Wake up folks: Google gets it. The value of transactional content, that is. Not only does this have great implications for content, but also for broadband in general.
Google is a unique company, as its founders assert in their filing letter. The claim is substantive. Here is why:
Content means nothing to me unless it has relevance for what I do. Search engines are dedicated to this very proposition. Getting "what I want, when I want it" is at the core of what Google is founded on. Now the company seeks to extend this capability through Gmail. And why not make spam relevant and profitable? I already get more spam than I can deal with; so why not make this of some value to me? This may sound axiomatic, but I believe that Google's founders understand that to extract value from content is to make it as relevant as possible to users of their services.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
With more than several thousand Terabits of data distributed over the Internet, I need more and more of this intangible asset called 'relevance.' The more relevance, the more intelligence, and the more intelligence, the more this information is actionable. This contributes toward effectiveness, which is the only real benchmark of any world-class application.
Transactional content is valuable because it meets the requirements of relevance. Those theoretical underpinnings were laid down by Claude Shannon's "Mathematical Theory of Communication"over 50 years ago, and by Tom Bayes's work on Bayesian Inference.
Does Google's PageRank use an adaptive probabilistic concept-modeling architecture for its technology that is similar to that used by Autonomy, a leader in software infrastructure for unstructured data? Autonomy's approach to concept modeling relies on Shannon's theory; that the less frequently a unit of communication occurs, the more information it conveys. Therefore, ideas which are more rare within the context of a communication tend to be more indicative of its meaning. Autonomy claims this theory lets its software determine which are the most important (or informative) concepts within a document. And it is valuable to mine this intangible benefit.
What lessons does this have for broadband? In my previous AlwaysOn piece I suggested that "in a transformative transactional environment, the value of a connection is equal to the content provided." However, to be of some use, that content must have importance for me.
Some seven years ago, in a professional assignment, I was lucky enough to have a 10 Mbps connection to a core backbone router of a first-tier ISP. I knew I was spoiled, because the connection capabilities far exceeded the content's richness, and in some cases its cogency.
Broadband providers will have to holistically qualify how they approach this challenge in the future. Broadband providers will have to look deeper into social interactions to mine the importance to users of the content they are providing, that productiveness—which is the core of relevance. I predict that when this does occur, we will see more content providers owning more connections to broadband customers.
Because what's the use of having a fast connection if I am getting the same unstructured information? I believe that broadband customers only want the speed the technology offers if they have a connection to something that actually complements their lifestyle, or enhances their professional productivity.
Think about it: What if Google became the appliance of "getting what I want" of any sort of content? What if I could google my movies, google all my music purchases, google all of my broadband content?
Thesaurus.com has 13 entries for relevance. Study the list very carefully, because the nexus of transactional content is derived from the understanding and application of the nouns. There is a killer app in there somewhere for broadband....
Tell us what you think of this post using our On or Off rating system. Only your most recent vote will count.
Member Comments
"Unless Google diversifies dramatically, and that's not easy, the hype will wear thin..." Exactly what I am suggesting they will, and must do.
Remember, I make a critiical distinction on what makes their offered "commodity" more relevent and hence more valuable. But suppositional statements on relevence and value are by nature subjective; wherein lies the challenge.
The determinate being, what information platforms can deliver this transactional content more valuably. If everyone got it, then everyone would be doing it along similar lines; which indeed is not the case.
To reiterate: I believe, as you suggest, the real key maket challenge is for Google to brand their services through dramatic diversification - as Yahoo has successful done.
Microsoft is a potent challenge not because of their technological prowess, but because they can adopt and dominate a market much faster than anyone else: I am sure Google clearly understands this. This will be a very important showdown in the next coming months.....
Google will have a lot of money to research delivering better and better targeted searches (or variants of "push," "good spam" etc.) to users, and they will deliver searches in new data-rich modes (broadband), but Microsoft has a pretty good war chest of their own. Delivering relevant search or push data, overall, is a commodity. Google may "get it," but so does everybody else. Unless Google diversifies in some brilliant manner, ala AOL buying Warner, they will never sustain their IPO value. Absent hype, it simply isn't possible for a company marketing a commodity (search) to sustain a double-digit price/sales ratio. Unless Google diversifies dramatically, and that's not easy, the hype will wear thin, and Google will come down to earth.
AP WorldStream via COMTEX
What`s Missing in the Paying Bloggers to Blog Vision ?
Wake up folks: Google gets it. The value of transactional content, that is. Not only does this have great implications for content, but also for broadband in general.
E-NEWSLETTER SERIES