DygiScape

My Thoughts on TMZ (and How They Grew More Than 200%!)

As someone who is as disinterested in celebrity gossip as writers are interested in comics, I can’t help but watch the Web site (and syndicated TV show) Thirty Mile Zone, TMZ in awe about their amazing growth over the past few years.

TMZ.COM, ~6MVisits to ~15MVisits/Mo in 1 Yr.

People consistently love disasters, crime, nudity and negativity. I can’t blame the readers, because look at what’s being reported and the extreme bias that’s added in. I expect the snarky one-upping to be from independent bloggers, not from a professional Journalism team. Then again, look at who they are reporting.

Does this mean people are becoming less interested in (gasp!) financial responsibility or politics? Has Britney Spears had more impact on the country than Congress or OPEC? Are people more interested in celebrity antics as celeb-gossip sites lead us to believe? Do the stars themselves LOVE the attention their getting? Do we even care anymore? I don’t know, but page views are page views are page views.

TMZ has become a household name, like what’s that newspaper at grocery checkout counters the, the E… yeah, that’s it — the Enquirer. I think TMZ’s success has been likely due to their accessibility more than their content. Their name is catchy (it’s only three letters!) They can turn every story into an “exclusive” by merely throwing up captions in their industry-leading font and put up a photo frame and it’s sold. People are captured, sold, and they look again for more.

I’ve just turned on my local FOX affiliate, WTTG FOX-5, and I noticed TMZ on TV has made itself into two evening television appearances at 6:30 and 11:30 PM, dishing the same dirt as their Web site on the stars. The format irks me. The set is designed to appear as a hustling and bustling newsroom, but it just doesn’t grab me as much as their Web site does. Harvey Levin’s short questions and overly exerted facial expressions seem a little over the top for the actual news being discussed. Their staff seems to be just a little too interested in the small pieces of news (stalkerish) and every topic said gets written onto a Plexiglas board, yet I see no addition scribblings on the board.

I do have to say that despite my disgust in celebrity gossip, I enjoy their “who kissed who” segment where they show all the former relationships a celeb had in relation who they are allegedly going out with. This is probably the only real content that keeps me watching TMZ.

I find it amazing how they, TMZ, continue to ask rhetorical questions that can only be contrived from viewers, “Why doesn’t the paparazzi give the stars space?”Then they answer it justifying that celebrities shouldn’t be allowed to walk outside! That is the most circular-logic answer I’ve ever heard. Why don’t they just spill the truth, “You keep watching [and clicking] so we have to stalk the stars the second the walk out of their house.”

However, I do agree that celebrities should understand the kind of media power they yield and should leverage that and balance it with life and work. I find it interesting how the strongest of celebrity stars seem to have the weakest PR teams when it comes to celebrity news.

Back to my point — people thrive off of gossip and drama pertaining to the lives of others. TMZ is just the reporter. While they do spin certain stories, the spin is very clear to the reader, and it leaves them coming back for more. Maybe this is the secret to TMZ’s success; while being dually promoted by AOL when ever someone’s caught without undergarments, or is having an emotional breakdown.

Celebrities are human, too. They even troll Internet forums. Given ‘em a break. What do you think? Is TMZ evil, or do they just do an excellent job at reporting to the masses on celebrity news?

Tags: internet, News, Rants, social media, Success

Netscape Web Browser Bids Farewell

When you have 1.2% market share of the all the Web Browsers, there becomes a time when you just concede the fight and recommend your users use the best Web browser available. Netscape (owned by AOL) has reached its end-of-life and has announced the end of Netscape Browser to their users to use Mozilla Firefox. The most recent release (9.0) was essentially a Netscape-themed Firefox release.

“Recently, support for the Netscape browser has been limited to a handful of engineers tasked with creating a skinned version of Firefox with a few extensions.”
– Tom Drapeau, Director, Propeller/Netscape

Netscape cites the reasons for the changes were due to the changing business of the AOL organization, the Mozilla Firefox codebase and the transition of Netscape to the AOL portal.

It is also worthy of pointing out that the Netscape Web browser was based off the original Mozilla codebase; similarly so is Firefox, but Firefox trimmed out the additional features that Netscape had while breaking the e-mail client into a separate codebase known Thunderbird. Traditionally, AOL provided $2 million in annual funding to the Mozilla Foundation (now Mozilla Corporation). Mozilla has partnered with Google by embedding it’s search in the browser and has reported $66.8 million in revenue in 2006.

Netscape provided an archive of the distributions of the Netscape, but advises that no further product support will continue at http://browser.netscape.com/downloads/archive/.

Netscape Portal: Banged & Bruised

Netscape hasn’t had a lot of good news this year, either. I know I’ve been critical about Netscape and I see the now-current Propeller being more than just “another Digg clone.” When Jason Calacanis decided to empower Netscape users and revamp the Netscape.com homepage to be social, he rivaled his critics and disrupted the Social Media industry. Essentially, he accomplished what I can only imagine the main goal of his changes: increase engagement. However, after sustained negative feedback, people began losing faith in the portal.

