Twitter, A.M. Turing & The Brain in the Vat (the new Google?)

Sometimes it's good to go back in time before we can move forward.

The way the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and The Cloud are shaping up is rapidly calling into question our individual and collective positions in the digital universe, and ultimately, the real world. We've touched upon topics in earlier posts such as sensory marketing and how we put our social personalities into application, but now we are seeing a profound shift in how we aggregate our intelligence... and the prospective methods we will use to mine it, cultivate it and optimize it.

This week's announcement that Facebook acquired FriendFeed (a real-time social search & aggregation platform) brought to light a very alarming truth: our souls are beginning to show.

Think about it: the emotional self is loud and often illustrious. The spiritual self is quiet and often unwavering. In between is the layer of our existence that is almost entirely subject to interpretation, yet one that is almost readily identifiable - and in some ways, predictable - in patterns. Granted, these patterns constantly change, but nonetheless they tell a story about who we are, both as individuals and as whole tribes of people.

So back to the possibilities.

My guess is that as Google looks under its own hood (as it has been for a while) its algorithmic next step is to provide us with a solid, qualitative and quantitative look at this 'intermediary layer'.

Of Google's current algorithm, A.M. Turing predicted it outright: that a purely logistical view of mathematics is inadequate. He also talked frequently in his essays about the problems of word association in compact or niche groups. The point is that probability on the web - which, in conversation, shows a categorical emphasis and proximity to activation - is not entirely an extraction of content, but rather the combination of content and its interpretation and all the variants (or sub-variants) in between.

Here's where Twitter fits in. And where Google may benefit.

Twitter never claimed to be a content aggregator. Twitter is a true microblog - a conversation engine - that has served its purpose, and continues to serve this purpose, as a relatively straight-forward measuring stick for sentiment and topical evaluation (among other things). Google is refining is indexing methodology to include not only the extractions mentioned above, but the variants used to determine adoption and sentiments amongst users and tribes of users.

So the relationship is simple: Facebook/FriendFeed control the ebb-and-flow of content aggregation, and Google ala Twitter facilitate the perception management of these offerings into more finite and digestible bits... those that are more organized and more scalable.

fixed patterns > | new semantic layers | < infinite variables

We must remember that people do not fundamentally change, technologies do, so ultimately, where we go and how we get there is determined by our own doing.

As for the brain in the vat, well, you're in it right now, so only time will tell...

Time to "Twiggle"

Ok, so it seems that not only is Google running contextually-based ads (check out the Turbo Tax example), but there are the talks that Google will be acquiring Twitter to the tune of $250M. A few posts back we examined the possibilities of what Google's search prospects would be, considering the flood of queries that are now indexed by social media sites and related content. To no surprise of us all, Google is making a play, one way or another.

We can draw speculation all day on the value of a potential deal, but let's re-examine for a moment what this means for the purity of a microblog like Twitter, and consequently, for search engines.

First, are Twitter searches going to be mostly populated with sponsored links?

Second, are Google searches going to mostly index "favorable" Twitter keywords?

Third, is cross-linking via bookmarks going to be "strong-armed" by the Google index?

Lastly, if all indices are subject to query domination in this way, is this the pawn strike for the search giant to wipe out it's competition for good?

Let me just qualify this by saying that I am a Google fan, and have seen the company and its founders do some great things, not just for technology, but for humanity. It seems we've only scratched the surface on where its ties to social media and microblogging go. I just hope for the sake of all of us that Google doesn't lose site of its altruism in the quest to innovate.

Google Voice: Indexing Real Life Into Search?

This post is a collaboration with our friends and colleagues at eCairn up in San Francisco - Laurent Pfertzel and Dominique Lahaix.

