Not on the same page. Ever.

Could Google and Publishers one day understand each other? Frankly, I doubt it. Two weeks ago I was in Hyderabad for the dual assembly of the World Association of Newspapers and the World Editors Forums (1).
There, Google-bashing was the life of the party. As I told in last week’s Monday Note (see The Misdirected Revolt of the Dinosaurs) the climax was the “debate” between WAN’s president Gavin O’Reilly and Google’s top lawyer Dave Drummond. One comes from Alpha Centauri, the other from, say, Pandora. For those who want to get to the bottom of the argument, the publisher’s statement is here and Google’s top lawyer defense is here.

Dave Drummond after his speech (photo FF)

In a nutshell, publishers keep complaining about Google’s relentless copyright violations. Tireless Google robots crawl the internet, indexing and displaying snippets in Google News, without paying a red cent for the content they post. As a result, said Gavin O’Reilly, “Google makes tons of money on our back”.
Dave Drummond’s reply: “We send online news publishers of all types a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than 3 billion additional visits from Search and other Google services. That’s about 100,000 business opportunities – to serve ads or offer subscriptions – every minute. And we don’t charge anything for that!” He added that Google practices were fully compliant with the Fair Use principle.
Fair Use is “A tired rhetoric”, snapped O’Reilly.

At this point the discussion gets technical. And interesting. At stake is this a crucial evolution of copyright, from a binary form (authorized ≠ forbidden) to a more fuzzy concept (use is allowed but restrictions apply). This evolution of copyright is tied to the Creative Commons (coined by Law professor Lawrence Lessig), which define a sort of shape-adjustable notion of intellectual property. More

The misdirected revolt of the dinosaurs

The junkies are rebelling against their dealer. The dope is the traffic, and the dealer is Google. For years, the search giant flooded the market with an ideology built on the early 2000′s, ill-fated, get all eyeballs you can, the rest (i.e. monetization) will take care of itself.
Publishers have invested tons of money, energy and brainpower in order to follow The Google Way: designing sites, structures, pages, even setting editorial rules to gain audience. Any kind of audience, by any means necessary. Legions of Search Engines Optimization (SEO) consultants were enrolled to help implementing the new click-to-Grail.  At the same time, the so-called Search Engine Marketing (SEM) made a lot of expensive noise as media organizations were buying keywords to improve their ranking in search results, some of them spending as much as €100,000 a month in this digital heroin. At some point, for many sites, clicks coming from Google thanks to SEO compliance and aggressive SEM were contributing to 40% or 60% of their entire traffic.

Then, the tide reversed.

Publishers soon realized the Google windfall was not as high as expected. As the search giant kept thriving, their own revenue plummeted. Over the last 12 months, newspapers print and digital advertising revenues have melted: -16% in Western Europe, -19% in Central/ Eastern Europe and -21% in North America.  At the same time, Google is still cruising at a 35% operating margin altitude. The economic crisis and the structural problem of web sites (endless inventories inducing low prices) caused CPM (revenue of an ad per thousand viewers) to drop. This convinced publishers the advertising-based free model wasn’t going to fly. They told themselves that sometime, somehow, readers will have to pay, and that Google, with its all-you-can-eat, free-for-all system, was in fact “doing evil” to they dying business.

That was the backdrop for last week’s 62nd Conference of the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) Congress and for the 16th World Editors Forum (WEF) I attended and spoke at, in Hyderabad, India. More

War in the Valley: Apple vs. Google

It was long overdue: Eric Schmidt (Google’s CEO) finally resigned from Apple’s Board of Directors. Usually, these resignations are handled in the smoothest of ways: Thanks for the distinguished service and the like. This time, Steve Jobs issued a pointed statement: “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest.” Full officialese here.

This is the Valley and its cozy relationships. By which I mean executives and directors sitting on one another’s board, competitors enjoying the same directors, venture firms “sharing” their partners around portfolio companies. For example, besides Eric Schmidt sitting on both Apple’s and Google’s boards, we have Arthur Levinson, head of Genentech, a director of both companies. Or partners at Sequoia (a very successful venture capital firm)
 sitting on boards at YouTube and Google, which might have help a successful “exit”, that is the sale of YouTube to Google.
Back to Apple, there are also lingering allegations of a no-poach agreement, one by which the companies agreed no to hire each other’s workers.
Closer to home: Be, Inc., the operating system company I founded with a few friends from Apple and elsewhere. For a while, one of our investors (and director) also sat on Microsoft’s board. Microsoft executives were investors in his firm and we ended up with Bill Gates (indirectly) owning a piece of Be. Ah well… That was a decade ago, the statute of limitations ran out.
The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), the stock market regulator, has become more aggressive in watching out for companies engaging in collusive behavior through cross-directorships. See here .