Then Calacanis paid users for using the site, knowing full well about Participation Inequality, exploited it to his advantage with the Netscape “Navigators” system. One thing that set off the Social Media Blogosphere — his bounty for top users on other sites. Even I disagreed with the aggressive call to action; nonetheless, there was some drama. Digg’s owner, Kevin Rose promptly removed the Top Users section to prevent their most productive users in an effort to prevent being “bought” by other social news Web sites.

Then came the metrics. Page views were not sustaining since the launch, despite numerous advancements to the site and additional buzz about it. Calacanis defended that it performed the same (or better than) Digg did since their initial launch.

Later, AOL migrated Netscape.com e-mail addresses and ported them to AOL Web Mail. This was the final blow before Netscape’s numbers really saw some impact. One could argue that Netscape users were probably the most highly engaged e-mail users due to the significant drop in page views.

And recently, AOL re-branded the Netscape social news section and spun it off into Propeller and redirected users of Netscape.com to Netscape.AOL.com; a co-branded Netscape/AOL portal. (Another example of a co-branded AOL portal is HP/AOL…)

One thing is true — Netscape was a very static portal, with content that rarely changed. For users that stuck with it throughout the many (re)volutions that it had, they’ve proven they can adapt to change within the portal and brands pretty darn well.

What do you think?

Tags: internet, social media, social news, Success

My Sister Graduated University of Arizona!

Congrats, Melissa!

She graduated with a BA in Computer Science and Psychology (I think). Her endless excuses for not hanging out with our social circle due to hours of studying and “homework” reaches its end.

Now its time to reflect, look back, forward and enjoy some seafood. Pictures to come later.

Tags: family, Personal, Success, tucson

Nielsen scraps Page Views (Or Why You Shouldn’t Measure Success with One Metric)

Nielsen, one of the most respected audience measurement companies, decided page views are no longer relevant in today’s Web. AJAX technology being the primary cause of some provider’s drop in page views has prompted Nielsen to implement tracking of time in front of a Web site. More time generally means more engagement, and thus, more money.

This should come as no surprise. I’ve ranted went on a tangent about how Web 2.0 companies measure success – [sic] page views aren’t everything.

If you think this change is a bullshit move, I introduce call centers. Most call centers measure success based on call time (or SL — service level availability for customers). Well, after several frustrating years, that definition of success has evolved to resolution rate, satisfaction surveys and possibly sales made on contact. Here’s a breakdown of goals and the effects:

The purpose of this image is to explain that in the call center industry, they simply can not focus on one goal (e.g. Call Time, Resolution, Sales); rather a combination of all three elements. You win some, you lose some — it’s business.

I imagine that this theory holds true for the Web. You can’t focus on one element of success, you need to seize all the opportunity you can and balance your goals. Every Web site has different goals and ways to measure them. As a helpful tool, companies can elect to have services like Google Analytics or Omniture to measure their [aggregate] user tracking on their sites. To illustrate what I envision a company being successful online today, it would balance the following attributes:

I conclude with my opinion that Nielsen made a wise choice in measuring Web sites. I believe that other metrics are crucial to measure a Web site’s overall rating — not just the quantity of page views or minutes spent on a particular site.

What are your thoughts?

Tags: Engagement, internet, Metrics, social media, Success, web 2.0

How Does Web 2.0 Define Success?

With the current dynamic landscape of the Web, how does one define success on the Internet? Did the definition of success change when businesses are evolving into the Web 2.0? I aim to find that out.

According to Merriam-Webster, Success is defined as:

suc·cess n.
1 obsolete : OUTCOME, RESULT
2 a : degree or measure of succeeding b : favorable or desired outcome; also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence

But then again, how does that apply to the new Web 2.0? I don’t think it does.

Many online companies believe in measuring their audience merely by page views, formerly known as ‘page hits’. I would honestly say that if a company only measures their success by their PV’s then there is a serious problem. They should be measuring the vibe online communities discuss about them, their online and offline advertising, organic sales, and of course — their own product. I mean I love my blog and the PVs it garners, but more importantly, I mind the discussions online around it.

Let’s take a look at comparing MW’s definition of “Success” to Kevin Rose’s social news and information Web site, Digg. Is that generating wealth? Not organically, they don’t sell products, but they do profit from their advertising, I’m sure it pays the bills and some salaries. Digg is successful because of the network they’ve established in the news. I will guess that in the next five years, Digg will become one of the largest news and information hubs online, akin to CNN of today.

So, from the example of Digg like I mentioned, it appears the definition of Web 2.0 success is the prominence factor. If you are big and in everyone’s face, you can then advertise to that audience. If you sell widgets to a million people, you make a million dollars; if you give news to 800,000 people, sell advertising to that, you now have a flow of income.

