Tagged with " facebook"
Just as Hitwise measures search market share, there is a report put out by ACSI (American Customer Satisfaction Index) which tries to put a number on how happy users are with the varying search engines and social media sites out there. While there were some expected results with the survey, there was a surprise or two to be seen.
As far as search engines were concerned, it wasn’t a huge surprise to see Google still on the top of the list with an overall 82 points out of 100, and Bing picked up a little ground on them coming it at 81 points of satisfaction. When pressed for reasons about satistfaction, more than half of the respondants who chose Bing, noted that they liked the ease of use of Bing. I may be somewhat biased as I’ve always primarily used Google to do the bulk of my searching, and perhaps it’s a difference of Bing.ca versus Bing.com, but I’m not sure how Bing is easier to use over Google when both are just a search box. The links which appear after performing a search are nearly entirely alike, and it’s a rather short affair to be able to specify your results and tailor them as you like. Opinions are different for everyone, and that is the main point of a survey after all, to gather as many different ones as possible, back to the list. Plonking our way down we pass Ask.com at 80 points on the list and Yahoo at 78 points in customer satisfaction. And note, the survey wasn’t conducted about who uses which search engine, Hitwise covers that quite well and the numbers are fairly static with Google holding onto the lions share of the market. The point of the survey was about the satisfaction of using their preferred search engine, acquiring a rounded opinion would mean that after a point, the survey would have filled their quota with Google results and have been looking for Bing, Yahoo, and Ask users.
A new report that ACSI has put out however, has detailed the satisfaction level of those who use social media sites like Facebook and Google+. And again, just like the report for search engine satisfaction, it’s not about market share, it’s satisfaction so the same principle applies – to form a rounded opinion you need to have as equal amount of respondants as possible for each social media site. It was with this report, that the numbers were beginning to be surprising. The top marks in the survey actually went to Google+, with 78 points out of 100, followed by Youtube (73 points) and Pinterest (69 points). Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook all took the bottom spots, with Facebook holding the basement spot with 61 points. With such a vastly diverse user base, it is understandable that opinions would be strong with some users about how Facebook handles itself, but there were some key reasons which came out which hurt the social media giant. The biggest issues came from the implementation of the Timeline feature, users felt there were too frequent, unnecessary changes to the user interface. Intrusive advertising came in as an issue with nearly 20% of the respondants complaining and one of the largest contributors to unsatisfaction was the privacy concerns which still dog the social giant. Nearly half of those surveyed rated Facebook a 5 or lower on a 10 point scale on how they handle privacy. Not surprisingly, the reasons Google+ excelled on the survey, happened to be the reasons Facebook tanked in comparison. On that same 10 point scale, 60% of the respondants for Google+ ranked their privacy protection as excellent with the fledgling social site. No advertising, at least not in the sense that dominates Facebook, exists on the service, and at present there aren’t any plans to add them, and a very strong mobile presense all helped Google+ to attain the top marks in satisfaction this year. There is, however, a small caveat to bear in mind with the social media results. On the whole, taking all of the social sites in hand, users are only 69 points out of 100 satisfied with social media sites, almost putting it in the basement of the study with television, newspapers and airlines.
The largest news on the web as of late, has got to be the flurry of activity surrounding Facebook. And just in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last while, Facebooks IPO is about to break into the open.
The largest IPO being put forward in history, Facebook is about to offer itself up for just north of $100b (yes that’s a ‘B’) to the stock buying market. It’s a massive pool of cash that it wouldn’t be uncalled for if Zuckerberg would hop into a giant vault and swim around a bit ala Scrooge McDuck. The offering smashes the other tech giants in comparison, and obliterates Googles offering of just under $3b just a few years ago. A fair amount of hype has cropped up surrounding the number, along with the murmuring of Facebook possibly even taking out Google with their incoming influx of cash.
There is however, the other side of the equation, Google and Facebook aren’t in competing markets. Facebook, is the dominating social network online with nearly a billion accounts, and Google is the reigning king of search. Both players have dominated their respective markets, and have carved their own living out of paid advertising. And it’s the advertising angle, that some marketers believe where Facebook will be stealing money right out of Googles coffers.
Recently at SMX London, Amit Singhal opened the talks with some rather interesting information about Google, and about how they have no idea how it all works. That’s a rather broad statement actually, and there is some definition to be made. During the question period, someone asked Amit how much money Google makes on algorithm changes. Contrary to what the tinfoil hat wearing people believe, Singhal was adamant: “no revenue measurement is included in our evaluation of a rankings change.”
That might seem rather preposterous when you look at how their revenue model works, after all the search giant has made its seemingly limitless billions on search. Going on further, Singhal even opened up on the fact that no one knows exactly how everything works (all of unpaid search, AdWords, Android, etc.), he has a pretty good idea of how all of unpaid search works. Just some interesting food for thought, as the conspiracy theorists out there seem to think Google tweaks the algorithm when they want a cash injection.
Currently Bing is going through a transformation of sorts, they’ve revamped their look and performance, changed up the way they do social, and tried to streamline everything overall. The current end result: in their own internal testing they’ve come out ahead of Google. A near 10% gain while Google lost 10% of their score during testing, so what’s Bing been up too?