Back to Dear Leader’s words: Google enters more of Apple’s core business. More

The Trojan Horse: Web Apps

Web Apps are the future: modern, light, run and updated in the Cloud, they will progressively replace the antiquated, bloated, expensive to buy and manage desktop “client” applications.
So says Google. And walking the talk, they put their Google Apps against the reigning champion of desktop applications: Microsoft Office.
Microsoft never gives up and, as expected, announced a Web-based, a Cloud version of their upcoming Office 2010 along with the classical desktop suite, more feature-rich than ever.

Google Apps are free? Office 2010 on the Web is free. With the advantage of a familiar UI, User Interface, their brand, the desktop version as a fall-back, it would seem Microsoft is staying on top. Google Apps might be free (in most cases) and somewhat fashionable, if only for being “not-Microsoft”, but with the combined desktop and Web versions, Microsoft covers all needs.

Case closed? Not quite. More

Google OS: Chrome-Plated Linux or Microsoft 2.0?

Here’s what I think its taking place:

Microsoft executives and Board members are no dummies: they know Cloud Computing threatens the Windows + Office + Exchange gold mine, the biggest in our industry’s history. They know the future is Office + Exchange running in dual-mode. From the Cloud when a Net connection is available; locally when the Cloud is out of reach. Everything synched back when the connection is restored.
 Imagine Outlook in Cache Mode, just with a browser, without a local client, generalized to all Office applications.
 Their delicate mission, should they choose to accept it, is to move Office and Exchange into the Cloud, into dual-mode applications. The challenge is to get there before Google Apps gain acceptance but without prematurely cannibalizing the existing Office + Exchange profit stream.

On its side, Google wants to protect the search-based advertising gold mine. To do so, they need to hurt Microsoft’s ability to finance a broad-front attack against Google’s core business. That’s why Google wants to offer an alternative to “Office in the Cloud”: with Microsoft no longer able to dictate prices, the Office profit stream would dry up and so would Microsoft’s ability to finance an attack against Google’s core business.

This, I surmise, is the context for last week’s Google Chrome OS announcement — and for a rumored Microsoft event this coming week.

With this in mind, let’s look at Google’s pronunciamento. More

Web video: Microsoft, Adobe or HTML 5?

We have yet another standards battle on our hands — you might say screens, as it concerns Web video. Or we might watch our wallets, as the fight is about who gets the biggest share of the money spent delivering multimedia on our computers, smartphones and, soon, TVs.

My money is on HTML 5, co-opted and promoted by Google and Apple.

First, do we really care about standards? Does it matter that YouTube uses Flash or H.264, that Microsoft is trying to promote Silverlight or that Apple, more prominently, and Google, less vocally, are pushing an open standard called HTML 5?

The answer comes in two parts: we need standards like trains need a single track width across the network, first, and, second, standards are often abused, made into a way to pick pockets.
There is no charge for a train track width standard, but a license fee is required for building cell phones using the CDMA standard. (I won’t go again over well-covered ground, over the history of Windows, Office and Wintel.) The secret, there, is to create critical mass for a way to do something, for said manner to become a standard. Then, you charge for the right to use the method itself or, less directly, for something needed to benefit from it.
For example, if Microsoft manages to make Silverlight a or the Web video/multimedia standard, good things will happen and bad ones will be avoided – from Microsoft’s perspective, that is. More

Android Week

Something to keep our mind off the Wall Street catastrophe. Who knows, we might be on the verge of a “nuclear winter” as the Bush administration wakes up to another consequence of its intellectual shallowness, of its inability to understand that for markets to be really free they need to be regulated with an effective, uncorrupted police to enforce regulations.
So, turning to saner pursuits, this coming Tuesday September 23rd, T-Mobile is slated to announce their first Android phone. What does this mean, how will this impact the smartphone market and the cellular carriers?

