Web

Norton’s “Online Living Report” Gives Us the Latest Trends in Adults’ and Kids’ Online Behaviors

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With the constantly changing online world, it’s always helpful when a new survey comes along that give us the latest reading of just what’s going on with online behavior.

Harris Interactive has just conducted its second survey of online users for Norton® Symantec. The survey was taken across 12 countries, including the U.S., five European nations, plus Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan and Brazil. The total number of people taking the 15-minute online survey was very large: nearly 6,500 adults plus ~1,300 kids age 8 to 17. That’s close to double the number of respondents who participated in Harris Interactive’s first such research project conducted in 2007 — and it gives us some very good data to chew on.

The Harris survey, published as the Norton Online Living Report, found that the average number of hours spent online per month for adults was ~89 hours. That’s well more than three full days in a month. But a look at the numbers found in some of the countries surveyed shows dramatically different results:

 China: 141 hours spent online per month on average
 Brazil: 119 hours
 India: 87 hours
 Japan: 85 hours
 United States: 56 hours
 Canada: 46 hours

No doubt, these figures will challenge the perceptions of some who have thought that citizens in the developed world are more “wired” than those in the developing nations. Could it be that there are fewer exciting alternative activities competing for consumers’ time and attention in China or Brazil?

As for kids’ online activities, one very interesting finding from Harris is that American and British youth report being online twice as long as their parents think they’re online:

 U.S. kids report being online 42 hours per month, versus 18 hours their parents estimate they’re spending online.

 U.K. youths report being online 44 hours per month, versus 19 hours their parents estimate.

Clearly, the age-old disconnect between parents’ perception and kids actual behavior is alive and well – and hasn’t changed at all in the Internet age!

What’s more, even with parents’ wildly inaccurate estimate of the time their kids are online, nearly three-fourths of U.S. and Canadian parents believe their children are spending too much time at the computer. So the perception-versus-reality gulf is even more stark.

[The only country where a clear minority of parents feel this way is Japan, at ~30%.]

Basically, when it comes to their children, the Harris survey quantifies what any parent already knows: for the kids, it’s online all the way. Consider these stats that Harris Interactive gleaned from surveying U.S. children:

 American kids have an average of nearly 85 online friends – the highest among all 12 countries surveyed.

 They “out-text” the rest of the world, too – with U.S. kids spending upwards of 10 hours per week texting compared to ~4 hours for kids elsewhere.

And yet … it appears that the kids themselves have an inkling there are healthy limits that should be placed on the “online, all the time” experience. Half of the American youths surveyed agree that “instant messaging and texting make learning to write more difficult.”

Anyone who has frustratingly received e-mail messages from their children in college … with nary a capitalized letter or punctuation mark to be found in them … will surely identify with this last bit!

It’s official: Clickthrough advertising effectiveness on mobile devices is somewhere south of atrocious.

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As usage of the Internet on mobile devices like the Apple iPhone has become more prevalent, many businesses have been wondering how important it is for them to cater to these users through the creation of web sites that are optimized for mobile display.

Although creating a mobile version of a web site doesn’t have to be a major undertaking, it is “yet another task” to add to the marketer’s never-ending to-do list. So, just how important is it?

Chitika, Inc., a Massachusetts-based online advertising network, has analyzed the behaviors of “mobilists” and found some interesting results when it comes to their viewing of advertising and taking action. In tracking more than 92 million ad impressions served up by browsers, it turns out that mobile internet users clicked through at a far lower rate than those viewing ads on desktop machines.

How much lower? The overall clickthrough rate for mobilists was 0.48%, compared to a clickthrough rate of 0.84% for non-mobile users. That’s a serious difference, and gets about as far in the basement as you can go.

But why are the numbers so abysmal? More than likely, several factors are at work. First, consider the ways people use their mobile devices. It’s usually because they want to know something immediately … and it’s at times like those that folks are less inclined to get sidetracked by clicking on advertising links. By contrast, the “immediacy” factor with non-mobile devices often isn’t as acute.

Also, consider the load time on mobile devices – rather much slower. For that reason, mobile web content tends to be less informationally rich — or compelling in its appearance — thus decreasing its “stopping” power.

What this means for advertisers is that the key for succeeding in the mobile space is catching consumers at just the right time, not happening to catch them at any time. Easy enough in theory … but would anyone care to volunteer for putting this into practice? Best of luck to you.

