Myspace-engine

If MySpace had a search engine, wouldn't that ruffle the feathers at Google, MSN and Yahoo? It's a question worth contemplating at a time when the online search industry's Big Three are spending billions to supply better search results, and in the process get marketers to spend more ad bucks on those search pages. Additionally, paid search -- estimated to be a $7 billion market this year -- could be the No. 1 revenue source for MySpace. You can bet that MySpace, the leading social networking site on the Web, will be making inroads into search soon. Rupert Murdoch is no dummy. Why else would his News pend nearly $600 million on MySpace and not go after the most lucrative and biggest part of the online ad pie?

As I pointed out in a recent column, MySpace is a whole new distribution platform that is changing the face of the Net. In March, MySpace recorded 19.4 billion page views vs. 13.7 billion at Google, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.   With MySpace's traffic so significant, I had a hunch that major sites like Google and Yahoo might also receive a lot of benefit from that traffic. That hunch was right. Google received 8.2% of its traffic partly from its search tools that appear on pages within MySpace, making the social network the No. 1 source of traffic to Google, according to Bill Tancer of online research firm Hitwise, who retrieved the data for me.

Read Net Sense column on MarketWatch

Comments

[zak a]

FIM certainly needs to find a way to monetize MySpace and begin to recoup it's $580 million dollar acquisition. Search could be the answer (a subscription model certainly would not fly with users) as it would provide paid search revenue; however, considering their methods I would assume a partnership or acquisition is FIM's answer and not creating a new search engine (the current one is barbaric to say the least).

What about streaming video? MySpace streams an enormous amount of songs throughout its site so I would wager that they'll look to capitalize on video (and rich media banners) for ad dollars. What do you think about video, advertising, and their relationship within myspace?

Keep up the great reporting.

Zak

[Joe]

Myspace would be truly foolish not license or strike a deal with Google. Considering Google has a 5% stake in AOL Time Warner, I'm sure somthing mutually beneficial could be agreed upon.

[Bruce Daley]

Great article, but MySpace is just a fad the way Friendster is.

PS Where is the picture of you and the hat?

[john]

I would think that Rupert might be having discussions with Barry Diller of Interactive Corp. (IACI). It would seem that ask.com, IACI's search engine would be a perfect fit as the search engine for myspace.com. Ask.com has received rave reviews for its refurbished search engine. Heck, I would not put it past Rupert to either merge with or buy-out IACI. If you control a search engine and myspace.com you could really make a huge push into the paid search world

[Jo]

MySpace is not a fad and they are definitely going to stick around. As long as guys like to look at pictures of hot girls, which basically means forever. Anyways they should definitely branch out to search like someone said and I think instead of partnering with a conventional search engine, they should try working with one that works off their social networks. One site I've tried is Jookster.com which basis their search off what you and your friends find relevant. Pretty interesting concept that I think Myspace users would love.

[danny mcgowan]

MyLocator.com a strategic multichannel keyphase location based search engine would be the best place for myspace to start. Mylocator.com is the anchor site for 300 key phrase locator domains. Together they form
a location based powergrid that will be very difficult to challenge. Add some social networking software to the 300 plus websites, offering custom email and subsites for customers and you have the most unique multichannel social networked search engine on the net.

Lets face it.....search
is dead and location is everything.

Who needs to buy some billion dollar search engine when 90% of surfers wont get past page 3. 3-5 pages of results will suffice for any search engine. Also Studies have shown that 50% of searchers are not dedicated to one search engine, they use multiple engines.

MyLocator.com would integrate perfectly with Myspace. Allowing fox to have a search engine that is a no nonsense serious location based multichannel distribution platform. Point being that myspace will never be considered a serious business site or search engine due to the negative media and its target audience. MyLocator.com can put a fresh face on business search services offered by FOX.

MyLocator.com represents 300+ locator vertical search engine domains in a variety of categories. A search
engine for every subject.

Bottomline is MySpace will never be considered a serious business search platform. Target market and negative media will forever handicap myspace in the search business arena. It is definitely time to branch out with a new name such as
MyLocator.com for serious and unbiased consumer and business related search offerings.