Is success the ability to convince others? … Is it the ability to make visitors make a purchase? … Is it the ability to make someone come back again and again, and sell advertising? Linear thinking does not apply to Web 2.0. Success is attributed to many factors including prominence in a niche, how users use your service and how you capitalize on that.

Any Web 2.0 leaders out there want to share your definition of success?

Tags: internet, Metrics, Success, web 2.0

Time Management 101

Yesterday, I went to a time management seminar aimed to improve my time management skills. What’s was shocking was how much I needed this course since it was completely tailored for me. I validated my concerns for time management with the 13 other professionals that were in the same class as me. I took a lot away from this course, in my opinion, every employee at my employer should take it so we are all more productive.

Anyhow, I noticed a section of the class focused on the psychology of how one views and reacts to a task. The course material lightly hinted that of the Ownership Spirit but of course didn’t directly mention it. Here are my takeaways from this Time Management Class:

• Plan weekly goals that you would like to accomplish.
• Plan daily goals the night before (or morning of) to strategically plan your day.
• Don’t let your big projects be at the mercy of smaller stuff.
• It’s OK to say no to a meeting that is irrelevant. Get work done. (I found this rather funny)
• Prioritize your goals, ranked from Importance versus Urgency.
• Actively setting a plan for projects and deadlines will prevent urgent/immediate situations.
• Don’t just plan work, but also your life. This will prevent chaos from happening.
• Check off tasks as you do them, so you feel accomplished. The endorphins produced will motivate you more.
• Be consistent with your task planning. Use both a paper copy (day planner) and/or MS Outlook and keep them updated.
• Dedicate time for projects that require more time — strategic time planning will often yield this result.
• If you use a computer for work, consider putting up your Away Message or similar device that tells others not to interrupt you.
• There’s much more … but that’s all I can think of.

So, this class was awesome. I am already feeling more productive and organized. No more asking myself “What should I do next?” … w00t!

Tags: Personal, Success, Work

YouTube Subscribes to the Calacanis Kool-Aid

YouTube recently announced they will be offering monetary compensation for video content producers. Jason Calacanis did the same thing with Netscape, and well it’s a decent idea, but did it take off? According to Calacanis, compensating users for their community efforts helps the community grow. Further, will this benefit YouTube and their video community?

Jason Calacanis took Netscape.com under his wing and completely restructured the static news homepage to a revived social news/bookmarking web site. It was good, and then he had a rather unique idea of paying 1% of users to generate content for Netscape. It was awesome until you read that he put a bounty out for the top users of Digg, Reddit, and Newsvine. This shocked the social news community that money would be shaping the news and were insulted by the offer. Jason paid users who have migrated from Digg and other social news services to post for him.

Looking back at when I initially posted about Netscape, June 17th 2006. Here is an Alexa traffic chart showing the traffic pattern:

The solid red bar is the launch of Netscape Beta. The arrow is around when the announcement of paying for content was made. As you can see, it may have resulted in a small spike of traffic, but has since declined. Why did this ingenius idea fail? It could be the tone of Calacanis when he introduced his idea to the online community. It could be that users didn’t want to see paid users versus themselves as regular users. It was probably a combination of factors. I strongly believe that Calacanis wanted to try to save Netscape by using all means possible (using cash!) and unfortunantely, it didn’t work.
YouTube on the other hand, has a trend of constant growth. It’s amazing and I don’t know if monetary compensation would really show growth.

I wonder how offering cash for content will pan out for YouTube. First off they announced it not via the blogs or social media; which may have helped with PR. Second, their announcement isn’t asking video publishers on Google Video, iFILM or Metacafe to flock on over to YouTube. I believe this was a good move to not hold money over their competitors heads. The ones that will prove benefitial will learn of it and will provide videos to YouTube.
What do you think about YouTube compensating their video content producers? Share your opinion in the comments!

[tags]YouTube, Netscape, Money, Revenue Sharing, Internet, Web 2.0, Internet Communities, Jason Calacanis, Ideas, Trend, Video Sharing[/tags]

Tags: OpEd, social media, Success, web 2.0

What is Up with Netscape?

A while ago I mentioned I abandoned my activity from Netscape mainly due to my own burnout on it and the direction the site was taking. The demographics are of older folks who enjoy discussing politics. Looking at the page now, it is composed of 90% politics, and 9% Celebrities, and maybe .5% tech related. This is disappointing because I wanted Netscape to have a variety of topics actively being discussed. A short while after their Beta stage, it was that way. I suppose their users declined due to Calacanis’ unwavering methods to improve the site. I was only critical on Calacanis because he held the power to change and was accessible.

Either way, I doubt you’ll see much of me on Netscape simply due to the parade of Politics on there. If they can showcase more of a variety of stories, I’ll be happy to come back. Not everyone wants to talk about politics, it is just their demographic (older folks) discuss it.

What do you think of Netscape and the fact 90% of their stories are politics-related?

Tags: internet, Rants, social news, Success, web 2.0