Ramsay Mameesh

Globalization is neither good nor evil. Globalization, like any creation of man, can be used for either purpose. Dynamite can blow a hole through a mountain, and connect two valleys, or it can be used to destroy villages. Nuclear energy can provide electricity, powering a nation, or it can be used to kill entire populations. A match can be used to light a fire, that cooks our food and heats our house, or it can be used to burn down the house.

Globalization as an economic force can similarly be used, to open markets and create employment opportunities, for people and their products. And Globalization can also be used, to force people from their land, and create slave labor factories. Sadly, we see more of the former rather than the latter, in the world today.

Likewise the Internet, a new form of globalized communication, is neither good nor evil. It can be used to share music, art, and ideas, that benefit all of mankind. And it can also be used to spread messages of hate, to spy on our fellow man, and rob us from the far reaches of the planet.

The question and the challenge before us today, is not whether globalization and the internet is good or evil, Or whether it should even exist. Exist it does and we shall decide how to use it. Inherent in the negative power of Globalization and the internet, to destroy our civilization, lies the positive power to create a better world. Do you recognize the power and are you up to the challenge? One laptop, one man, the power to change the world.

A front page article appeared in the Sunday 8/5/2007 business section of the  San Francisco Chronicle that focused on Yahoo’s effort to find a  “Killer  App.” that would rescue it from Google domination. Hundreds of Yahoo employees crammed an auditorium, to present their ideas, and in the end one idea was chosen in the area of “search”. They were offered a meeting with a Senior Executive to “get him enthused and excited”.

The company has been falling for the past year, both in stock price, and market share.

It is important that Yahoo not fail. More importantly, that the arena of search, not be controlled by one company. The salvation of Yahoo, lies not in looking forward (finding the killer app.), but in looking backward. Yahoo already has everything it needs, not only to successfully battle Google, but to even once again dominate. Bradley Horowitz, V.P. of Advanced Development at Yahoo was the focus of the article. Here is the comment I left on his blog:

Bradley:

I read the San Francisco Chronicle which outlined your efforts in finding a solution to Yahoo’s declining market share and fortunes. The article detailed how you are leading the effort at discovering a new product or idea that will counter Googles ever increasing domination. From reading past articles about Yahoo, it appears that CEO Jerry Wang, is also in pursuit of new “killer apps.” to take back the lead from Google. You are both looking in the wrong direction.

The salvation of Yahoo lies not in looking forward - but in looking backwards. This is a time for “backwards thinking”. Yahoo already has the solution to it’s problems. In fact it has everything it needs, to not only successfully battle Google, but to once again dominate.  A killer App. won’t save you - you need to beat Google at it’s own game - and Yahoo and only Yahoo can. The solution lies in Yahoo’s neglected, and nearly abandoned, directory.

Let me explain:

Google makes it’s money from ppc. It’s ppc is dependent on it’s search engine. At one time, it’s search engine was the best on the internet, people flocked to Google for search. And advertisers followed, making Google very rich, Yahoo missed an opportunity. Today, Google’s search results are crap, and Yahoo has another opportunity. In fact, there is only one company that can - Yahoo. And that is due to your directory.

Google and Yahoo = Alta Vista and DMOZ

Looking back - At one time, Google was nothing more than an improved Alta Vista, and Yahoo was a paid DMOZ. What Google did to become so dominant was simply combine Alta Vista with DMOZ. In fact, early on, Google relied heavily on DMOZ to produce it’s search engine results. Google has gotten away from DMOZ and relies more on linking. This was useful at one time but is now it’s Achilles heel - and Yahoo’s opportunity.

Linking, as a measurement of web page value, is fine for articles. But horrible for business. It is an extreme waste of time, money, and energy. And it has become so corrupted as to render search results meaningless. Linking has given rise to bogus directories and only benefits the big players. People using search engines are not getting what they’re looking for.

Take San Francisco Hotels for example. If I am planning a trip to San Francisco, and I am looking for a hotel, I type San Francisco hotels into the search engine.  What do I expect to see? A list of Hotels in San Francisco with a short description. What do I get? A couple of big name hotels but mostly directories and travel companies. On the right hand side of the page, in the ppc section, are the hotels - and usually only the big names. Again, not what I am looking for. Bye the way, who does the best job of producing meaningful results, Google or Yahoo? Yahoo - but not by much. Google’s failure does not automatically mean Yahoo benefits. If you don’t seize the opportunity and revamp and re-energize your directory - you will still lose.

Here’s How:

• Clean-up your directory - kick out the bogus directories from search results.
• Dramatically lower your directory submission fees - make it cheap and easy for everyone to be listed in the directory.
• Modify your algorithm - place the greatest weight on your directory.
• Marketing - “Do you Yahoo?” Get people back to using Yahoo for search.

Google’s money, strength and power, does not come from AJAX or Satellite Images. It is derived from their search engine.

This is your second, and possibly last chance, don’t blow it. In the words of the Beatles “Get back to where you once belonged - JoJo”

Sincerely,

Ramsay Mameesh

Want Flash on your website? Flying text and on demand video. Supercharged banner ads. These are a few of the wonderful aspects of flash design.

But wait, before you go shelling out big bucks, to change your boring web 1.0 site into a flash centric site, answer these questions first.

Does your target audience earn more than a $100,000 per year?

Does your target audience live in cities or in Iceland?

If you didn’t answer with a resounding YES!, then wait. Because if you forget about the “three second rule”, where you have three seconds to impress your visitor before they take off (a nice little paper on the subject can be seen here), then your expensive flash site, besides costing a ton of money, may hurt your sales.

An article by Mike Lazarus in the San Francisco Chronicle, presents findings from a study on broadband penetration, done by the Public Policy Institute of California. According to the study:

“The Public Policy Institute of California issued a report last week in which it found that 47 percent of all households statewide had broadband Internet access as of 2005. Nationally, the figure is closer to 40 percent.

That’s partly a factor of geography — broadband is available to more urban dwellers than people in rural communities. But it’s also a factor of wealth.

Sixty-eight percent of California households with incomes greater than $100,000 have broadband Internet access, the institute found. That percentage drops to 49 percent for households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 and to 24 percent for households earnings less than $25,000.”

Macromedia Flash gives website designers the ability to create truly cool websites and annoying banner ads. But unless you have high speed internet it can be very slow to download and can cause browsers to freeze or crash.

It’s been around for a few years, but only recently has it become the “hottest thing” in web design, a quick look at the job boards show that everyone wants to hire flash designers. Why?

Three main reasons:

Adobe bought Macromedia in mid 2005, and has done a good job of getting their flash plug-in onto peoples computers. Adobe claims that 98.7% of browsers in use have the plug-in installed. This means pretty much everyone can view your flash banner ad. To run flash on your computer you need to have the plug-in installed.

The number of people able to adequately access a Flash site is greater than the study done by PPIC suggests. The study was done in 2005 this is 2007. And many people do their web surfing at work, where they have access to high speed internet, not at home.

Advertising agencies and web design firms can charge their customers a lot more to create a flash site. Flash is a heavy, complicated, and specialized program. It takes quite a while to learn and also takes a lot longer to design. Hours rack up when designing a flash site and guess who pays?

So unless Are you ready to shell out big bucks to have the coolest website in your industry, your audience is a rich city dweller, or you just want to impress your competitor’s CEO in the next office tower wait. How long? Six months to a year. You have three seconds to impress your audience. What percentage of your audience are you willing to lose?