Founder

[Jules]

Maybe I am missing something. Given that MySpace integrates Yahoo search into its site, how is it that MySpace is creating 8.2% of Google's traffic? I would think Yahoo is the beneficiary of this traffic. Can Bill Tancer clear up this disconnect?

[Walter]

Good question, Jules.
How do most people access search engines? Tool bars? Embedded search engine? Actually typing in the search engine address?
I use a google tool bar, out of convenience and habit, always, regardless of what site I'm on, even if I was at myspace.

[Ross]

Danny McGowan has said that ..... "Point being that myspace will never be considered a serious business site or search engine due to the negative media and its target audience".

With over 75 million mrmber world wide (& growing) and 2nd only to YAHOO in page views on the net prospects should be considered as enormous, I would have felt.

I mean, they ARE consumers, aren't they? In many cases, they ARE our own sons & daughters. I can assure you, my son, who visits myspace.com on a regular basis, eats, sleeps and spends dollars on most things in a regular, normal fashion.

It's a goldmine in the making, I feel.

[Danny McGowan]

i can understand the enormous potential for ad exposure to the 75 million. such things as face wash or youth clothing, gaming, music. throw a bunch of cpc ads out there and you generate ad revenue. just that the quality of the click would not be as good as a click from say yellowpages.com. i would have a hard time finding a business decision maker in a family or business searching myspace for a contractor, doctor, dentist or a plumber.

a place for friends is Personal. myspace=pleasure site.

a place for consumers is Business. mylocator=business site.

things tend to get real hairy when you mix business with pleasure. i may be wrong but i dont think myspace has the ability to do both.

Danny is a 7 year internet entrepreneur and a 12 years customer service expert and is also a small businessman/advertiser.

[Bambi]

Walter, Jules:
Hitwise captures where the users at MySpace exit and go. To clarify, Hitwise is saying that 8.2% of Google's traffic came from people who were just at MySpace. So, if you are on MySpace and then type in Google in the URL as your next site, you are counted. Nonetheless, there is a significant relationship. Also, the largest exit for MySpace members is Google. Also, about two-thirds of MySpace members surveyed by Nielsen//NetRatings prefer Google as their search engine. Hope that explains it better.

[Ross]

As a Looksmart shareholder, I'm very 'keen' on the prospects of a NWS 'hook-up' with Looksmart. In a previous post (Meat-market cleanup), the comment was made:

Most, (or, a lot) who frequent these “social” sites, (myspace.com, etc) also study full time. They “can” then get the opportunity to mix some leisure & pleasure and get to prepare a report (or, an assignment), at the same time that they are "interacting". Looksmart have, both the expertise and “tools” to ensure a long lasting success of any “venture” of this type and with Furl installed on myspace.com it then allows the near on 80 Million “users” to “save & share” what is relevant to that site’s (myspace's) own “group culture” and at the same time, they also get to “share” their ‘finds’, with other myspace users all over the world, indicating to each other what's "hot" & what's "not", so to speak by the number of times a particular article or, page is "saved".

I've been looking at search results (from Yahoo/Overture), that is currently installed on myspace.com and cannot see how any such results can be of more 'value' to NWS, than the principles of 'sharing' both content & users with it's (other) worldwide fellow publishers and media Co's & their sites. (Yes, I admit, I'm 'hot' for a "content consortium" being formed, centered around Looksmart & it's Vertical sites).

http://www.myspace.com/

And I liked this poster's thoughts here, (fox) apart from his referance to the lack of a "brand", maybe? ....(although, I do see some definate sense,in doing so ..... not overpowering?)

"... Social Networking companies won’t have an initial search brand, but they will be able to monetize it just by being the default. Has anyone noticed the top of the page at MySpace? The search button is larger than the MySpace.com text and by default it searches the web first"! ....He/she says.

http://internetstockblog.com/article/1569

So, a "controlling stake" interest in Looksmart from FOX (FIM) will see exactly the same (Furl & search) arrangements on all partner sites, as is currently installed on the Viacom, CBS Local sites, I feel.

http://cbs4boston.com/

And I can see plenty of area there (on the top RHS) as is also the case in myspace to enlarge the search "options", that will probably then be 'uniform', on all network partner sites. (should be?).

