Internet Psychology from Graham Jones

Welcome to another weekly digest of material from my website grahamjones.co.uk. Enjoy. 50% of all the search terms that are typed into the Google search box each month have NEVER been typed in before in the 13 year history of the company. Each month, half of what it sees is brand new and that means it has an ever increasingly difficult task of making sure it can deliver. Semantic search will help but Google now faces another problem: human search. If I simply ask you Apple? you will probably say no thanks, Ive eaten or I prefer oranges. But if I look at you strangely you might then answer, oh sorry, you want an apple, Ill get one from the fridge for you. And then, even if I say no more, but set-aside the apple you have given me, youll say dont you like Royal Gala apples then? and even if I continue with my silence, youll say Oh I get it, you want to look at my new Apple computer. At which point you flash me your iPad and Im still not impressed and you say Oh, where did I get it?, I smile, and you say PC World have them back in stock now. One word and nothing else and you can get to the exact thing I want. One word into Google and it fails, unless it can make a really, really good guess (and to be fair it does that quite a lot). But humans are better at working out what other people want to know than mathematical algorithms. If I ask you where is the best restaurant near here where I can take my wife for a slap up birthday meal you can tell me, in an instant. Google cant. It suggests I might be interested in a website on television tropes and idioms. Wrong! And guess what people are discovering in their millions that Twitter and Facebook are fantastic search engines because you can ask questions that only human beings can answer and to which you get accurate, rapid answers. Google, of course, is aware of this and realises that as people gradually discover that humans are better at providing answers than search engines, they could lose traffic themselves over the coming years and that will reduce their income. Enter Google Plus, the FIFTH attempt at social networking produced by Google. Former efforts, such as Jaiku, Buzz and Wave have already been consigned to the internet trash can. Only Orkut remains, and then almost only in Brazil. And Google Plus is not as successful as we think. True it is the fastest growing social network ever produced but also the fastest falling. Traffic peaked and dropped. The only significant advantage it had over Facebook was circles and within days the engineers at Facebook added Friends Lists which provides exactly the same function. In the meantime, Google is clearly concerned about the way we are searching using social networks and the way that the advertising industry is predicting where they will spend their cash in the coming years (70% of it on Facebook). So, Google appears to be
1

Is Google having a panic attack?

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/grahamjones/~3/_lPBtP81Az4/is-googlehaving-a-panic-attack.html

Google is a fine company lets get that straight at the beginning. They provide you and me with plenty of useful services. Even if you only use their search engine, can you imagine life without? We all depend on Google to a smaller or larger extent. And as a business, they are not doing badly billions of dollars cash in the bank and massive revenues based on an average transaction price of less than a dollar. Not bad eh?

However, Google has a problem and it knows it. Traditional search engines have a limited life; new ways of searching which are more accurate, more relevant and more speedy are going to be required as the volume of internet data grows at exponential rates. If Google does not adapt its search engine to the new online world, we will give up using it and with it the companys revenues will decline. The good folk at Google are not daft gosh they have more PhDs per square foot than Oxford I reckon! For a number of years they have adapted their search engine, improved it and spent hours in their laboratories looking at semantic search search which knows exactly what you mean when you type. Consider the kind of problems Google has to face. Just type in the word apple to Google. Seems simple. But Google has to work out do you mean Apple, as in the company, apple, as in the fruit, or Apple as in the girls name. Just which one did you really mean? At the moment, all Google can really do is take an educated guess. For most searches it does a reasonable job but heres the problem:

