is your desktop, and the Web is your computing platform.

I have to admit I'm still processing the implications of an open sourced, Google-built-and-branded computer operating system, but no matter whether this particular effort on Google's part is successful or not, the browser war question is pretty much settled.

It's on, y'all.

 

Adobe's Flash has lost a key battle in the plug-in wars to Microsoft's Silverlight. Netflix has chosen Microsoft's Silverlight, a Flash competitor because it includes DRM software.

Netflix, the mail order movie-rental giant knows that in the future, movies will stream over the internet, right into your home and won't come via US mail on DVD. The problem is that movie companies won't let their movies be streamed unless they are protected. The solution is DRM (digital rights managed) technology - a technique that encrypts the data so it can't be ripped off (well, that's the theory at least).

Adobe's Flash plug-in is the most popular video technology on the Web. YouTube single-handedly vaulted them over Windows Media and Apple Quicktime. So you would think that Netflix would naturally look to Adobe to solve its video needs. But that's not what happened. They went to Microsoft.

I'm still trying to figure out how this happened? Can it be that Microsoft is giving away the software now to gain adoption? Is it possible that Adobe has become difficult to work with since it maintains such plug-in market dominance? Or is it that Adobe is limiting its DRM solutions only to people willing to buy into its more expensive and limited server products? Is it possible that it's easier to use a Microsoft product to release a Web-based service to multiple platforms and browsers?

My guess: Netflix is hoping that Microsoft can help them bridge the chasm between computer and living room. Their survival depends on being where people watch movies, and Netflix thinks that Xbox support (that they are planning) is the easiest way finally get into people's living rooms (internet enabled Silverlight support is planned on the next generation of XBoxes).

Regardless, I think that this loss is more severe that Adobe cares to admit.

More info:
The Netflix Blog

Life Hacker

A few months ago I weighed in on Microsoft's bid to acquire a stagnating Yahoo. Earlier this week Microsoft, in a 'dear john' letter from Steve Ballmer to Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, called Yahoo's bluff, pulling its offer off the table.

Mr. Yang could soon be sweating bullets.

April saw a flurry of tense negotiations, but in the end, the two tech giants could not reach an agreement. Microsoft offered as high as $33 per share; Yahoo would not drop below $37 per share.

As trading closed Monday of this week, Yahoo shareholders saw their Microsoft-induced bubble cut in half. Just prior to the January announcement of Microsoft's intentions, Yahoo shares were creaking along at around $20. After months of trading in the high -20s, shares plunged Monday afternoon to around $24.

So why was the sell-off not more pronounced? At $24, shareholders are still looking at a significant premium over pre-bid levels. I'm neither trader nor economist, but this doesn't seem right to me. Is there something I'm missing?

Rumors are abounding that Microsoft's withdrawing was a purely tactical maneuver; that there is more news to come. On a smaller scale I could see this as a possibility. But a deal of this magnitude? Doubtful.

The Google AdSense deal is still on the table. Could Yahoo shares be propped up by the Google's gravitational pull?

Yahoo is by no means circling the drain. But investors will be watching the skies closely, which could put Jerry Yang in the hot seat. I would offer as cautionary tale the downward spiral of Apple following the ousting of Steve Jobs.

I'm on vacation this week. I'm sipping a cup of coffee and looking out on the slopes of Squaw Valley through the living room window of my posh [I'm worth it] condo, home for a week. I told myself I would not think about work. But I'm reading the Saturday edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I feel compelled to address the news of the day. Microsoft is beating kids up on the playground again, and taking lunch money.

Seeking to gain a competitive edge in the world of online advertising, Microsoft yesterday made public its intention to acquire Yahoo, Inc. The goal is to position the software giant to more directly compete with Google in the online arena. At nearly 45 billion dollars, the offer, if accepted, would represent the largest acquisition in Microsoft's history. I can only imagine that tensions are high in Silicon Valley today, with the campuses of all three players within just a few miles of one another. Kudos to business strategists at Microsoft; making their intentions public is a strike while the proverbial iron is hot. Amid dismal earnings reports and a slumping share price, Microsoft hopes to play on the fears of Yahoo shareholders and investors to gain support from within. Savvy.