Android is the name of the Open Source smartphone OS developed by Google’s engineers. What we think T-Mobile will introduce is a set built by HTC, running the Android OS and applications.  In advance of the launch, T-Mobile appears to be upgrading its network, or parts of it, to 3G connectivity.  In addition, T-Mobile plans an on-line store for Android applications, the rumor being it won’t impose the kind of restrictions Apple is known for.  In other words, T-Mobile welcomes Android developers with open arms.  Predictably, prices, handset and service, will be iPhone-like.  What appears to be not at all iPhone-like is a slide-out keyboard to be used with the screen in landscape mode.
If all of the above is close enough to the upcoming facts, this will add a considerable amount of energy to the already lively smartphone market. Many, yours truly included, are happy to see more competition for the iPhone and his imperious maker.  As I was documenting my iPhone’s numerous crashes, one Apple individual expressed happiness: There was only one “real” OS crash, you see, the rest being processed “killed because they started to use up too much memory.” It’s a relief to know my rudely interrupted Safari browser connections or Maps searches are not real crashes.
But, more competition is a vague phrase. Nokia has been around a long time, Windows Mobile is about 10 years old, RIM (Blackberry) too, to say nothing of Palm, Sony Ericsson and Motorola.  The iPhone has had competition for more than a year, what changes now?
Not the operator situation.  T-Mobile is a good company, with good customer service, they’re part of the big Deutsche Telekom konzern, arguably smaller but more solid than Sprint.  Curiously, neither Verizon nor AT&T, nor Sprint appear to be interested in Android.  Is it because they fear Google will have too much power on them because of the openness of the platform, because it could lead to Android VoIP applications bypassing their network billing system?  T-Mobile, in a challenger position, has no such fear.  On Blackberries, they offer what is known as WiFi Mobile Calling, that is VoIP over WiFi at home or at the office.  In other words, carriers don’t like Google pushing them towards their pre-ordained destiny: becoming wireless ISP.  Verizon talks the Open (that word again) Network talk but doesn’t really walk the walk, that is allowing anyone to bring their handset to their network.  They and Motorola got sued, and had to settle, for removing Bluetooth features allowing too much data exchange between a laptop and a phone.  Such exchange was bad: it reduced billable network traffic.  A bigger threat to the iPhone would be Verizon embracing the Android platform.
What about the product itself?  I’ll get one as soon as possible, I already have a T-Mobile subscription. I suspect the keyboard-based UI will be well received and I’m sure we’ll see good applications on the handset, if only native Google apps, games and utilities.  The technophile is excited, and so is the venture capitalist as Android will help more applications developers make more money, resulting in new opportunities to finance interesting companies.
And there is Google. Not the Android team, some members are ex-accomplices of mine, I admire what they do, but Google the search and advertising and Cloud Computing company.  Will Google help the still very timid smartphone advertising market?  Will a better keyboard enable more mobile applications?  For example, even as a long-time Blackberry user, I would not write this column on it.  And I won’t do it on my iPhone either.  But, will I use Google Docs on the T-Mobile handset because of its (rumored) horizontal keyboard?
Moving to content, will the T-Mobile Android phone run all YouTube videos, will it run a version of Flash?  The iPhone doesn’t, a topic of muddled technical and industry politics debate, Apple and Adobe aren’t working too well together of late.
Still on content, imagine this: Google makes a deal with Amazon and all the Kindle content becomes available on Android phones.  Or, not at first but in a future iteration, the video downloads Amazon sells become available on Android.  And why not start sooner with the music (MP3) files Amazon sells.
You see why I’m curious.  I’m lucky, the T-Mobile office in Palo Alto is about 100 yards away from my office.  –JLG