pulling out the stops to make us aware of Google Plus and want to use it. But their attempts seem more driven by panic than strategy. For instance, Google news is widely regarded as an objective compilation of news from world journalism. It is a brilliant system. Until now. Google has now added photographic bylines to the articles it lists. But those bylines are only produced if the writer is a member of Google Plus. In other words, Google has now added subjectivity to its otherwise brilliant product. The message it is sending out is that the writers of some articles are better than others BECAUSE they are on Google Plus. Not necessarily true, of course. Meanwhile, over in the search team, Google is making search more secure but actually what it is doing is preventing website owners from seeing the keywords that their visitors typed in to get to them. This is crucial information to online businesses, but Google is in the interests of privacy preventing website owners from retrieving such data oh, unless they happen to be using Google advertising products and then it is OK. Call me a cynic, but the much needed move for greater privacy appears to be mere window dressing for a strictly commercial move to get people to spend more money with the company. At the same time as all this is going on, the team at Gmail have upset hoards of people with an iPhone app that was so derided they took it down from the web TWO HOURS after launching it. And there are loads of blog posts and comments all complaining about the new look of Gmail, which appears to make using it really great if you happen to be a PhD engineer in San Francisco. On top of this the company now wants to charge businesses for using Google Maps and it recently closed down the Google News Timeline, which was an essential tool for many academics the world over. Plus if you paid for Google Apps, you couldnt have a Google Profile attached to it yet Google ranks profiles highly for an individuals name. Indeed, when Google was in love with its Buzz product (now dead) it didnt let its paying customers have access to it via Google Apps. And to cap it all, the re-configuration of Google Reader has its fans up in arms because it simply cannot use it the way they always have. Oh and one more thing if you used the Advanced Search on Google you may well have used the plus sign (+) to find words together. That has been part of the advanced search facility of Google for over a decade. They quietly switched it off last week, because they clearly are keen on preserving the plus sign as an indicator for Google +; never mind the fact that millions of searches now wont work. It all looks like Google is in a bit of a state. They are annoying people left, right and centre which is not a good idea when many of those people are finding human search on social media is producing more accurate more rapid results for many categories of questions. Indeed, you only need to ask a question in Quora or LinkedIn these days and youll get an answer pretty quickly. And the answers are often much better and more incisive than the educated guesswork of a bit of mathematics. Clearly, Google can overcome all these difficulties they have the experience, the expertise and the money to be able to do so. But at the moment, the company is rather looking as though it is in a bit of a panic because it realises that the advertising spend is slowly but surely likely to leak out to of Facebook. And we will go with it, as we increasingly rediscover that human search is superior to an algorithm in many instances.

Related articles

Google Updates Algorithm to Provide Fresher Results for 35% of Searches (hubspot.com) Why My Search Engine Use Is Dwindling and Why Yours Will Too (ducttapemarketing.com) Facebook and Semantic Search (arnoldit.com)

Online businesses can learn from Womans Weekly

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/grahamjones/~3/DJF3A_LNBuE/onlinebusinesses-can-learn-from-womans-weekly.html

This week, Womans Weekly magazine is 100 years old. Happy Birthday, old gal. And in spite of the magazine market exploding since the introduction of the 1d (one old penny) magazine, it remains the best performing magazine in the sector, with sales slightly up in a market that has seen an 8% drop. Even at 100, theyve still got it at Womans Weekly it seems. And when you peek inside that first edition reprinted in its entirety this week youll discover that not a lot has changed in the past century. One woman was so incensed that her husband dared to complain about her handling of the household finances, she told him to get on with it himself. Needless to say, he made hash of it. Another contributor made the point that the real reward from her nursing career was seeing people get better. Both of these women are essentially pointing out that there is more to life than money the other rewards and the way they were treated were also significant factors in how they felt. And thats exactly the kind of conclusion you can draw from todays younger generation, according to a study by Cisco. This found that todays young job-seekers consider the internet to be fundamental in any work they do. Indeed, one in three of the participants in the survey say internet access is the same kind of requirement as having water or electricity. The study also showed that many youngsters want unrestricted access to social networking as part of their job. The use of Facebook and the like has become so much part of their way of life, a company that does not allow access is unappealing in terms of career suitability. Indeed, the young people in the Cisco research said the presence or lack of free internet use in the workplace is a game-changer. In other words, businesses that block web sites or
2