Google's recent move to become the gateway for "shaping the share of voice" (Grand Central) brings about some possibilities that will not only challenge the conventions established around search, but introduce some progressive new forms of thinking. For one thing, most content isn't found through typical search indexing; it has involved into "nanosearch" or "microsearch" functions - just look at how utilities like Twitter are dominating and populating fields of content. For another, we are about to contend with the first real iterations of the semantic web (artificial intelligence). Yet ironically (and somewhat counterintuitive to this), what we must really now consider is that our lives as a whole - our real lives - are now being indexed into search, and in more ways than we can imagine.

As we all know, Google made a fortune with its now famous "we organize the world information" mantra. Facebook, and to a large extent LinkedIn, in combination with other social networks and utilities, are about to do the same with their "we organize the world of people". Granted, the actual methods for monetization will continue to be a sticking point, but if there isn't proof in the pudding, Marketing Vox ran an interesting data-point on how things are rapidly shifting.

What does this mean for the Google pagerank algorithm? For nearly a decade, it's been the invisible cog that the Google machine uses to decide the most relevant information for a search. But the definition of "most relevant" has changed, and continues to change. It's becoming less content-driven as people engage in social media, and more about exchange links, videos, music and so on. By Tweeting a link or adding it to their Facebook page, people tell their connections what's relevant. Further, new search solutions are coming in with platforms that pose a serious threat to Google's monopoly in the world of relevance. As Nick Arnett said, "Twitter is a people-driven, massively parallel headline organizer".

As a very anecdotal data-point, when eCairn published the top 150 social media marketing blogs into its monitoring platform, to no surprise of the group, most of the traffic came from Twitter, Del.icio.us, FriendFeed and StumbleUpon, and far less from other blogs' inbound links or even Google search. Here's the detailed summary provided by Dominique Lahaix:

- One top blogger saw our list and tweeted it

- Twitter stated to bring a lot of traffic, initially individual tweets, then Twitter search

- Del.icio.us came second, as the news spread to more and more bookmarked people

- Almost at the same time we got StumbleUpon traffic

- Early the next day, people started making "derivatives" from our list (OPMLs) and it made the front page of ReadWriteWeb

- We got almost no traffic from search engines (max 100) although we're on page one (#6) for a Google search on "social media marketing blogs", #2 for "top social media blogs" and #8 for social media blogs

So here's where we're going with all of this: if Google doesn't want to see itself outpaced in the race to organize our internet life, perhaps they've purposely, and very wisely, chosen to invest beyond our current social infrastructure. The company, which spawns and supports a number of rising verticals through highly effective open source technology, seems to be looking at a much bigger prize: everyday experiences, and those that are not necessarily designated to, or definable by, offline or online functions. Hence we circle back to Grand Central, it's new voice recognition platform that will likely upend Skype's 400 million-strong captive user base and change the telecom game...among many other things.

So what are we really looking at here? To start, three factors come to mind:

1. Pieces of our "phone" conversations - at least those don't initially violate IP or privacy issues - will flood search queries.

2. These pieces will overtake content indices (text, video, podcasts, etc.) by the sheer volume of conversations.

3. Behavioral analytics (via AI) will take shape in the form of "active capture" versus "active reach".

To clarify, the nature of these conversations will lend themselves to a delivery mechanism in which topical elements or points of commonality previously established through "normal" search parameters will now be verified though real conversation. Further, there are a slew of revenue opportunities linked to micro-targeted environments, and it's certainly not inconceivable that that in this very same way, you will be able to connect people with specific ad content and/or messaging at a precise moment within a physical environment.

Think about it: you and a friend or colleague (or someone you've never met before) are having a chat about cheese at a conference, and all this chat is being broadcast and monitored through the Grand Central platform. When sub-topics like "curdling" or "melting" are mentioned, these exchanges are indexed into search. When queries are run - both on the consumer side and ad network side, for example - you are then strategically fed specific micro-messages on kiosks and digital banners/displays within the environment. You might even opt in to short-code for that cool looking curdling instrument you saw on one banner, and through your PDA, you've made a purchase in a matter of seconds.