From the perspective of the media purveyors, the Chitika findings certainly won’t make their task of attracting additional advertising revenues in the mobile sector any easier. Perhaps that’s why The Wall Street Journal announced last week that, beginning in November, it will be charging mobile users a weekly fee to access its content on mobile devices – and those fees will be charged to WSJ subscribers and non-subscribers both.

It’s further proof that relying on display advertising revenue simply isn’t cutting it as a practical business model in the mobile environment.

The Broad and the Beautiful

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It took awhile, but access to faster Internet service is finally beginning to even out across all geographic regions of the United States.

A new study on broadband growth conducted by comScore, Inc., a digital marketing intelligence firm, finds big gains for broadband in rural areas. As of the end of 2nd Quarter 2009, an estimated 75% of rural households with Internet access now have broadband service. (Rural markets are defined as those having less than 10,000 population).

Two years ago, comScore counted only 59% of rural households connected to the Internet having broadband service.

Not surprisingly, large metropolitan areas with populations over 50,000 have higher broadband penetration (92% of Internet households), but this percentage is up only a couple points in the past year.

Who’s providing these broadband services? A just released study by Leichtman Research Group found that 19 service providers account for well over 90% of the U.S. market – the largest among them being Comcast and Time Warner for cable … and AT&T and Verizon for telephone.

Indeed, some metro markets are beginning to approach broadband saturation. For instance, in the New York metropolitan area comScore finds 96% of all Internet households are using broadband. It’s 92% in Chicagoland, and nearly 90% in Philadelphia and San Francisco-Oakland-San José.

The Internet broadband penetration for the country as a whole — at nearly 70 million households now — is estimated to be over 85%, meaning that rural areas are still relatively under-served. But the differential is shrinking quickly. Chalk up yet another instance where regional differences are disappearing – thus making rural markets more attractive not just to consumers, but also for rural-based businesses and for companies that rely on far-flung employees who telecommute from home.

It makes saving money on gasoline and avoiding rush-hour traffic snarls more attractive than ever!

Rupert Murdoch’s “Paid Content” Gamble

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rupert MurdochMedia mogul Rupert Murdoch’s pronouncement last week that beginning in July 2010, online content for all of his news media properties will be available for a fee – not for free – has surprised many in the industry.

“Quality journalism is not cheap,” Murdoch declared. His announcement comes hard on the heels of his massive media conglomerate News Corporation reporting a ~$3.4 billion loss for the last fiscal year.

While admiring Mr. Murdoch’s brave stance and willingness to get out in front of an issue that has bedeviled the newspaper industry for the past four or five years, one is left wondering if he’s playing the role of Don Quixote rather than Richard the Lionheart in this drama.

For sure, the pay-per-view business model looks great to any publishing company that has seen the advertising-driven business model come under so much stress and strain in recent years. And The Wall Street Journal, one of Murdoch’s properties, has been able to charge a fee for online access in a practice that dates back prior to that publication’s acquisition by News Corporation.

So what will happen in this glorious experiment? Will legions of newshounds flock to the various Murdoch sites – The Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Australian, New York Post – and plunk down pay-per-view dollars or a monthly access fee for the privilege of reading the latest news bits?

Or will people rely on the many other (free) outlets for news, while also receiving and passing along “copy-and-paste” materials over the web — an effortless task that can be completed in mere seconds?

[And good luck trying to use legal means to prevent the dissemination of copyrighted material; the litigation costs could well outstrip any compensation dollars awarded, while being a major distraction inside the company and causing a PR kerfuffle outside.]

That giant sucking sound you hear could be the hordes of cyber-visitors heading on over to CNN, USA Today and other free news sites, whose traffic volume will spike and perhaps even bring in additional advertising revenues off the extra hits. Would these and other free, advertising-driven media properties like to find ways to increase revenues? Sure. But most of them would prefer to be #3 or #4 to take the leap on paid content – not a high-risk first or second.

There will always be some people willing to pay for premium content. But let’s face it; most news isn’t “premium.” It’s a commodity – and its dissemination is helped along by hundreds or thousands of people copying and forwarding articles and and/or links via e-mail, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook … you name it.

Rupert Murdoch has a history of being pretty savvy when it comes to the news business. And certainly he has the power and the resources to undertake this new effort.