Firstly, they’ve been working hard at incorporating more of the social web, into your search results. Earlier in the year, Google introduced their version of this idea as Search+ your world, and was met with the ire of masses. The claim was made that Google was favoring their own social network and shunning Facebook and Twitter, with Google counter arguing that they couldn’t gather information from those sources. Bing currently, manages to pull information on searches from all of these sources, Facebook, Twitter, as well as Google+. It may seem as though Google was just blowing hot air, but it needs to be mentioned that late last year Twitter did effectively block the search engine, and Facebook keeps a pretty tight handle on what gets out onto the web, even with open and social profiles. Microsoft Bing, currently has deals worked out with both of these parties to index their information, and Google+ profiles, if they’re set to public then everything on that page is indexed as a public website.
Bing used to have your social mixed in with your search results, but they decided to change that idea and went in a completely different direction. All of the social search results have been shoved off to the right side of your screen, where your friends, family and colleagues are ranked as per relevancy based on your search. Also included in those social results are people and items which may also be relevant to your search. The reason for the change according to Bing, is having the social results mixed in with organic, they felt that it diluted the page too much, and your searches would be affected.
So where does that leave us, Bing is in the process of launching their completely revamed search and social service, and they’ve made big gains in the search world, based on their own internal testing. A blog post on that point makes it a little clearer:
We regularly test unbranded results, removing any trace of Google and Bing branding. When we did this study in January of last year 34% people preferred Bing, while 38% preferred Google. The same unbranded study now shows that Bing Search results now have a much wider lead over Google’s. When shown unbranded search results 43% prefer Bing results while only 28% prefer Google results.
In what may yet become a global precedent, a judge in Nevada has passed judgement on nearly 700 domain names tied to counterfeiting Chanel products. Currently there are two bills being pushed to become law, whereby the courts and trademark owners could essentially tell search engines and social media sites what they are and aren’t allowed to index.
This current case has the makings of a SOPA like enforcement all over it, in that the judge didn’t bother to check domain registration locations only deemed that they all need to be turned over to a US GoDaddy registrar and that “all Internet search engines” and “all social media websites” explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google are required to remove the addresses from their indexes.
One law professor was empathetic towards companies trying to force IP protection of their products and was quick to point out that perhaps SOPA is just fake punch against internet pirates. “I’m sympathetic to the ‘whack-a-mole’ problem rights owners face, but this relief is just extraordinarily broad and is on shaky procedural grounds,” he writes. “I’m not sure how this court can direct a registry to change a domain name’s registrar of record or Google to de-list a site, but the court does so anyway. This is probably the most problematic aspect of the court’s orders.” said Venkat Balasubramani. The case with Chanel has shown he says, that IP rightsholders don’t necessarily even need the SOPA bill to pass to get what they want. Total control over their product, intellectual property (IP) and their trademarked name.
If rightsholders can already essentially dictate the terms they want federal judges to enforce, on globally owned website names and properties, much darker days are on the horizon for those who legitimately share ideas online. It shows there’s nothing stopping a we said/they said fight from enforcing the rule of law online.
So the big day has come and gone, Facebook talked about it’s new messaging service, and the web has been a cacophony of “Gmail killer” and other wild statements to that effect. And one of the funniest points I picked from all of the coverage of the day, was that Schmidt and Zuckerberg were almost playing nice, to a point. With their statements coming out generally like Schmidts “I’m glad they’re launching a service” And Zuckerbergs “Gmail and Gchat is an amazing service”, it’s almost like an unofficial truce of sorts.
I did however, come across a post detailing the top reasons why the new Facebook service will be “Facebook E-Mail Is Google`s Biggest Threat” and I had a really hard time making it past the second item on their list. I’m only going to share the headings of the points they’ve come up with, as the text that followed was almost uncomfortable to read. So headfirst we go:
Gmail means a lot – Okay great, Gmail means a lot. The text which followed that they used to back up their claim, was based on the idea that without Gmail, people wouldn’t use Google. And when I hit that sentance, I had to stop.
Search capabilities are there – And then unfortunately, I came to their second point. I had a hard time trying to wrap my mind around their claim that while Facebook’s search features are “primitive”; non-existant is a more accurate term, to think that they could come close, in the game that Google essentially owns, was ludicrous to read for me.
It’s where the users are – Granted now, Facebook is starting with a userbase of 500 million, definitely not a small number. But, if all you want to count are users, then if you want to include actual numbers, you’d need to include the average user base of Google to compare the two services. The point that made me chuckle here, was the assertion thatusers “spend over 700 billion minutes per month” on Facebook. That’s a whole lot of Farmville! And Googles aim? Speed up the web and it’s usage, not tie you in place.
Video – 500 million users, compared to Youtubes userbase, and the point was Facebook between June and July, Facebook saw unique viewers increase by three million, and total videos watched by 22 million. Funny thing is, all the videos I happened to see were hosted on Youtube..
Ads, ads, ads – I honestly can’t even go here.
The world, and especially the web are constantly growing and changing. It’s when things stay the same that they lose their appeal and die. Schmidt even made the point that it’s not that Google and Facebook have ever openly competed, but the media loves to drum it up that when any company launches any service, they’re competing with someone. When in fact what really ends up happening, is we all get the better end of the deal, new services, new ideas and most importantly, a choice as to which you’ll use. Me, I’ll stick with my Google and my Gmail.