Category Archives: Internet

Demo Day for MAP’s Class of 2013 Startups

Posted on by
Reply

The Melbourne Accelerator Program (MAP) supported by University of Melbourne’s School of Engineering and Faculty of Business and Economics is only in its second year, but already shows signs of becoming a leading incubator of new and emerging entrepreneurial talent in the burgeoning Melbourne startup community.

Last week was Demo Day (a.k.a. pitch night) for the 6 successful teams who were selected from over 50 applications submitted for the 2013 program. Presenting to an audience of fellow entrepreneurs, potential investors, program mentors and “interlopers” (a term used by Dr Charlie Day in his introduction), each team was invited to present the fruits of their labours from the 3-month accelerator program.

To kick things off, there was a quick update on the Class of 2012, including the team behind the new Omny audio app, which offers curated audio content.

From the Class of 2013, first up was 2Mar Robotics, who are developing a remote-controlled robotic arm, aimed at helping people with quadriplegia or with restricted arm movement and control. An earlier, voice-operated prototype proved unstable due to interference from background noise, but the team, led by Young Australian of the Year 2012, Marita Cheng (and founder of Robogals) have already secured a number of pre-orders for the latest version, which they hope to ship in early 2014. While it is understandable that the team would want to keep key commercial aspects of their project confidential, the less-than-open responses to audience questions about product costs and market pricing created the impression that the team are still developing their business case.

The next project, also healthcare-related, was from Cortera Neurotechnologies, who specialise in remote monitoring sensors for epilepsy patients. The team’s goal, using highly developed neural interface technology, is to significantly reduce the risk of infection caused by major invasive surgery for the 30% of epilepsy sufferers who are unable to take medication. Despite some theoretical discourse and good-natured banter with the audience about cyborgs and mind control interfaces, the team (which is divided between Melbourne Uni and UC Berkeley) is well on its way to securing prototype funding.

Client Catalyst offers digital marketing services for SMEs, via mobile websites and integrated search solutions. Given that nearly half of all mobile searches are for local services, the solution has targeted the trade vertical (plumbers, builders, electricians, etc.) which accounts for about 25% of the SME market. Claiming much lower customer acquisition costs for their clients (compared to traditional classified directories), and a very high client conversion rate, the team has established a solid subscription business that more than covers their primary input cost of paid search terms.

By using highly intuitive data visualisation and enhanced search, the team behind The Price Geek claim to have established a major competitive edge over other price comparison sites, in their bid to help you “find out the market price for anything” (although currently, it really only covers tech devices, sneakers, and Tiger Woods memorabilia…). They have built affiliate programs with multiple merchants, giving them more market sources, more contributed content, and more data analytics. The site has already picked up some strong media coverage, and in future, The Price Geek plans to offer price comparison for cars.

Before commenting on Ebla, a self-publishing platform for lawyers, I should declare an interest: I previously worked for the legal information division of Thomson Reuters, including the Westlaw online service. So, IMHO, anyone who is attempting to bring a new technology solution to informed legal commentary and analysis deserves a lot of credit, especially if, as intended, the service empowers individual lawyers to showcase their expertise in a collaborative and adductive environment. Contrary to some popular misconception, the legal profession (along with financial services) was one of the first industries to embrace the digital age*. Yet consider this: the sheer volume of legislation, case-law and commentary; the complexity of the material and its many idiosyncrasies (e.g., case citation systems); the proprietary nature of much document drafting; and the “knowledge is power” approach to researching obscure precedents before facing your opponent in court – all these factors tend to work against the notion of knowledge sharing and collaboration among lawyers. (I have heard of some law firms that embed deliberate mistakes in their commercial drafting templates, to deter plagiarism by their competitors if the originals were to fall into the wrong hands.) Access to the site, which is still in Beta, is by invitation only, and will offer a freemium subscription model.

The last team to present was SwatchMate, with a Bluetooth-enabled reader that helps users to “capture the color of any surface” (or “Shazam for color”). I have to say that when I first saw this team present at a Lean Startup Melbourne event earlier this year, I was somewhat sceptical about the product, as they seemed to be focussing on the paint market (both trade and DIY customers), yet didn’t appear to realise that most people only paint their home once every 5-7 years. However, I am pleased to report that SwatchMate have since lifted their game, by identifying strong opportunities among designers and creatives, brand managers, the cosmetics industry, and even TV and monitor calibration. With linkages to major design software, as well as to leading colour and paint catalogues, SwatchMate will offer an integrated solution once they go into production. Meanwhile, they are planning to launch on Kickstarter, and are a finalist at next week’s Melbourne Design Awards (plus shortlisted for the Sydney and Brisbane Design Awards)**.

Applications for MAP 2014 close on April 24, and there are also opportunities to participate as a mentor (full details not yet available).