restrict access are reducing their appeal to their future workforce significantly. What this Cisco study shows rather like the articles in this weeks Womans Weekly is that people are more interested in other aspects of their working life than they are in the money. It was this way 100 years ago it seems today the other aspects just happen to be internet-related. Studies have already shown that businesses which restrict internet access have lower productivity levels compared with the time when their offices had free web access. Now, it seems, such firms wont even be able to attract people to work for them any more. The Cisco study is a reminder of what those women said 100 years ago money isnt everything. And if your business thinks you can attract the right staff and support simply by paying more, think again; it is not the salary that matters, but the other things which go with the jobs you offer, such as enjoyment, challenge, stimulation and nowadays the unrestricted use of the internet.
Related articles

little world we inhabit. The research showed that the same feeling arises on other apparent communities. Of course they are not true social communities. When you walk in to your local supermarket do you feel amongst friends, people who will stop and help if a problem arises? Unlikely. In the real world we know the difference between an adhoc community of people sharing a shopping trip and a real community, such as your local neighbours. Online, though, social tools give us the same feeling. We appear to think we are in a supportive community when we are just in a group of people logged into the same site. Hardly the same. But because we think we are in a community, we take more risks. Thats because in the real world we do that. Its possible because of the protective nature of a true community. So, online, it seems we think we are in a community, when we are not, and then take risks which we would not do in a similar real world situation. If it all goes belly-up, unlike the Greek citizens, wed get no support from our apparent community it would evaporate. What does this mean for you? It suggests thinking twice about your own online purchases; but it also means that your own website, your own business community could do with some health warnings, to let your customers know you are seeing things from their perspective and considering their decision making processes. In other words, dont fool your website users into believing they have the support of a community when they do not. Papandreous referendum will probably help cement the community feeling within Greece, allowing them to support each other if the economy collapses. Perhaps some web communities could learn a lesson from him providing mechanisms which firm up the community itself, thereby helping people get more online support when problems arise. Are you listening Ebay, Google, and dozens of others?
Related articles

Half Of Young Professionals Value Facebook Access, Smartphone Options Over Salary: Report (fastcompany.com) The Cisco Connection: Cisco study finds young uns need Internet to live (mbcalyn.wordpress.com)

Being social online leads to risky decisions

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/grahamjones/~3/ndsa1h7-4xo/beingsocial-online-leads-to-risky-decisions.html

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou took a risk this week when he announced a referendum on the EU finance deal, which the rest of Europe thought was done and dusted. Greece and financial matters do not appear to be happy bedfellows at the moment. Indeed, a seemingly happy-go-lucky attitude to tax collection has not helped the Greek economy over the years. But it turns out, there but for the grace of any god you care to mention, we could all be in the same position. Heres what happens. When we are all in it together, when we all share a similar experience, we tend to believe that all those around us will help us out when things get tough. You might call this the Dunkirk Spirit; we all pull together when times are bad. So, over in Greece everyone knows they are financially doomed, but they all feel sure that when the chips are down, theyll all help each other. Here in the UK, when the economy has not been what it might have been in recent years, business owners have shared stories of gloom, patted each other on the back and left one another with the feeling that they are not alone. This is all natures way of protecting us. When we face adversity, we can overcome it more easily if we are supported, rather than having to face it alone. So we have in-built mechanisms for creating that support network in advance. Now, though, it seems the protection mechanism inside our heads is not quite ready for the internet age. New research shows we fail to distinguish online between real help and superficial support. The study reveals that we tend to get a feeling we are all in it together on certain websites because they have a seemingly social basis. For instance, when we are logged in to Ebay, we feel we are amongst friends other Ebayers who know and understand the

Online interactions can lead to risky financial decisionmaking (eurekalert.org) Greek leaders referendum bombshell shocks ministers at home and abroad (guardian.co.uk) 9 Sites That Measure Companies Social Responsibility (mashable.com)

Online marketers look like they are fumbling in the dark

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/grahamjones/~3/4n6uKWIrzKU/onlinemarketers-look-like-they-are-fumbling-in-the-dark.html

