Bambi Francisco

Geni's approach to social networking

With the success of MySpace, there has been enormous activity in the startup world focusing on social networks around a particular niche, or purpose. In the case of Geni.com, which launched mid-January, the site attracts anyone interested in genealogy – the study of ancestry or family histories. It is a social network that first starts with one family tree, and then branches out from there. You can imagine that as family trees get filled out, you'll be able to see who your 10th-degree cousin is. You might also learn that your best friend is related by having the same great, great, great, great grandmother.

The viral nature of this site is pretty obvious and compelling. Once someone fills in their family tree, like I did recently, they know exactly what they have to do next. They have to prompt others – parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, in-laws – to fill in their family profiles. To this end, the value proposition seems far greater than other social netwok sites that are trying to get people to post their thoughts, photos and videos on their own personal pages and get their friends or family to connect with them. The problem for those sites are 1) some family members/friends aren't interested in social networks, or they're already part of one 2) there are too many other social networks trying to position themselves as neighborhood or family/close friend networks, such as TypePad's Vox and Friendster, and therefore, it's hard to choose which one to be part of.

Geni.com is interesting because it's a site that organizes your family tree. That's a value-add that other social networks don't provide.

To be sure, Geni.com - though its approach is different -- is actually trying to do the same thing as the other sites. It's trying to connect people. And, on the site, a person can upload their photos, and create profiles, such as favorite cuisines, school and professional history. There's even a place where someone can message me on my Geni.com profile. These are requisite features of social network sites. Now, what I haven't seen is a place to blog. But I imagine it's only a matter of time before this feature is incorporated into Geni.com. After all, once you get your family tree up and running, you'll likely want to communicate with them through stories. Additionally, if people can blog, that means they'll likely stay on the site longer, create content, and drive pageviews. And, since Geni.com is going to be mainly advertising supported, I'd imagine the company will want as many features that drive pageviews.

Now, while I really thinking the viral nature is compelling, it will take a lot of encouragement to get others to respond. For instance, since I pinged my family (nearing two weeks now) to upload their information – their spouse, children, in-laws, etc. – they had yet to fill in any information. But no matter, I’m sure in time they will. It’s a matter of changing their behavior and understanding how easy a family tree can be organized if they just added their 2 cents of knowledge.

Former PayPal COO David Sacks, who also produced “Thank you for Smoking,” based on the popular book (and one of my favorites), founded Geni.com in mid-2006. In this video, he gives his pitch about why he started it and what his vision is.

Flixster - MySpace for movies

This is yet another social network, but the difference is that the content or focus is around movies. Flixster is building upon the popular features that have helped Netflix rent more movies. Those features include the ability to see or make recommendations and see which movies are the most popular among friends or in the Netflix community. Netflix said that some 60% of the movies rented come from recommendations. Clearly, recommendations help people discover new movies to rent. Unlike Netflix, however, on Flixster, you don’t get the great service of receiving movies in the mail. Of course, you don’t have to pay $10 a month either. To that end, Flixster can be a nice complement to the many movie-download services emerging, such as Amazon’s unBox. So, let me share my experience on Flixster. First off, I have to say that this service (more than others) is set up in such a way that it’s easy to invite friends – a form of grass-roots marketing that can have exponential affects on growth. It’s no wonder that in 10 months, Flixster has signed up 5 million registered users who collectively have posted 190 million movie recommendations written. That’s pretty fast. But a lot of that has to do with the way Flixster is set up. One of the smart ways Flixster is making the grass-roots marketing far easier for us is by integrating our address books immediately upon signing up. After I signed up with my gmail account, Flixster displayed my gmail email list and an automated email invite that, with one click, could go to all of my friends (and other random emails) in my email list. Smart move. With one click, I could have invited the 135 emails recorded in my gmail account. The only problem is that the automated invite said: “Hi, I just took a movie quiz at Flixster.com.  If you come take it too we can see if we like the same movies.” Since I didn’t just take a movie quiz, I didn’t think it was honest of me to send this email. Besides, it did feel a bit like I was spamming. The one thing I didn’t like was that I couldn’t easily choose which email accounts I wanted to send an email to. Rather, I had to check off each box (next to an email account) that I didn’t want to send an email to. This was rather annoying, and ultimately a turn-off. Another way Flixster is making the invite process easier is by integrating with News Corp’s MySpace. With 115 million members worldwide, it’s a smart integration. At one point in the sign-up process, Flixster asked if I wanted to send a bulletin on my MySpace account inviting my MySpace friends.