My knee-jerk reaction is to hate on Microsoft relentlessly. Historically unapologetic in its road-blocking of the open source movement, Microsoft's shrewd business tactics and generally crappy products are a detriment to the user-centered vision of the internet that we at Capstrat are so passionate about. I've made it no secret that I would not mourn the death of The Worst Browser Ever Made. And I would rather scrawl on a rock with a sharpened cinder than open Microsoft Word. But in all fairness, the competitive advantage that Microsoft hopes to gain with this acquisition is in the realm of online advertising - all those little banner ads in the margins of web pages that no one ever clicks on. This doesn't really seem to have any negative implications on the average user's online experience. Google currently has this space on lock-down. Yahoo has been unable to provide any sort of competition to the darling giant of the industry, and its overall feebleness in the market has had investors popping antacids for some time now. In time, Google would surely deal the death-blow to Yahoo, right? So why, then, am I so uneasy about this deal?

Microsoft's protracted antitrust battle of the '90s still seems fresh in my mind. Acquiring a competitor of the size of Yahoo is sure to catch the attention of both federal and international watchdogs. Google's impressive market share (well over 50%) will probably work to Microsoft's advantage in any sort of antitrust litigation. But then again, Microsoft's force-feeding of Windows to the global marketplace isn't winning any popularity contests, either. Much like the Superbowl and the presidential primaries, I predict lots of yelling at the television at my house as this saga unfolds.

Microsoft lodges unsolicited bid to purchase Yahoo. Here's my perspective as a person first and as an interactive developer second.

Yikes! OK, well I don't search with Yahoo anyway, so...

But see, I trust del.icio.us with my bookmarks, I trust Flickr with my pictures, I would trust Yahoo as an OpenID provider, and I've included Yahoo-written JavaScript code (YUI) in my work. I'm not so sure I trust Microsoft with those things.

 

Last week on their Internet Explorer blog, Microsoft celebrated the first anniversary of Internet Explorer 7's release by putting out a post touting IE 7's rapid uptake and tightened security.

Predictably, when this hit the blogwaves some experts jumped in to question a few rather dubious claims in the post. But the real news happened a few screens down in the comments section, where a deluge of scorn and frustration was heaped on the Internet Explorer team by the general public - the regular people who use and build the Web.

Microsoft is widely regarded as being pretty good at advertising and marketing it's products, but they've occasionally been conspicuously unable to perceive irony in their messages. Microsoft proclaimed they were fighting for their "Freedom to Innovate" in response to the U.S. Department of Justice's anti-trust action a few years back... action launched of course because Microsoft's monopolistic practices were squishing innovation . But it's one thing to ignore what your customers are asking for, then brazenly lead your marketing with, "We Heard You". It's quite another to bring that kind of thinking over to your corporate blog where unhappy customers are free to call you out.

Why were users upset? Well, consider that in the time since IE 7 was released...

Firefox went 2.0, and released beta versions of 3.0. Scores of extensions - a la carte features Firefox users add in to customize their browsing experience - have been improved or newly released this year.

 

Safari released 3.0 Beta, including a new version for Windows that feels lighter, faster and smarter than IE 7.

 

The strangely overlooked Flock released a 1.0 version. While IE 7 finally adds the same level of RSS support other browsers have had for years, Flock gets social media right, and is a glimpse of what IE might look like three versions from now.

 

Opera has committed support for next-generation technologies like HTML 5, SVG and future versions of JavaScript, while IE is still struggling to fix buggy, incomplete support for decade-old standards.

 

...And for the people who either want to or have to use IE, watching Microsoft let a year go by with no new improvements highlights lessons un-learned - not something to celebrate.

A special variety of animosity came from Web designers and developers who can't ignore IE because of it's broad market share, but are growing weary making Web pages for 2008 that have to work in browsers from 2001 (IE 6), and are frustrated with lack of progress in IE 7. Microsoft realizes it needs these people - what could MS have been thinking when they provided the time, place and catalyst to turn them into an angry mob? They might as well have handed out the pitchforks and torches!

You can learn from your customers with your corporate blog. When it's time for a mea culpa, your corporate blog might not be a bad place to put it out there (hint, hint). Your corporate blog can be a very powerful weapon in your communications arsenal, but as with any weapon, it's never a good idea to point it at your own foot.