« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

Free ad space!

For a test we're running on some new ad formats, I'll donate a month's worth of free ads on this blog's RSS feed (~200 subscribers) to any of the following companies:

Sweetriot_canIf you're interested, shoot me an email to [yaron at galai dot com]. First company to respond gets the free ad space.

[UPDATE] - ...and - we have a winner! SweetRiot are not only great with chocolate, they also have their Google Alerts totally worked out... ;-)

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Social network fatigue

Jason Calacanis has two great posts about social network fatigue. I couldn't agree more... - this is becoming ridiculous.

Reminds me of a great quote I posted here:

"As a matter of fact, I think I know more social networks than people."

Listen to Webx0 podcasts

Odiogo_logo As you may have noticed, I'm testing a new widget from a company called Odiogo on this blog.

Listen_now_80x18The Odiogo widget adds a small "Listen now" button right under the title of each post ---->

Odiogo_player After clicking that button, a slider will open with a mini player so you can immediately listen to a podcast of that post. You also have an option to subscribe to the Webx0 podcast feed on your iTunes.

I'm really interested in your feedback on this widget (which I will share with the Odiogo guys). Do you find this service useful? How did it perform for you? What do you think about the implementation on the blog? 

Any feedback would be appreciated! Use the comments below or shoot me an email to yaron at galai dot com.

Waiting for the duck

Kawasaki_quote_2
What a wonderful quote[1].

Last week I was chatting with two old friends, each with a great product idea, and each one too afraid to go at it. Entrepreneurship is not about coming up with the-next-big-thing-idea... it's about jumping into the cold water and making it happen.


----------
[1] I borrowed this slide from Garr Reynolds' absolutely excellent Presentation Zen blog, who borrowed the quote from a Guy Kawasaki interview. I hope it's OK to post it here... in Hebrew we say "Hagonev Mi Ganav Patur".
 

Mahalo

Mahalo Mahalo is probably the most interesting company I've seen in a while. I'm betting this is going to be a huge success - much more than most people realize.

Last week I said exactly that to a couple of VC's that asked me what I'd invest in personally these days. By the WTF?! looks on their faces and the questions that followed (below) I understood that I've been eternally disqualified from giving them any investment advice... ;-)

  • "Why invest in a company with zero technology that relies entirely on expensive human labor?"
  • "How will they ever compete with Google with all their PhD's, and algorithms, and servers, and $$$'s?!?!"
  • "Isn't this the failed Ask Jeeves all over again?"
  • Etc, etc.

Disclosure first: I have no connection to Mahalo whatsoever. I don't know Jason Calacanis personally, have never met him, and don't know anyone else involved in this company. I have no insight beyond seeing what's up on Mahalo.com

Here's why I think this is going to be big big big:
The best thing that ever happened in search is obviously Google. And for a while (2000-2003ish), Google's search results were way better than anything else - AltaVista, LookSmart, AskJeeves, etc. But it's growth was also it's biggest curse - the whole world became obsessed with manipulating Google results using SEO[1]

Today Google's results are very reasonable on average. C+ or even a B- . On the more commercial terms there's a ton of crappy link-farm, AdSense-infested pages, while on the longer tail of queries the results are usually pretty good.

Google, doing what it does best (=develop huge-scale infrastructure and algorithms), keeps innovating at a furious pace and constantly improves its search algorithms and spam filters. In classic Innovator's Dilemma fashion, they're doing an incredible job on improving the stuff that made them so successful to begin with...   

Mahalo in contrast is doing something seemingly stupid - paying human beings to create the perfect search results for the handful of queries that matter (=the ones that get ~70% of the search traffic). The most common mis-perception is that they are competing head-to-head with Google, and that doing this manually is not scalable. The truth is, I don't think Mahalo is in any sort of arms race with Google... Google is already taking care of that piece itself by spending huge capex on constantly growingly sophisticated algorithms and infrastructure. Mahalo, like Quigo (my company), is playing in the same field as Google is, but they're playing a completely different game. And that's the beauty of Mahalo.

Mahalo's assumptions are simple:

  • 70%+ of the search queries are on a tiny # of terms (10's of thousands at most).
  • An intelligent human being, given enough time, can *always* create a better search result than any algorithm currently can.

Google's incredible infrastructure is the world's greatest machine for providing a fairly good response to *any* query that anyone submits to it. Algorithms are great for scale, but they are a game of compromises. They're blankets that when pulled to cover one problem, expose different problems in completely different places.