By the numbers. And what do they mean for our industry

This is the Fall season of business plans for the coming year. The numbers will mean pain for the media industry. Below is a set of facts and figures to keep in mind when considering newspapers, advertising, search, mass collaboration… and coffee.
The newspaper industry’s overall condition
80% gone: Within the last 12 months, the market value of newspapers groups such as Gannett and McClatchy went down by 80% or so. The New York Times lost 70% of its market cap during the same period, closing Friday at $13, lowest in ten years.  Monthly figures are not encouraging either: the New York Times Co.’s revenue (including the International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe) dropped by 10% from a year earlier. Advertising sales are down by 16% and circulation revenue slipped by 0.5%. Classified (jobs, cars, real-estate) are down 30%.  For Gannett and McClatchy, ad revenue losses are accelerating, approaching the -20% zone for the past twelve months basis. Even News Corp has seen its value erased by 40% since Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. (Alan Mutter is tracking those numbers in his blog)
What it means: two things. More newsrooms layoffs, more consolidations.  For the latter, consolidations, the weightiest — and yet quite unlikely – would be the acquisition of the New York Times by Murdoch. As reported by Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair’s latest issue, Murdoch keeps crunching numbers in contemplation of such a move. (One of the assumptions is merging the back-office operations of the Times and the Wall Street Journal). Europe won’t be spared by massive restructurings, not only slashing the editorial meat (the easy way), but also by repositioning newspapers and changing revenue models.
IPhone & mobile browsing
$1million a day. That’s the gross revenue for iPhone applications sold through the AppStore. Apple reported 60 million downloads of applications for the iPhone, just one month after the opening of the AppStore (source: Wall Street Journal, Aug. 11). Apple is getting “only” 30% of this revenue. Still, this market, potentially $1bn a year, didn’t exist three months ago.
+58%. IPhone browsing has increased by 58% from July to August as reported by Market Share (the 3G version was launched July 11).
What it means: the mobile Internet is finally gaining traction. By the end of the year, several competitors (Nokia, RIM-Blackberry, Android) will join the fray with powerful and user-friendly browsers. We foresee another steep increase in mobile browsing after the holiday season. 2009 could be “the” year for mobile browsing.
140 million users of mobile social networks by 2013. According to ABI Research, the next big thing is mobile access to social rings such as Facebook or MySpace. ABI might be right judging by the number of people who got the Facebook app on their iPhone.  The exact number isn’t known but this app received the highest number of reviews of all iPhone apps, more than 2030 reviews, compared to a couple of hundreds for the next one down the list.
What it means: even though social networking has yet to become a channel for news delivery, it is the medium of choice to reach young people. Facebook, MySpace and others are used by:  85% of online and mobile active users from the “Generation Y” (born after 1979);  71% by Gen X (born  between1965-19789); and 59% by Baby-boomers (born between 1946-1964). (Sources: Pew Research and eMarketer)
24.4 million downloads of the ad-blocking plug-in for Firefox, a 10 times increase in one year. It is by far the most popular add-on this browser. This yields only 5,4 million daily users but their number is growing fast and a rate of half million download per day can’t be ignored. (Source:
What it means: sites should think twice before before inundating their home page with invasive and poorly executed advertising. Those are incentives to use to ad-blocking software.
42% of all online ad spending goes to search ads, and the proportion is growing. According to this eMarketer 2008 estimate, display ads spending will remain flat. (In fact, the percentage share will decline, since the overall online ad market is still growing at a healthy 20% in the US).
What it means: keep that in mind if you are in business plan or website redesign mode (make room for Google Ads rather than for big banners).
Search and News
83% of people reading news on the internet use search engines to find stories of interest, even though they land, most of the times (51%), on a news brand they know (small consolation). The proportion was 70% in 2004, it is reaching a new plateau. But the intensity of search engines use is still growing: in 2004, 19% admitted using a SE three times a week; this proportion is now 31%.
What it means: search engine optimization is definitely a “must” investment. No doubt. A good SEO person in an e-newsroom quickly pays for his salary.  As far as Search Engine Marketing (keywords acquisition) is concerned, this is a different story. Some news sites (such as Le Figaro in France) are racking up great ranking thanks to a massive investment in keywords. Viewed from an Excel perspective, it does work — in the short run. But there is still no model showing how a site that relies heavily on keywords purchases actually keeps its audience. It’s dope, you’re high for a short time.
700 to 1000 Google computers are used to execute a single search (when you hit the enter key). In a split second (113 million results for ‘léonard’ in 17 hundreds of a second), a Google-brewed software called Map Reduce slices up your request, distributes it among its million servers and sends back results. Google invests about $2bn a year in datacenters.  For this, the company buys up land across the world on one condition: as traffic grows, it must accommodate a new building within six months.

What it means: theses numbers are just a glimpse at Google’s unparalleled power. The latest iteration of Google’s drive for more power is the new browser Chrome (see Jean-Louis’ column below). But it is not the last. Google wants to index the world, from 32 million books listed in libraries worldwide to your voice-print if you call its phone directory, or street views (readable text included) of your town. Now, Google must be taken into consideration while planning for any information system.
Long tail true stories
90% of Netflix’s catalog (the American DVD rental store) is rented at least once a month. And nearly two-thirds of the movies are rented thanks to a recommendation generated by the site itself.
MSNBC uses a cookie to keep track of the 16 articles recently read and uses automated text analysis to predict what news story you’ll want to read. (Source: Super crunchers by Ian Ayres)
What it means: social recommendation engines and collaborative filtering works. They help revive inventories, movies or news stories. OK, this bruises the charming notion of serendipity. But keep this in mind: a ten-year old newspaper publishing an average of 50 stories a day built a stock of 150.000 articles to dig in.  Next, consider that online papers have between 3 to 5 pages views per visits.  An optimized delivery system for related stories makes a huge difference in revenue.
10 million subscribers for Safaricom, a Kenyan mobile phone operator. Interestingly, when Vodafone bought a stake in this company back in 2000, the first version of the business plan bet on 400,000 users max. It got 25 times more. Among things other than good service and good pricing, Safaricom encouraged new uses such as transferring money. Working with Barclays, Standard Chartered and Oracle, Safaricom created M-Pesa a mobile phone cash-transfer system, now a quasi-bank. Safaricom is a profitable $1bn company (read its CFO interview in Kenya business daily).
What it means: new (big) businesses can emerge  from unexpected applications based on existing platforms.
Wiki dynamics
1.7 minutes. This is the time it takes to see an obscenity removed by the editors of Wikipedia, according to the MIT. Nature magazine took a sample of 42 scientific entries and found 3 inaccuracies in Encyclopedia Britannica and 4 in Wikipedia. One big difference: on Wiki the new, corrected edition, is just minutes away. (Source: Wikinomics,  by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams).
What it means: the idea of full-of-crap wiki systems is dead. Fact is: due to its contributive structure, Wikipedia is a fairly accurate tool. On a purely statistical basis, editors and publishers should not be afraid of setting up Wiki-information systems for news-related topics. Today’s reluctance lies in our culture, not in the cost column: Wikipedia has only five full time employees.
Water consumption
840 liters of water to produce this article. That’s about the eco-footprint of the six cups of coffee I drank writing this note. Each 125ml cup required 140 liters of water to grow and process the beans. Stunning, isn’t it? And that’s nothing compared to 16.000 liters (yep, sixteen tons of water) to produce one single kilogram of beef. By comparison, the computer industry is downright frugal with only 32 liters to produce a 2gr microchip. How does it relate to the news business. Uh, it doesn’t. ( –FF