What this presents to us is the notion that everyday exchanges will become these fairly stealth (i.e. non-intrusive) engagement points that feed the larger search machine, and, provide a reciprocal framework for accessing the things we want, when we want them. And this is only the beginning...

Can Behavior Really Be Predictive?

Google's announcement that it will be releasing two new behavioral targeting products begs the question as to whether we're still holding onto - and whether we should hold onto - the notion that consumer patterns are predictive in nature. It's an interesting move by Google, when you consider the fact, among other things, the search goliath has its own cookieless browser (Chrome), which is optimized for video/rich media delivery but not the more standard ad units the behavioral model currently uses. Perhaps given its sheer size and market capitalization, Google is looking to expand a few different slices of the pie and see what gains the most traction.

But let's first look at the nature of marketing and advertising in general, particularly as social media becomes more of a focal point in outreach and analytics. Advertising has been largely based on the idea that we can somehow calculate meaning. Marketing has been driven by the idea that we can somehow predict behavior. Media have traditionally sat in flux, waiting to blur the lines between them. And this is precisely where meaning gets lost, at least when it comes to "personalizing" ads.

Social media has taught us that "fixed" targets and "fixed" messages no longer have any real impact, and as such, there seems to be some significant value in the behavioral approach. The idea here is to effectively "retarget" or "remarket" a message or story based on user preferences. So I frequent a page, and based on browsing history and other factors relating to purchases, I will be fed ads that personalize or customize the experience to my needs and interests. If my interests change, so do the ads.

What we tend to forget, however, is that these preferences change at an incredible clip and change dynamically. Our sphere of influence - those people that we crowd around, converse and collaborate with -  can also change instantaneously, greatly affecting the environments we visit and how often we visit them. So will that same ad and its related content then travel with me? 

Preference-based environments are great provided that they provide great content, but as we've seen, display content for the most part is sub-par, which is also why CTRs are still abysmal. Further, as we as consumers seek more and more utility in the ad content we engage with, portability is almost always a sticking point. We've already witnessed this struggle with ad-supported content through the likes of platforms such as Joost and Slingbox. Hulu - which seems to have a much firmer grip on this ad model - also faces inherent challenges, especially with the decreasing demand on inventory and a greater demand on free, premium content.

Perhaps one way to reskin this cat is to adopt more of an online WOM (word of mouth) approach. When you look at the dynamic of word of mouth - in which you have the real-time ability to course-correct messaging based on direct consumer intelligence - it organically seems to work in concert with the retargeting concept. So, in theory, you garner feedback as an ad network or 3rd party vendor, redirect that flow of information, and based on mechanisms like meta- or microtagging, you then index and deliver the appropriate ad content. There are also platform providers/networks like TruEffect (not a 3rd party) who are levering consumer intelligence and "delivery visibility" to create a 1-1 relationship between the ad unit (brand) and the consumer.

This does not solve the redistribution problem (such as having affiliate options for placement based on "new" environments the user visits), but it does provide a window into the possibility of looking at ad content as something truly personal, and, potentially offers more options for a consumer within a particular online environment.  Cross-marketing (and cross-pollinating) messages has been one method to compensate for the devaluation of premium and remnant online inventory, but it is a discipline that is often debilitating to brands and cannibalizes the relationship they carry on with their advocacy bases - it is similar to what sites do when they try to upsell the crap out of you before you've even had the chance to make a simple purchase. So, we'll need to look for affiliate solutions that extend outside of an immediate environment, and media companies can explore new opportunities to "redirect and gather", not only ad content but sources of information as well as monitoring intent to purchase.

So is behavior still predictive? Maybe. But perhaps it is more adaptive than anything else. Remember that you can course-correct a message, but not necessarily a conversation - that is simply not up to you ("you" being a brand), it is up to the consumer. In a peripatetic world, committing to conversations versus set ideals seems to be the most logical means of existence.