Now, back to myspace.com and it's current search facility, with Yahoo. Check these two results & make up your mind as to which will prove more financially beneficial to NewsCorp (FIM), when you then take into mind the number of additional 'users' that can be introduced from "partner site to partners" site, under the potential of a content consortium network, eventuality. (Search myspace.com for "tomato" - You'll get a 'set' of Yahoo 'whitelabelled' results)

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ush-messageboards&p=tomato

or,

http://search.cbs4boston.com/?__LOGIC=1611&section=The+Web&SearchString=FindArticles+on+Tomato
(use search term ..."FindArticles on Tomato" in CBS4 link, above)

So, say Rupert now has a 60% interest in those (above) CBS4 'results'(and assuming these same results, have also become 'universal' to all other publisher/media Co stakeholders) these then take a 'user' from any partner site, back to a Rupert (owned) Vertical (that has, in time, 'localised' contextuals installed on that Vertical results page, with more revenues for FIM & Looksmart) and then the "user" may make two or, more (visit) 'explores', (from this juncture), onto any of the/ those "other" partner (content supplier) sites.

The number of partner sites 'visited' is only dependent on the number of articles of interest or, the popularity of those articles that the Looksmart Vertical results page does display, that are then subsequently 'clicked' on. And Furl will help index popularity, in time, accordingly.

Does anyone see much fault in those "web search" results provided by Looksmart, to all CBS Local Sites, as exampled in the CBS4 link, above?

Incidentally, FOX already partner Viacom in other type "content sharing" arrangements.

Current myspace 'users' grow older like the rest of us do, but a chance, or, the opportunity now, to 'create' or, 'shape' new & long lasting (user) search "habits" may seem irresistable for FIM, in aquainting them early to all their other "news & sport" properties.

Just another thought to consider.

:)
Ross

[Ross]

MYSPACE.COM – Which Search Engine? Many say it could be, Looksmart ...

From within an article entitled: “What If No One Will Pay For Content?” (Scott Karp – May 7th, 2006)

http://publishing2.com/2006/05/07/what-if-no-one-will-pay-for-content/

The following thoughts & observations were made:

In a WSJ cyber-dialogue with Vint Cerg, Esther Dyson was channeling Michael Goldhaber and managed to crystalize for me (finally) the key insight of media 2.0:

"…attention has its own intrinsic value, independent of money. People go on the Web in search of attention; they don’t want to give it as much as get it".

"This is a blazing, head-spinning insight. In media 1.0, brands paid for the attention that media companies gathered by offering people news and entertainment (e.g. TV) in exchange for their attention. In media 2.0, people are more likely to give their attention in exchange for OTHER PEOPLE’S ATTENTION".

"This is why MySpace can’t effectively monetize its 70 million users through advertising — people use MySpace not to GIVE their attention to something that is entertaining or informative (which could thus be sold to advertisers) but rather to GET attention from other users. Why is it so appealing to MySpace users to be able to post messages publicly on other users’ sites? Because they can GET attention as a function of GIVING it".

"This make perfect sense in a world of participatory media — the value flow has reversed itself. MySpace can’t sell attention to advertisers because the site itself HAS NONE. Nobody pays attention to MySpace — users pay attention to each other, and compete for each other’s attention — it’s as if the site itself doesn’t exist".

Bambi has asked the question, above:

"If MySpace had a search engine, wouldn't that ruffle the feathers at Google, MSN and Yahoo"?), and Bambi then goes on to advise readers, that:

" As I pointed out in a recent column, MySpace is a whole new distribution platform that is changing the face of the Net. In March, MySpace recorded 19.4 billion page views vs. 13.7 billion at Google, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. With MySpace's traffic so significant, I had a hunch that major sites like Google and Yahoo might also receive a lot of benefit from that traffic. That hunch was right. Google received 8.2% of its traffic partly from its search tools that appear on pages within MySpace, making the social network the No. 1 source of traffic to Google, according to Bill Tancer of online research firm Hitwise, who retrieved the data for me".