That is the big disruption opportunity that Mahalo is betting on. They're never going to compete with Google on processing power, or algorithmic sophistication, or the handling of long tail of sites or long tail of queries. If I were Jason, I'd happily leave those nasty headaches to the Google (/Yahoo/Microsoft) geniuses to solve. Those issues aren't getting any simpler, so they are guaranteed to be a huge resource sucker. Arms races are never a very good business model for a startup.

Mahalo has identified the huge pile of low hanging fruit and is going to pick it up. If Google's pitch to the users is "We'll get a fairly good response to *any query* you hit us with", Mahalo's pitch will be "We'll guarantee you a *great* response for the majority of your queries. For your other queries we hole-heartedly recommend using the long-tail experts - Google/Yahoo/MS/etc"

As with the Innovator's Dilemma, Google & Co will have a difficult time emulating this because it would essentially mean taking a 180 degree turn from what has served them so well up until now - convince the whole world that their search algorithms are superior to everything else. My guess is that they'll counter Mahalo with improved search algorithms, better personalization algorithms, better spam filters, etc, etc. This may work, and it might not. After all - at the end of the day these are all just blankets.

Jason Calacanis and Mahalo have the opportunity to be the first true disruptors in the search business since Google came along and ate everyone's lunch. The fact that many folks, like those VC's I met, don't get this just makes it an even bigger opportunity IMHO because it means people (like Microsoft and PowerSet) are still going to try to one-up Google which is stupid to do against the best one-upper in the world today. The real disruption will come from "one-downing" Google like Mahalo is doing.

Should be fascinating to see this happen.

If I were a VC - I'd be on my knees begging Mahalo/Sequoia/Jason/whoever to get in on this deal.

If I were Google/MS/Yahoo - I'd try to buy this while it's young, or at least put some money in it now. Don't let the NIH choir pooh-pooh this....

If I were looking for a job at one of the search engines - I would definitely go to work for Mahalo[2] and not one of the dinosaurs.


------------------
[1] Funny thing is that the biggest driver of  all the SEO crap is Google's AdSense which actually let all these people profit from the Google traffic... but that's a story for a different post.

[2] ...or Quigo. The interesting stuff and the biggest potential upside is with disruptors like Quigo and Mahalo (or Google in '99). We currently have 19 open positions listed. Come change the world!

 

Featuritis

From Wikipedia:

Featuritis is a term used to describe software which over-emphasizes new features to the detriment of other design goals, such as simplicity, compactness, stability, or bug reduction.

Featuritis is often accompanied by the mistaken belief that "one small feature" will add zero incremental cost to a project, where cost can be money, time, effort, or energy.

I recently met an entrepreneur who has been developing a web-based service for over a year, and was having trouble getting traction for it. He asked for my advice on how to improve his product so that users start flocking to it.

Two minutes into the demo, it was crystal clear what his trouble was - it was a classic case of Acute Featuritis. He was proudly showing off how his product did this, that, and the other 12 things, way more than any of his competitors ever dreamed of doing. He was shocked speechless when I told him I thought that the best cure for his product is to kill 99% of it and focus obsessively on that single aspect or feature that makes his product unique. That is the last thing in the world he expected to hear from me, and he seemed to be very disappointed with our meeting.

These are the common misconceptions about features, as they relate specifically to startups:

  • "More features will impress prospective clients" - wrong! More features will create many more opportunities to disappoint and confuse clients.
  • "My product has more features than my competition" - uh-oh! You are handing your competitors the biggest gift they could ever ask for - the ability to specialize more than you and do one thing really really great.
  • "By having more features, I'm appealing to more potential users" - wrong again! By having more features, your product becomes less appealing to your best potential users, and probably not appealing enough to all the others you happen to address along the way.

The urge to add more features and appeal to a bigger audience always exists. But as an entrepreneur that's an urge that has to be fought daily. The best question to ask is: "What features can I afford to kill today?"

I find that the best way to think about it is this: If our users love the few things we do now, we can always add more features later; And if our tiny niche audience loves what we do now, we can always try to appeal to a broader audience later. Think about the alternative to this approach: "if lots of people don't really get all the stuff we're trying to do now, can we improve our focus later?....".

I think you know my answer...

My favorite blogs

MyWay badge

Subscribers

Misc

  • Disclaimer
    ~~This is my personal blog, and any opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Quigo and outbrain, my employers, are not responsible for anything I write, comments posted, or anything else in Web X.0 blog.
Blog powered by TypePad