Google Chrome: a new OS War

Not browser, OS.  More about that in a moment.
But, first, our kind, venture capitalists, loves disruption. When the established companies take too much room on the Petri dish, there is no way for a new bacterium to prosper.  When a Microsoft dominates a market, to pick a random example, launching a competitor becomes prohibitively expensive.  We love to see the economy move to virgin territories or to watch technology (or the law) weaken dominant players.
So, what’s not to like about Google’s new browser possibly weakening Microsoft’s position?  Possibly again, we could be trading one Microsoft for a new one, Google, for another black hole of a company sucking in all the business models coming into its orbit.

With this out of the way, let’s take a closer look at Chrome.
f you have the time and inclination, you might want to read Steven Levy’s story in Wired, or CNET’s shorter but insightful article, Why Google Chrome?  Fast browsing = $$$$.  I also like Niall Kennedy’s blog post: The story behind Google Chrome and, lastly, a refutation of the unavoidable conspiracy theories: When does Google Chrome talks to As I write this, a Google Chrome search returns close to 13 million results…

Back to the OS question. As early as 1994, Marc Andreesen, of Netscape fame, said The browser is the OS.  Many, yours truly included, thought the statement was both technically flawed and self-serving: Marc was one of the authors of the Navigator browser.  In 2008, Sergey Brin repeats the mantra.  Like Marc, he’s technically wrong but existentially correct in the most important of ways, the ways of business wars.  Like Marc, Sergey knows the role, the power, the weight of the (now) underlying OS.  The operating system juggles tasks, manages hardware and software resources such as memory and input/output devices.  With processors executing one instruction at any given instant, the operating system manages the illusion of many concurrent activities, downloading videos, getting email, Instant Messaging, playing music and getting pictures out of a digital camera.  For the applications programmer, the OS is the genie right under the water’s surface.  Wherever the coder sets foot, the genie is right under there, making sure the techie walks on water.