Walter, Jules: - In explaining his thoughts on the above, has posteds:

”Hitwise captures where the users at MySpace exit and go. To clarify, Hitwise is saying that 8.2% of Google's traffic came from people who were just at MySpace. So, if you are on MySpace and then type in Google in the URL as your next site, you are counted. Nonetheless, there is a significant relationship. Also, the largest exit for MySpace members is Google. Also, about two-thirds of MySpace members surveyed by Nielsen//NetRatings prefer Google as their search engine”.

Myspace.com currently has (inherited) Yahoo (Overture) search installed on it’s site. But there are many compelling reasons as for why NWS needs to control it’s own search on it’s own sites. My interest is not, why are the 8.2% heading off to Google, but what are they heading off there, to search for? What is of interest to them, I’d imagine?

Which leads us back to why a “controlling stake” in Looksmart (from FIM), will be the wise choice and reasons are, as follows. If a partial (even a white label? Being a "low-key presense" type) ‘deal’ is negotiated with Google (for search results), myspace.com could now have installed on it’s site, the principles of a “FindArticles on/in ….” Button. So, all results would then come from the Google index. Now let’s then search for a ‘popular’ search term, American Idol. (Google has about 51,500,000 for American Idol)

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=FindArticles+on+American+Idol&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Google get to ‘contextualise’ the RHS of this (above) results page, that now contains no less than 80% of Looksmart ("essential", rather than "exhaustive" type) search ‘options’, for any myspace user to now choose from. And for Google, that 8.2% 'direct' traffic, could very well increase, and substantially. An initial friendly, (say) 50-50 'split' with FIM for resulting Adsense "click throughs" could be negotiated with Mr Ross Levinsohn, (CEO of FOX), with relevant indexing of Looksmart FindArticles listings remaining prominant page one 'results', the core (conditional) proviso! (Yahoo. or, MSN could do the 'job' just as well, & may even "bid", in time?)

Now we should move onto one of Looksmart’s Verticals, (LookSmart Junior High - Best results for "American Idol" ) and check who the content suppliers for this Vertical happen to be*. (see below).

http://www.looksmartjrhigh.com/p/search?free=1&qt=American+Idol&x=0&y=0&vcat=cat1

So, the ‘potential’ of having a myspace.com “user” leaving a NWS site and finishing back at another NWS site (www.idolonfox.com), now becomes a distinct possibility. And each Looksmart Vertical results page, can all be contextualised, accordingly.

And the thought of a myspace tool bar download option, (that can now be installed by and for the convenience of, or,) for it’s near on 80M members, could certainly, then further help consolidate NWS’s own search offerings (as outlined above) and help them achieve an indirect means of both leveraging ‘users’ and advertisers & at the same time, it may even create ‘new’ habits for those many Myspace members. Maybe some incentives (for downloading a toolbar), is all that would be a required.

*I’m also keen on a ‘content consortium’ or, two (maybe more?) that could very well (currently), be taking shape. And this will/could prove to be in the interest of, (& certainly provides supporting evidence for) a good enough reason as to why NWS should go ahead and take a “controlling stake” in Looksmart.

Could we see an eventual NWS Portal or, Network of "old world" media Co's that may/could again involve many of those existing content (source) providers to Looksmart’s F/A’s (& it’s Verticals) & all taking ‘on board’ these very same NWS (site) search (concept) "results"? A network that in effect, would then see all publisher/media Co's that may/could/should be involved, sharing both their “content” and their “users” with each other, thereby 'driving' users from site to site, like bee's, moving 'from flower to flower'? And definately one that is so "universal" in it's application and does have many revenue generating 'extentions' that can be further discussed. But, only thoughts, that's all. And, "thoughts are only thoughts, until they are put into practise".

But, it does make some sense, hopefully.

:)
Ross

[Ross]

"Planet Discover's Acquisition" (by Ganett) is so 'significant' in supporting my Newscorp "controlling stake" in Looksmart (theory), to compliment the distinct possibility, of a number of "content consortiums" made up of "old world" newspaper publisher/media Co's, being formed ..... I have posted Greg Sterling's article (and in full) as he helps to fully explain, where many may feel a 'chunk' of future "Local" Search, may very well be heading .....