The social network features are great. There’s even a feature that lets you upload videos and images related to a particular movie. There is also, of course, the requisite “profile” page. (I think I must have two dozen profile pages by now.)  The site also seems to have some pretty useful reviews and recommendations. But I’m not sure I’d create a social network just around movies. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of movies – having seen three in the movie theaters just in the last week -- but I wouldn’t build a social life around my movie preferences. That said, I did click onto the tab that said “Meet people like me.” The No. 1 person that showed up was a 13-year-old girl.

Mobile social networks

If you want to see where your kids will be spending their time in the future, take a look at Gemini Mobile’s platform that lets carriers offer their subscribers a social networking community on their phones. Essentially, the service is a mobile community – a MySpace on the go, but for more virtual reality. The platform is called eXplo, and it powers SoftBank Mobile’s S! Town. S! Town is pretty neat. A subscriber can have an avatar that walks around this virtual world. In the demo I was given, Michael Tao, Gemini Mobile’s CTO, had a black anime as his avatar. His avatar strolled through S!Town’s virtual town center, which was quite deserted, given that it was 4 am in the morning in Japan, where this service is available. At first, it seemed pretty silly and useless to be walking around this deserted town. But then Michael bumped into several females (or at least one might think they were female because their avatars were female). Michael tried to befriend them, while at the same time clicking onto a user profile to find out more about this person. All members have profiles that can be made public to the community. All community members can roam around this virtual town and meet other members. Watching this interaction was a bit frightening, especially when Michael could – with just a click of a button -- find out more about the person whom he was interacting with. When I was a little girl, I played tea with some dolls around a mini table. My future little girl will likely be playing tea on her mobile phone with (hopefully) other little girls. So, what's the business model? Consumers don't pay for the service. Rather they can buy content in the town. There are also advertisements on billboards in the virtual town. In 2007, the service is expected to be deployed with U.S. and European carriers.

Tumri's network merchandising

Tumri wants to help retailers spread their products across a number of Web sites. Essentially, it's a bit like Google's Adsense, whereby any publisher can be the distributor of Google's ads. It's like Edgeio's model of letting publishers be distributors of Edgeio's classified lists. Tumri is a smart idea if it can help retailers find their target market for a specific ad across the fragmented Web. Getting a specific product, say carbon fiber bicycles, distributed across the right sites with the target audience is a tall order. Additionally, Google's advertising Adword clients can create ads for specific products as well and be distributed across Google's Adsense network. After all, merchants are advertisers. Going after the merchant market is essentially the same as going for the advertising market. Look what happened to eBay's merchants. They too are Google advertisers. That said, I like the idea. Additinoally, the cost for merchant is based on performance. To that end, they'll only pay per click. Tumri will probably have to deal with clcik-fraud issues, but for starters, it's a fair way to go for merchants., unless they push for a click-per-action or click-per-purchase model. The trick for Tumri (and Edgeio) is to increase the relevance on the ads for each site. I plan on becoming a Tumri distributor. I'll let you know what I think of the experience over time.

The social and visual Web

I recall years ago when Steve Case said that those who dig for gold make more money than those supplying the picks and shovels. As the co-founder and former CEO of America Online, he was bias. But he has a point. These days if MySpace and YouTube are the ones digging for gold, their sales to News Corp (nws) and Google (goog) show that when you hit gold, you hit it big.

But the battle to become a top video or social network destination site is fierce. The landscape is littered with sleep-deprived, burned-out founders and CEOs of dozens of startup video-sharing or social network sites, as well as those working at veteran Internet sites. So despite the rich rewards in finding that pot of gold, some startups are avoiding this costly war, opting instead to provide the tools and platforms to socialize and video-rize the world. Essentially what they're saying is: Rather than fight with MySpace and YouTube, and the dozens of others, why not just provide the picks and shovels to others who want at it? What's the result of that?

I'm not sure, but I can only imagine that my inbox will be filled with "new friend" requests in a video format some day. Oh, joy.

So, who are these tools and shovel companies? This week, two young companies -- DAVE.tv and vSocial -- unveiled software services to provide companies and individuals a way to have a video and text blog platform that also includes social networking features. (Note: I use blog to define a Web-based publishing platform that allows anyone to contribute.) I think it's an excellent idea. As many of my readers and viewers know I love the marriage of both: The blogging capabilities in video or text allow for anyone to contribute from a staffed producer and reporter to the audience or the user. The social network features allow anyone to market and distribute the content.