Marketing staff in many businesses appear to have seen the light and realised that social media is essential in the future of online business. Indeed, according to a study by IBM 82% of Chief Marketing Officers plan to increase their investment in social media in the next few years. Indeed, this was the number one area for investment, the research revealed. Email marketing which consistently has a higher ROI in several studies is the bottom of the list. Social media, meanwhile, is very difficult to measure, yet it is the top of the pops for marketing executives. Perhaps deeper down in the IBM research we discover why there is this seeming discrepancy. According to the study, social media is the main area in which marketing executives report being underprepared. Indeed, 68% of Chief Marketing Officers say they are under-prepared to cope with social media. So, lets get this straight the number one area for which companies are going to invest in for marketing is also one of the most significant areas where they feel lack of knowledge. They already know that email marketing beats web marketing hands down, but they are not going to invest in this as much. Whats going on? Marketers are planning to invest in an area they know least about but not invest in something the know a lot about. Call it what you like mob rule, keeping up with the Joness, staying in-line what we are witnessing here is social acceptance theory. Chief Marketing Officers are committing themselves to social media because they know their bosses would expect them to and because other marketing executives are doing the same. Sheep? Maybe not. If we did another study we may find that part of that investment in social media is in training, learning and support. Perhaps that is why they are not investing so much in email marketing because they already know a lot about it. Whatever the details, there are a couple of things many businesses can learn from this IBM study: 1. Social media is going to become the focus of much business in the coming years. If you dont do it for your business, you will be outside that world of social acceptance customers will not like you as much. 2. Social media requires training, advice, support and education. Get it now and you will do well in the coming years. Avoid it and you could well be fumbling in the dark.
Related articles

Treat your online customers, dont trick them

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/grahamjones/~3/S5FeL37Va5I/treatyour-online-customers-dont-trick-them.html

Sales people up and down the land will be scaring their customers today. Not because it is Halloween, but due to the fact that sales people are taught that people buy because of fear. Nonsense. People do not buy because of fear, no matter what the sales text books tell you. People buy for pleasure. The traditional theory is you find the problem that people are scared of, worried about or fearful of. Then you, as the sales person provide the solution, thereby being the hero who removes the fear. At first sight it does seem to make sense. After all, I could offer you a book on getting more website traffic, for instance. I could sell that to you on the basis that your competitors are getting more traffic, or that you are missing out on traffic or that if you dont get extra traffic you will lose sales. These are all traditional sales hooks find the thing people are most worried about and sell the solution. To writers of sales books, to people who look at sales from a superficial sense, it does indeed work. Yet if you look inside the human brain, it doesnt. When we buy something a couple of parts of our brain appear to be significantly involved the pre-frontal cortex, right behind your forehead and the amygdala, deep within your brain roughly level with your ears. These regions of our brains are associated with emotions. So, what happens when people are frightened? What happens when we scare them or provide them with negatives? Well, the amygdala the emotional connector in our brain simply does not appear to be as important in negative emotions as positive ones. How do we know that? Well, when people have damage to their amygdala, they still experience fear. Current neurological studies appear to suggest that the negative emotions are more linked to the front of our brains, whereas the positive ones get special attention deep inside. And thats an important factor in selling because when we buy something our amygdala appears not to be heavily involved. Recent brain scanning studies show that even though the amygdala is involved in our assessment of fear, it does not get used very much when we are buying something. So why do sales people so heavily believe that fear is a seller? Well, brain studies show that when we are selling something on negative emotions our amygdala gets involved. In other words the sales persons own brain gets fired up on the fear factor, but the buyers brain does not. As the researchers from the University of Southern California state: neural activity occurs in brain regions associated with the processing of fear (here, amygdala activation) when selling a product, whereas no such activity occurs when buying a product during a routine transaction. In other words, sales people get fooled into believing that fear sells, because their brains tell them so.
4

65% of Marketers Dont Track Leads From Social Media [Data] (hubspot.com) CMOs are at the Crossroads of Customer Transactions and Engagement (briansolis.com) Understanding social (marketing.yell.com) media for businesses

But for buyers, what appears to sell is pleasure, not pain. So, rather than scare your online customers today make them happy, make them feel positive, make them experience pleasure. You will sell more.
Related articles

Inside the Science of Fear (abcnews.go.com) How to sell more with your website (without increasing traffic) (marketing.yell.com)