Yes, the full-on, (ADS) "localisation" of search results are just around the corner .....

And the evolution of a "content consortium" or, two (or,three, or, more), will no doubt "speed up" the process, IMHO.

In Looksmart's favour is the almost "unique ability" to offer a 'cluster'(on a searched for chosen topic) of articles, back to newspapers & publishers who provide the origional content.

No matter where in the world a search is conducted, results may soon give a stronger showing of 'local' contextualised ADS specifically placed, within a newspaper's 'actual' distribution area, or, (in general), it's approx. geographical location.

I do see a future search for articles on (say) the "Tomato", when conducted from many, a many publisher/media Co website, as showing the local Bilo or, Woolworth 'Fresh', and contextualised according to a nearest location, all within Looksmart's Vertical results.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=FindArticles+on+Tomato&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Check any of those Looksmart Vertical results (above), in Google, (and in selecting one) to see down the RHS in this below link, where either Google's ADsense (or, a newspaper/publisher's own) "contextualised" Tomato related AD, can be positioned.

I've chosen "Growing Tomatoes" and whilst only two results appear, (ATM), think of how many "local" nurserys or, a Wallmart, the local produce stores selling seeds, etc can then be sold an AD (a 1/2 doz or, so) down the RHS and being placed either contextually, or, initially with Google's Adsense, should the 'local' newspaper site, not have sold the space...

http://www.looksmartgardening.com/p/search?qt=Growing+Tomatoes&sb=direct

It's coming ..... And from a 'local' (free rag) newscorp newspaper's/website, near you. (Maybe?)

http://www.newstext.com.au/pages/main.asp

Planet Discover Acquisition a Potential 'Turning Point' for Newspapers - Greg Sterling.

"I spoke this morning with Terry Millard, CEO of local-search vendor Planet Discover. As has now been widely reported, the company was purchased last week for an undisclosed sum by Gannett, which is now the nation’s largest newspaper publisher in terms of number of publications and revenues.

Millard and his brother, who is the CTO, will stay on. Gannett intends to operate the company like PointRoll, as a separate entity. Planet Discover is behind “integrated search” at three Gannett publications and many more newspapers, as the industry tries to confront adoption of the Internet for lookups that used to be done exclusively in newspapers and yellow pages offline. (Newspapers have been dealing with the challenge to classifieds usage and revenues for several years.)

Millard told me that the acquisition and forthcoming investment will enable the company to pursue its long-term product roadmap and further build out the company's search-technology infrastructure.

Here are the results for a query on “home improvement” on Tuscon.com, which Planet Discover powers. The company is also behind McClatchy’s Triangle.com and South of Boston Media Group’s Wicked Local Search. And while the user experiences on these sites are imperfect, they are considerably better than what's available through most newspaper sites.

The general idea is: improve site search and the user experience and more usage will ultimately generate more revenues. I agree with that logic but local market fragmentation makes it somewhat more complex to realize than the “ipso facto” relationship I describe.

Gannett has said it will roll out Planet Discover’s search technology on all its local newspaper sites. And while newspapers have been getting into local search here and there in dribs and drabs, this development marks a turning point for the industry. Similarly, but in a different way, so does the earlier McClatchy-WebVisible deal to sell paid-search distribution to local newspaper advertisers.

Gannett's acquisition will force newspapers large and small to think about site search and their local search strategies more generally.

In addition to newspapers, there are many “constituencies” in local search vying for eyeballs as well as advertisers: yellow pages, search engines/portals, vertical sites, classified sites, local TV affiliates and local radio sites. Not all are executing of course. But this list illustrates how crowded this nascent market is becoming – also how fragmented.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of local sites that accept ads and many more places where consumers can search for local information online. Aside from the major search engines and some yellow pages sites, "local search" is a confusing proposition for everyone. In the aggregate it's a multi-billion dollar opportunity but realizing that opportunity is complicated and a long term proposition.