And, ask Microsoft, not if the OS matters, but what happens when OS trouble happens, when Vista misfires.
But Mark and Sergey are right, we have entered a new era, Cloud Computing and yet, the lessons of the desktop age are not forgotten. Going back to the application programmer’s feet staying dry, Microsoft played and won the game of tying the OS and the applications.  Windows programmers make sure Microsoft Office programmers have what they need.  Sometimes, this happens at the expense of competitors who can’t always have access to the same technical information, either at all, or in a timely fashion.  At the very start of the Internet era, Microsoft sees what they need to do, again, tie the browser and the OS.  This gives Microsoft control of Internet applications because these need to comply with the dominant browser from the dominant OS and office applications supplier.  Internet Explorer, free and tied, kills Netscape Navigator.  Microsoft spends time and money in various courts around the world but appears to have won that battle.
But, in September 1998, Google starts and quickly rises to its dominant position in search and advertising. In parallel, a non-profit foundation, Mozilla, resurrects Navigator as the Open Source Firefox browser.  Most of us like Firefox: free, good and getting better with every version, available on Windows, Linux and Macs.  Not tied to Microsoft or Apple.  In our happiness, we paid little attention to Mozilla’s ties to Google, financial ties, millions of dollars, $66.8 millions in 2006, to be exact.  A 26 percent increase over 2006, with little reason to think the progression stopped in 2007.  That revenue is mostly referral money generated each time we use the Google search box in Firefox.  In other words, Google cleverly financed a Microsoft (Explorer) and Apple (Safari) competitor.  A successful one: recent browser statistics credit Firefox with 43.7% share versus Explorer versions totaling 50.6%.  Too successful, perhaps.  Assuming more than $80 millions paid to Mozilla for “traffic acquisition costs”, a fraction of that easily pays for the engineers and parasites needed to write decent browser code.  That would be a make vs. buy argument.  And that would be the wrong one.
Google’s decision to ‘roll its own’ is based on the strategic requirement to provide its Cloud Computing applications with their own, controlled, under the water genie. Cynics will say Google is playing the Microsoft game of exacting monopoly profits by tying the new OS, the browser, with the new era applications.  But, there are several twists to that analogy.
First, Chrome is an Open Source browser. Anyone can inspect and use the code for their own work.  In the first place, Chrome is based on the Open Source Webkit also used by Apple’s Safari.  One significant improvement brought by Chrome is the V8 Javascript rendering engine.  Anyone can take the code and use it in their own work – as long as the Open Source licensing is enforced.  Will this cause Apple or Microsoft to Open Source their browsers?
Second, focusing on Javascript, Google makes another strategic decision, a good one in my view. Over time, browsers have become more complex as they need to deliver richer, livelier applications ranging from spreadsheets to games, from video to music or PDF documents.  Adobe now promotes a platform called AIR, working ‘above’ all desktop OS and purporting to be the engine of choice to deliver ‘Rich Internet Applications’, their words for Cloud Computing.
Not to be left behind, Microsoft comes up with their own ‘cross-platform platform’, Silverlight for the same new era target. There’s even a third-party Silverlight version for Linux being developed, with some difficulties, by a Linux advocate no less.  Why would Novell’s VP of Engineering, Miguel de Icaza help Microsoft?  I forgot, Microsoft just bought another $100 million of Linux ‘support vouchers’ from Novell.
Now, if you are Google, will you let Adobe or Microsoft design and constantly modify the genie under the water for your Cloud Computing applications?  Not if you want to control your destiny, not if that destiny is to ‘lead’, to stay Number One.
Javascript’s it is and we have our own V8 engine for it.
Today’s beta version looks good to some, and is panned by others. As the new fashion of perpetual betas dictates, see Gmail, we can expect a steady stream of improvements.  More interesting will be watching if and how Google plays the tying game, how it uses Chrome to give its email or photo editing programs features not available on other browsers or speed they can’t match.  And if, how Google one day manages to make money with these applications, the old fashion way, by charging real money for their use.  We VC would like to see that.  For us, ‘free’ is a four-letter word. — JLG

The perspectives of the two Lévys

Maurice Levy, 66, is chairman and CEO of Publicis, n°3 advertising group in the world. His son, Alain Levy, 45, is the CEO of Weborama, one of the leaders of Internet analytics in Europe. Two generations, two different vantage points on the changing advertising market, confronted in this interview by Le Monde (full text in French below).

Here are their respective takes on various subjects:

On the ad sector in general. Maurice (Publicis): “Our response time [to the tech challenges] are way too long. We need to speed up. The inflexion point for our companies is now”.

On the shift in ad spending. Maurice: “Print and TV has far from dead. Today, they account for 92% in ad spending. In 2010, it will be 88% but the share of the Internet will have grown twofold”. Alain (Weborama): “OK, TV will remain dominant, but it will become digital and will eventually allow all what is currently done with the Internet — interaction, targeting…”

The difficulties of Print media Maurice: “The print media must take advantage of two assets: their brand and their ability to select, process the information”. Alain: “Yeah, but today the so-called digital natives have zero loyalty toward content brands”.

The strategies to implement Alain: “One of the key questions is the relationship the big players will have with different technologies. Should they own them?” (Background: Alain Levy is adamantly warning against the domination by Google as he said in the issue #27 of the Monday Note). Pragmatic as usual, Maurice has chosen his camp: “In the interest of its clients, Publicis has decided to make a deal with Google and to work with it”.

Family lunches must me animated between Maurice and Alain Levy.


Pub, médias, Internet : le grand chambardement

© LE MONDE | 21.06.08 | 15h07 • Mis à jour le 21.06.08 | 15h07

Maurice Lévy est président du groupe Publicis, Alain Lévy est président de StartUp Avenue et de Weborama. Les deux générations que la “numérisation” a rapprochés confrontent leurs analyses.