Now, sure, there are others who already provide white-label video solutions, such as Feedroom, Brightcove, VideoEgg, Maven Networks, and Narrowstep. Even Cisco Systems (csco) is offering video-capabilities to businesses. But none of the aforementioned companies (besides DAVE.tv and vSocial) are offering the social networking features that let the audience communicate with one another, make friends, share and build affinity groups. These are the features that give the audience control to manage their worlds, or in MySpace parlance, their spaces. 

That said, it's only a matter of time before social network features (connect, make friends, share, vote, rank, etc.) are commodities incorporated into blog publishing platforms. It's only a matter of time before all the companies I mentioned above announce that they too will offer the same services and tools. For now, they don't. Or if they do, they're in stealth mode.

Read my Net Sense column on MarketWatch for the rest of the column: Socialize this... video

The Web 2.0 cost - less control

Facebook is going to open up to the masses. Some rabble-rouser Facebook members are upset. But Facebook has no choice.  Even though it has 9.5 million members, that pales in comparison to the 100-plus million members that News Corp's MySpace has.  But here's the silver lining... well sort of.

Facebook founder and  CEO Mark  Zuckerber is likely learning a lessson. And, other Internet startups can learn from him as well. In the Web 2.0 world, control has been shifted over to the audience, or "community." Web 2.0 companies enjoy the fruits of that community labor. Web 2.0 companies haven't paid for the content created either. 

But everything comes at a cost. And, the cost in the Web 2.0 world may be less control.

For my full column, blog, video commentary and interview with Zuckerberg, go to:
My blog on MarketWatch

Passion for pets, Woof!

Dogster just got $1 million in A round funding from a group of angels and entrepreneurs, such as the founder of del.icio.us. It's the first round of funding since the launch of Dogster back in January 2004. Dogster founder Ted Rheingold plans to build more properties to cover "all pet passions," like horses-ter, birdster, and herpster (biologists use the term herp for all reptiles and amphibians, according to Wikipedia). Dogster and Catster will generate over $1 million in online advertising and subscriber fees this year. Combined Dogster and Catser have 250k subscribers. A smaller number pay roughly $20 a year, to get storage for videos, and photos, and the ability to IM other members on the site, using their pets as avatars. The majority of the revenue comes from advertisers. The market for pets is $35.9 billion in the U.S., says Rheingold. That includes spending beyond advertising. "We expect to grow into many types of passions, not just pets," said Rheingold. "What we feel is that people like to share their passions online... So, while we've gotten very good at pets, you can think of all sorts of passions."  The angels were chosen for their understanding of how communities can flourish on the Web. That is, communities flourish in an environment where like-minded people can feel comfortable with others they can share their passions with. Rheingold, who says his site is already profitable, says the capital can last at least through the end of 2007. Get ready for a lot more features on the Dogster and Catster site, as well as new pet communities. In all the sites, there will be a whole set of local listings, including dog groomers, vets and pet stores. All of this content will be user added, said Rheingold. 

YouTube and Paris, Take II

Paris Hilton is a great argument that money doesn't buy happiness or talent.

But then again, who needs talent to get an audience? As of nearly 9 a.m. pacific time, Hilton's video was viewed 2,390 times, commented on 456 times and rated 3207 times.  Hilton may not have talent, but YouTube, Fox and Warner Bros. know what she has to bring to the table: Sex and an audience that likes, well, sex. YouTube struck a deal with Time Warner's Warner Bros. to be the online billboard for Hilton's new music album.  Hilton becomes YouTube's first branded channel. Now, YouTube has already allowed users to create their own channels. But user-generated channels are a problem for advertisers. As of today, the most subscribed channel goes to "Geriatric1927," with 22k subscribers and 659k views.

To read the rest of my thoughts about video ads, go to my official blog at: MarketWatch

On another note -- a more cultural one -- when you look at the Hilton video, you just have to  wonder what drives many of us to want recognition. This is what Benedict Carey of the New York Time writes:  "Money and power are handy, but millions of ambitious people are after something other than the corner office or the beach house on St. Bart’s. They want to swivel necks, to light a flare in others’ eyes, to walk into a crowded room and feel the conversation stop." Carey also writes: "People with an overriding desire to be widely known to strangers are different from those who primarily covet wealth and influence. Their fame-seeking behavior appears rooted in a desire for social acceptance, a longing for the existential reassurance promised by wide renown."