Newspapers have long had the capacity (on paper) to “own” local search but have had trouble executing because of their internal cultures and reluctance to radically overhaul or otherwise experiment with newspaper sites. “Secondary brands” (e.g., YourHub.com, Sacramento.com, Readexpress.com) are emerging, which allow newspapers to experiment with different content, different functionality and navigation while still preserving the “sacrosanct” main newspaper site. Successful experiments can be incorporated into the main site. An alternative strategy is to have a local search destination, such as Triangle.com or Sacramento.com that pushes newspaper site content out through that single engine/portal.

Despite the furious competition between Google, Yahoo!, MSN and directories in local (and maps), no one yet owns the category. Newspapers and yellow pages publishers have a local sales channel, which provides an advantage in acquiring and retaining local advertisers. But search engines have considerably more traffic. Nobody has all the pieces of the local search puzzle. All of this makes for an interesting dance of business development and partnerships.

Judging from history, the newspaper industry would be something of a long shot to succeed in local search. But the future of newspapers depends increasingly on the Internet – a fact that newspapers now clearly understand. And they are becoming more serious by the day about it".

Posted by Greg Sterling on May. 15, 2006 | Permalink

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060515-135737

:)
Ross

[ScottG]

From the original article: "If that's the case, I'd argue that on the Web, global communities based on shared interests are actually the newest forms of clustering audiences for advertisers."

There's nothing new about it. It's just never been done well. Geocities had the capability to target ads by community in the mid-90s, (albeit just banners, not text mapped contextually via keyword matching). About.com certainly used and uses the ability to target communities of interest. These were early efforts, though they were hard to sell to advertisers. (Way back in the day, media budgets for online were still coming out of small r&d test budgets rather than media budgets as they are now. They didn't see online as formidable, much less "get" the idea of context. Nor were there good contextual mataching tools and to this day they're arguably not nearly what they could be. E.g. the oftentimes click through difference between search keyword matched ads vs. broadmatch/site matached ads. Not to mention the lack of meta data for banners, which are essentially most often targeted by hand via ad network traffic tools.)

To be sure, there may be some value to ad targeting based on general categories in which pages happen to fall. It's perhaps weaker context than keyword matching. However, that's hard to say for sure since no one's done clear enough research on the category level to definitevely say just how much better. (At least not that I've seen.) How to do this will take some thought. The challenge in doing so in a MySpace type network is the same as it ever was for the seminal online services and anything that's out there now; the pages are generally not focused enough to do so. And even keyword contextual mapping will be questionable due to the disparate content on a page. Behavorial targeting of ads may work a bit better in this environment. One benefit advertisers MAY have in such a network is potentially a higher click-though rate regardless of context. Why? Because often the content is so lame that there's less user engagement and a higher propensity to click away. In fact, the point made above that the Hitwise data may indicate people jumping away to Google to continue to search may lend some admittedly small validity to this idea. (Plus, some old usage data I'd once had about an early personal web page publishing platform seemed to bear out the idea as well.)

So just for the sake of argument, say the communities of interest do have higher advertising value over a run of site. That means the pages would have to be attached to one or more taxonomic categories. No small trick. (Yes, I know. Various semantic search companies will claim to be able to automate this. And this may be somewhat true. It's still some effort to get right.)

Bottom line: Sheer volume may allow MySpace to generate piles of ad revenue. But as yet, there doesn't seem to be much category-wise that would command a higher cost per thousand ad rate based on better context via category.

[italtnult]

I am unable to understand this post. But well some points are useful for me.

[bestdisk]

If Timur it is possible, also I will take, I will place here best-disk.ru

[stroi-t]

All was pleasant, but could not subscribe on rss, wished to broadcast here http://stroi-t.ru

[v-rem]

The actual information, thanks, I will take to myself here http://v-rem.ru the reference to you I will put

[onlykats]

Here and I about the same write here http://onlykats.ru

[olym-p]

Has learnt for itself a lot of interesting, thanks, I wait for continuation
____________
http://olym-p.ru

[procycom]

Put our counter and there will be to you a happiness
http://pr0cy.com

[Vitimon]

Something of a spam at you in a blog became much
http://csc-ekb.ru

[Uchenko]

When there will be a continuation?
___________
http://kit-tv.ru

[Mosaika]

I congratulate on a holiday of all
_______________
http://mosaiclife.ru