But his naiveté may be showing on this one. He is, after all, nearly 80 years old and notoriously online-illiterate himself. And while the saying goes that “knowledge is power” … “power without knowledge” isn’t usually a good recipe for success.

More Action on the Search Engine Front

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bing logo designWolfram Alpha logoDespite the fact that Google has proven itself to be all but immune from threats posed by competing search engines, hope springs eternal. Within the past couple weeks alone, two new challengers have emerged, accompanied by much fanfare in the business press.

Microsoft takes yet another swipe at Google with its new Bing search engine. Based on an earlier one called “Kumo,” some industry observers — though not all — believe it is a pretty good competitor. Reviewers are particularly pleased with the presentation of refined versions of search queries. Bing also features a rollover display of each link’s content, allowing you to see how useful it will be before clicking through to the site.

The search engine also appears to index more recent “breaking news” items, whereas with Google, those results are not shown unless you click through to Google News — an extra step.

The big question is whether Bing will be able to wean web users away from their habit of searching on Google as their default choice. Certainly, Microsoft is putting some serious promotional dollars behind the launch — upwards of $100 million according to Advertising Age magazine. But based on the tea leaves, a wholesale change in search behavior seems unlikely. Search habits aren’t going to change dramatically unless there is a dramatic improvement in the effectiveness and speed of search activity. Fom what we see of Bing so far, we’re talking about improvements nibbling around on the margin rather than big sweeping change.

But “big sweeping change” just might be the recipe for Wolfram/Alpha, the other new entrant in the search engine sweepstakes. That’s because W/A isn’t actually a search engine in the classsic sense. Instead, its developers refer to it as a “computational knowledge engine” that uses complex algorithms to search databases to come up with answers to questions, rather than presenting a list of sources where the answer might be found. It can report some really cool factual results just based on the user typing in, for example, a date range, several city names, or an animal species.

The key difference between Wolfram/Alpha and Google is that W/A does not index web pages. Instead, it draws answers from a wide range of information-packed databases. So if you want to know the number and magnitude of hurricanes hitting North America in the past 15 years, you’ll get a specific answer rather than being presented with a series of web links wherein you might find the answer to be hiding.

Some observers see the potential for W/A and Google to team up rather than compete against one another. After all, what they do isn’t directly competitive, but in more respects complementary. And in an interesting twist, it turns out that Stephen Wolfram, the ~50-year-old computer scientist and developer who created the software platform upon which W/A is based (called “Mathematica”), once supervised a summer intern by the name of Sergey Brin — who would go on to develop Google with partner Larry Page.

Sergey and Stephen teaming up once again would be quite the coincidence … or would it really?

Is “Pay to Play” the Future of the Web?

Phillip Nones Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More than a few feathers were ruffled by Kodak’s announcement that the multiple millions of users of the company’s Kodak Gallery online photo-storage service may have their photos subject to deletion if they don’t begin paying an annual service charge ranging from $5 to $20.

Is this the beginning of a trend? Some web observers seem to think so. David Lazarus, in his recent Los Angeles Times business column, draws a parallel to automated teller machines that were introduced by the banking industry back in the late 1970s. At first, there were no service charges assessed when using ATMs. The banks wanted their customers to start using ATMs, thus helping to reduce the demand for more labor-intensive (read: expensive) teller stations.

Then, after a number of years of free service the banks began charging ATM service fees for out-of-network transactions and even some in-network ones. The idea was now that consumers had become comfortable with the technology and the “24/7/365” convenience of the machines, they would accept the fees without resistance.

“Why should the Internet be any different,” Mr. Lazarus asks?

I think the comparason isn’t totally apt. It’s true that there is a cost for Kodak or others to maintain the infrastructure (hardware and software) to provide archiving and other web-based services. But the fact is, those costs are not nearly as high as the “brick-and-mortar” expense of building an ATM system.

What’s more, the banks were in a stronger position to move en masse toward charging fees. After all, they operate under a government-issued charters. The barriers to entry – both regulatory and financial – are far more onerous than anything in cyberspace.

Anyone ever heard of Flickr?

And that’s the real challenge today. Who is going to be the first to jump into the fee-based waters? And will anyone else follow? Put it another way: will others follow the leader … only to find themselves drowning in a sea of new, free alternatives that spring up in response?

Just ask the newspaper industry how simple it is to successfully implement fee-based services on the web. There’s your answer as to how easy “pay to play” will be to implement.