Unsubstantiated Random Google Rumor
According to a completely unreliable (and unsubstantiated) source :) , Google is giving out over 600K in stock grants (Not options, stock grants!) to PHD graduates of top CS programs in the nation . . . vested over 4 years ofcourse. Essentially guaranteeing that they will become millionaires in 4 years, adding in salary.
Another example of Google’s focus on innovation as a strategy. Also an HR practice that is consistent with its culture. I wonder if its possible for a company to monopolize human capital as a source of competitive advantage. Only if its stock price is over valued I guess.
WFT is Behavioral Targeting
Getting a lot of email questions from the last post. . . so I dug around try to figure it out. . . found this but didnt help too much so I asked around for a no bullshit answer. This is basically what I gathered, there are two kinds of behavioral ad targeting
1) Bullshit Behavioral - Basically what Claria is doing, serving ads to you when you are surfing another website. Using the content/category of another site you are on to serve you relevant ads. Some times this might include serving you travel ads two or three pages after you left Expedia. More sophisticated ones combine a few websites and do some calculationg around what that means as far as your likelihood to click on an ad (silicon.com + travelocity = United Ticket to SJC). No even a simple implementation of a logit model, mostly hardcoded.
2) Wanna Be Amazon Behavioral - Think of the way Amazon serves you up product recommendation, but instead serve up banner or text ads instead. Using (People who bought product X also bought product Y) and applying it for ads (People who clicked on ad X also clicked on ad Y).
So there you go, I’m sure other people have their own secret sauce they dont want to share with me, but at this point doesnt seem like such a black box, rocket science, or breakthrough at all.
Gilder: and Blogs Will Inherit the Earth
Here is the News.com blog which says Gilder says so.
Eh. . . quite a contrast to the dead blog sentiment of yesterday . . .
Gilder argues that TV is dying and will be followed by Hollywood. . .
In an apparent hidden reference to the long-tail, he argues choice will enable blogs or (video blogs? or I think he meant to say “peer-produced content”) to overtake TV/Hollywood. . .
As much as I think the Long Tail is an valid economic framework. . . lets not forget two more proven and probably more important theories/forces . ..
Economies of Scale & Economies of Scope
Yes, the internet will drain dollars away from TV and Movies. . . through a variety of means . . . blogs, TIVO, streaming video, bit-torrent. . . etc. . . basically we only have so much time a day and we are spending more on the ‘net. . . no arguments here. . . everyone agrees . . I would not even ague with people that think the market will shrink by over 50%.
BUT TV & movies will not die because Economies of Scale and Scope. The entertainment industry business model relies heavily on economies of scale and scope. To create a truly profitable content requries huge capital investments in order to create contents that are “scalable” and with mass appeal. Those investments in technology, marketing, distribution, brand (of actor/actress), and production are so large that no “blogger” or individual content producer can hope to ever match.
Those invesments and the value it creates for consumers creates economies of scale and scope for the TV & Movie industry. Certainly these advantages are reduced with the internet but I’m not expecting the JibJab guys to produce Toy Story IV anytime soon.
BTW: notice the flame in the comment section of the Gilder article. . .