Carey goes on to say: "In media-rich urban centers, the drive to stand out tends to be more oriented toward celebrity, and its hold on people appears similar across diverse cultures. Surveys in Chinese and German cities have found that about 30 percent of adults report regularly daydreaming about being famous, and more than 40 percent expect to enjoy some passing dose of fame — their “15 minutes,” in Andy Warhol's famous phrase — at some point in life, according to data analyzed by Dr. Brim. The rates are roughly equivalent to those found in American adults. For teenagers, the rates are higher." Read Carey's article: The fame motive

Is it privacy or economics?

One of the most intriguing stories about the Internet isn't how much wealth it's created, but rather its impact on society. 

Each day, it seems, we spend more time on the Internet. We search more, share more, participate more and voice our opinions more. We've probably all become aware of how self-absorbed we are and/or how different we are from others, and we're proud of it.

But is there more about ourselves that we don't know? More that the data we leave behind may reveal?

"The Internet has changed everything," said Schmidt, who held a small session Wednesday with a couple dozen journalists after he was interviewed on stage by search guru Danny Sullivan at the Search Engine Strategies conference in San Jose, Calif.  Schmidt went on to describe how the Internet has obviously improved access to information and the empowerment it's given many, including the press, to gather that knowledge. But the "development to me that's most interesting is the social networks as online lifestyles. That's a really new phenomenon," he said. It's a phenomenon on scale with the rapid-fire adoption of instant messaging, he added. "It's [social networks] a big deal."  Indeed, his words are backed by his actions. On Monday, Google announced that it is paying $900 million to be the exclusive search engine of MySpace along with News Corp's other Net properties. What fascinates me about this deal is the potential to take search history data and marry it with personal data, such as what we like and dislike, who we like and dislike, and basically what makes us tick.  "We do not link," said Schmidt, adamantly. "We try to do things with user permission," he added.

Sure, there may be some privacy issues. But is that all? After all, we've become such a transparent society with high expectations about service (and that means better targeted ads).

Maybe I should have asked him, could Google make more money by using search history to serve up display ads on its partner sites?  Based on a simple analysis and example, it appears that perhaps the incremental benefit of using search history for targeted ads may not be worth it. For that analysis, you'll have to read my column. 

Read Net Sense on MarketWatch

Google pays up for next generation

Google's $900 million deal with Fox shows that the search giant is willing to pay a hefty amount for the next generation of Internet addicts who tend to socialize as much as they search.

It's been no secret that News Corp been seeking a search partner for the inquisitive MySpace members, who'd been wont to search on Google after socializing on the virtual site. But as the popular social networking sites' traffic surged, so did its ability to leverage its audience. MySpace generated 23 billion pageviews from 45.7 million unique visitors in June, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. sk.com to see who'd offer up, among other things, the highest guaranteed upfront revenue for the MySpace and Fox digital properties' traffic. News Corp set last Friday as the deadline for bids. No one matched Google's offer, though MSN's was competitive.

Obviously, it turns out Google was the most aggressive and willing to capture this exploding network on the Web.

Here are the takeaways. It's great news for News Corp because it's leveraging its online traffic and, if it meets certain thresholds, will definitely beat advertising forecasts set for its digital properties in '07 and the following years. Also, MySpace gets to keep its members on its site searching, because apparently a good portion of them left to search elsewhere.

It's probably good news for Google, since it won't have to pay that revenue unless certain search and traffic. ich had been providing search queries for MySpace, which recently topped the search engine as the most visited site on the Web, based on pageviews. Obviously, MySpace users like to search. According to HitWise, about 10% of MySpace users left the social network and went to Google to search. That's search traffic that Yahoo, MSN or Ask could have had.

It's terrible news for MSN, which is trying to bolster its ad-search business with AdCenter. What was it thinking? To me, the fact that MySpace chose Google isn't that surprising, since I've been writing about this possibility for some time. Whatwill be pretty intriguing to watch from now until the deal is over, is the extent to which Google personalizes the searches on MySpace personal pages and group pages. Now, personal information and search information may actually merge.

Read the rest of my column on MarketWatch.