Maurice Lévy, comment la publicité et les médias vont-ils évoluer dans un monde où les innovations se succèdent à toute vitesse ?
Maurice Lévy : Face aux technologies nouvelles, nos temps de réponse sont trop longs. Il faut accélérer. Nos sociétés sont à un point d’inflexion. Songez au temps que passent les internautes à s’informer, à se documenter, à se former, à travailler, à se distraire et à établir des relations entre eux : tout cela prend le pas sur les autres moyens de communication. Cela modifie les comportements, les attentes. Par exemple, les gens pensent que l’information doit être gratuite, que la musique est une marchandise. Il y a quantité de services qu’ils n’acceptent plus de payer. La vitesse des changements est telle que les schémas anciens de communication sont périmés. L’idée de faire une grande campagne de publicité à la télévision, avec des relais dans d’autres médias, est un schéma qui appartient au pasVous, Alain Lévy, vous créez des technologies dont se servent les publicitaires sur Internet. De quoi s’agit-il ?

Alain Lévy : D’un ensemble de techniques de connaissance des comportements des internautes qu’on appelle les Web analytics. Mon entreprise, Weborama, conçoit des outils qui sont placés sur les sites pour compter leur nombre de visiteurs, et d’autres qu’on place sur le navigateur de l’internaute (des “cookies”), et qui analysent sa navigation. Pour les annonceurs, l’intérêt est grand. Quand une publicité s’affiche, on sait si l’internaute a cliqué dessus, si ensuite il a acheté, combien il a dépensé. Ce qui permet d’évaluer l’efficacité des campagnes.

M. L. : Ces nouvelles possibilités ne signifient pas que la télévision ou la presse sont caduques. Celles-ci ont encore leur place, et une place prépondérante puisque aujourd’hui, ce sont 92 % des investissements publicitaires qui vont dans ce domaine. Demain, en 2010, ce sera encore 88 %, mais entretemps la part du Web aura doublé.

A. L. : La télévision restera prépondérante, mais elle sera numérique. Cela veut dire que tout ce qu’on peut faire sur Internet, on pourra le faire avec la télévision. Des campagnes ciblées, interactives…

Et la presse écrite ?

M. L. : Je considère que la presse joue un rôle essentiel comme ferment de nos démocraties. L’essor du Net lui pose un problème parce qu’une partie de la publicité bascule vers ces nouveaux médias. La presse est plus lourde sur le plan publicitaire : les espaces sont figés. Il n’y a ni mouvement, ni son, ni musique. C’est donc un mode d’expression assez limité pour les annonceurs. Résultat, ils coupent le plus facilement les budgets des journaux.

La presse possède deux avantages, qu’elle exploite plus ou moins bien. Le premier, c’est une marque. Dans l’univers Internet, il est plus facile de s’orienter quand on connaît le nom du site, par exemple Le second avantage, c’est que la presse a une maîtrise de l’information : elle sait la sélectionner, la traiter, la hiérarchiser. Elle doit tirer parti de cet atout face au foisonnement des messages. Mais le temps presse, si j’ose dire.

A. L. : Au risque d’être politiquement incorrect, je crois que les carottes ne sont pas loin d’être cuites. La mutation des médias classiques vers le numérique prendra du temps, et, pour la recherche d’information, Google est en train de rafler la mise. Les générations dites “natives”, qui sont nées avec Internet, ont zéro fidélité envers des marques de contenu. En revanche, elles ont besoin d’avoir tout de suite ce qu’elles veulent, et pas beaucoup plus. C’est un devoir d’éducation de leur transmettre l’idée qu’on peut aller plus loin que l’info brute. Moi, quand je lis une information sur le Net, il m’arrive d’avoir un doute et de vérifier dans les journaux. Mais j’appartiens à la dernière génération qui a ce réflexe. Les suivantes seront celles du tout-numérique.

M. L. : Les marques de journaux qui sauront faire la mutation vers le Net sont celles qui vont gagner. C’est déjà ce qui se passe aux Etats-Unis. Le New York Times, le Wall Street Journal abandonnent de plus en plus les espaces payants pour profiter de la fréquentation de leurs sites, et valoriser leur audience. Cela me fait dire qu’il y a un avenir pour la presse, mais plus le même, et plus seulement sur papier.

Et pour le secteur de la publicité, quelle doit être la stratégie ?

A. L. : La vraie question est de savoir quelle relation les grands acteurs de l’Internet entretiennent avec la technologie : doivent-ils la posséder, maîtriser l’ensemble des outils, ou au contraire laisser des entreprises nouvelles se mesurer aux très grands ? Google, il faut lui reconnaître ce mérite, a inventé le modèle économique de l’Internet. C’est grâce à lui qu’une page vue égale des euros, alors qu’avant elle valait zéro. Mais nous sommes entrés dans une nouvelle ère depuis que la Commission européenne a autorisé le rachat par Google de DoubleClick, le leader mondial de la publicité en ligne. Sa prédominance devient sans partage…

M. L. : Google est imbattable sur la recherche des mots, le “search“. DoubleClick a la maîtrise des bannières. La conjonction des deux donne une force considérable. Publicis a donc jugé bon, dans l’intérêt de ses clients, de parvenir à un accord avec Google et de travailler avec lui.

A. L. : J’ai un point de vue différent. La puissance de Google est fondée sur une technologie très efficace, une capacité à accumuler et à analyser des données inégalée jusque-là. Cela lui donne les moyens d’acheter tout ce qui bouge. C’est une espèce de grande faucheuse qui attaque tous les acteurs, tous les médias : les télécoms, la publicité, la communication numérique au sens large. C’est ainsi que Google, le symbole de l’hyperconcurrence des marchés, finit par tuer toute concurrence.

Comment les métiers de la pub vont-ils évoluer avec les nouvelles technologies ?

M. L. : C’est le point essentiel. Quand on fait une campagne à la télévision ou dans la presse, on lance les ordres, on attend, et à la fin de la campagne, on mesure les effets et on ajuste le tir pour la vague d’après. Et on recommence le cycle de manière indéfinie…

A. L. : Désormais, on peut faire la même chose en temps réel. Dès qu’il y a un clic, il s’imprime sur l’écran. Pour un annonceur, cet outil est grisant : un clic, et le chiffre d’affaires s’implémente. On n’a pas besoin d’attendre le verdict des hommes de l’art. C’est là que mon père et moi avons un désaccord. Je pense qu’à terme les plus gros annonceurs vont vouloir maîtriser tout ce processus. Du coup, le métier de l’agence va se retrouver cantonné à l’aspect créatif, qui sera d’ailleurs très important puisque nous allons vers un modèle : une personne, un comportement, une “créa”. La technologie va s’en mêler, donc Google va entrer sur ce marché.

M. L. : C’est ignorer comment Google fonctionne. Son rendement vient du fait que tout est automatisé. Il met beaucoup d’ingénieurs, un déploiement d’intelligence considérable pour développer un outil. Mais, une fois que l’outil est au point, c’est terminé, il fonctionne avec très peu de main-d’oeuvre. Dans la communication, on met très peu de gens pour penser les outils, et on en met énormément pour penser les besoins spécifiques de chaque annonceur. Les deux modèles économiques sont à l’opposé l’un de l’autre.

Quelles sont les prochaines étapes de la “numérisation” généralisée ?

A. L. : On ne connaîtra pas seulement le consommateur à travers son ordinateur. On le suivra dans la vraie vie. C’est ce sur quoi travaille une autre société que j’ai aidée à démarrer, Majority Report. Elle fait la même chose que Weborama, mais dans la réalité : analyser les trajectoires, comprendre les comportements des clients sur le lieu de vente. Les technologies du Net vont rayonner dans notre univers, et pas seulement dans les médias. Par exemple, on pourra compter exactement le nombre de personnes dans une manifestation.

Ce tout-numérique, qu’implique-t-il pour notre société ?

A. L. : C’est une vraie question. Moi, comme utilisateur, que suis-je prêt à tolérer ? Que suis-je prêt à donner comme informations sur ma vie ? Le terme “tracking”, qui désigne le suivi statistique des comportements sur Internet, signifie “suivre à la trace”, c’est assez épouvantable. La Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), en France, veille à ça, mais elle a un peu de mal à appréhender tout ce qui se passe. Chez Weborama, en tout cas, nous veillons à n’avoir aucune donnée qui permette de relier notre analyse d’un comportement à un individu. Ce sera un enjeu majeur dans les années qui viennent. Le consommateur est de plus en plus conscient de l’exploitation des traces qu’il laisse. On touche à la liberté ?

M. L. : C’est vrai que nous entrons dans le monde de Big Brother, et qu’il existe des moyens d’établir une traçabilité des comportements. On peut savoir à partir des technologies du GPS où se trouvent les gens grâce à leur téléphone portable, on peut suivre leur voiture, savoir où ils vont, ce qu’ils achètent, ce que sont leurs échanges de communication. Nous sommes dans une société de communication qui peut mettre en danger les libertés publiques et la vie privée.

Sous l’aspect publicitaire, il y a un autre danger, qui est celui de l’intrusion. Par exemple, vous visitez un site automobile, le publicitaire peut intervenir et vous faire une offre plus intéressante. Chez Publicis, nous résistons à cela parce qu’il s’agit vraiment d’une intrusion. Nous pensons que les gens n’accepteront pas qu’on regarde ce qu’ils font par-dessus leur épaule.

Propos recueillis par Sophie Gherardi