* Lawyers love their technology: The Wang word processing system was eagerly adopted by law firms in the 1970s and 1980s, for its ability to support complex document formatting. Online legal research tools like Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis were launched in the 1970s. Some of the first CD-ROM and web-based law publications in the 1990s deployed specialised html coding and Boolean logic designed for legal search and retrieval purposes. Many law firms use sophisticated knowledge management systems to capture the in-house expertise of their lawyers. Court reporting and litigation support tools have been using advanced voice recognition, extensive text parsing and real-time data capture and processing for many years.

** Declaration of interest: I am currently involved with the Design Awards, although I have no say in the selection of shortlisted entries or finalists.

Has web-traffic analysis just got better or worse thanks to Google search encryption?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, WordPress informed its customers that Google has expanded search encryption to cover any search except for clicks on ads. The impact will mean less detail about which keyword searches are driving traffic to your website. Debate among industry observers suggested that this was done either in response to security-related issues, or simply to maximise ad revenue.

I’ll leave you to decide what the real motive is, and to determine what your own response should be around SEO strategies. My sense is that content owners and social marketers will sharpen their use of keywords, and devise new tactics to maximise the value of web traffic analytics. As one commentator has observed, Google has a near monopoly on search – but in the end, it’s their platform and they’ll do what they want with it.

From my own analysis here at Content in Context, the number of “unknown search terms” far outweighs precise keyword or search strings, but thanks to the WordPress stats, I am still able to get a reasonably informed sense of what drives traffic to this blog:

  • Social networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.) account for about half of all referrals to Content in Context (including 10% from Reddit, even though I do not actively participate on that platform)
  • Search engines comprise about one-third of referrals (with Google Search accounting for over 90%)
  • Meetup is an increasingly important source of referrals
  • Embedded links (used selectively) can also be a useful source of referrals

I have found some interesting citations to my blog (including undergraduate study forums), and I figure I must be doing something right when third parties approach me to write about their products or to include advertorial content in my blog – and of course, I would declare any such interest when it arises!

Even though I do not pay for Google ad words, or undertake any paid-for SEO, this blog comes up 2nd (after paid results) when using Google search for “Content in Context”.

One outcome from Google search encryption will undoubtedly be a renewed focus on providers offering contextual search solutions, because keyword search relies primarily on frequency, proximity and assumed relevance of search terms, rather than actual contextual meaning.

So, in some ways Google’s decision to encrypt all search will make everyone else lift their game, which can only be positive.

Whose content is it anyway?

Posted on by
4

Faust 2.0

Every social media and digital publishing platform is engaged in a continuous battle to acquire content, in order to attract audiences and bolster advertising revenues.

Content ownership is becoming increasingly contentious, and I wonder if we truly appreciate the near-Faustian pact we have entered into as we willingly contribute original material and our personal data in return for continued “free” access to Facebook, YouTube, Google, Flickr, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, MySpace, etc.

Even if we knowingly surrender legal rights over our own content because this is the acceptable price to pay for using social media, are we actually getting a fair deal in return? The fact is that more users and more content means more advertisers – but are we being adequately compensated for the privilege of posting our stuff on-line? Even if we are prepared to go along with the deal, are our rights being adequately protected and respected?

In late 2012, Instagram faced intense public backlash against suggestions it would embark upon the commercial exploitation of users’ photographs. While appearing to backtrack, and conceding that users retain copyright in their photographs, there is nothing to say that Instagram and others won’t seek to amend their end-user license agreements in future to claim certain rights over contributed content. For example, while users might retain copyright in their individual content, social media platforms may assert other intellectual property rights over derived content (e.g., compiling directories of aggregated data, licensing the metadata associated with user content, or controlling the embedded design features associated with the way content is rendered and arranged).

Even if a social media site is “free” to use (and as we all know, we “pay” for it by allowing ourselves to be used as advertising and marketing bait), I would still expect to retain full ownership, control and use of my own content – otherwise, in some ways it’s rather like a typesetter or printer trying to claim ownership of an author’s work….

The Instagram issue has resurfaced in recent months, with the UK’s Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. The Act amends UK copyright law in a number of ways, most contentiously around the treatment of “orphan” works (i.e., copyright content – photos, recordings, text – where the original author or owner cannot be identified). The stated intent of the Act is to bring orphan works into a formal copyright administration system, and similar reforms are under consideration in Australia.

Under the new UK legislation, a licensing and collection regime will be established to enable the commercial exploitation of orphan works, provided that the publisher has made a “diligent” effort to locate the copyright holder, and agrees to pay an appropriate license fee once permission to publish has been granted by the scheme’s administrator.

Such has been the outcry (especially among photographers), that the legislation has been referred to as “the Instagram Act”, and the UK government’s own Intellectual Property Office was moved to issue a clarification factsheet to mollify public concerns. However, those concerns continue to surface: in particular, the definition of “diligent” in this context; and the practice of some social media platforms to remove metadata from photos, making it harder to identify the owner or the original source.

Meanwhile, the long-running Google book scanning copyright lawsuit has taken another unexpected twist in the US courts. From the outset, Google tried to suggest it was providing some sort of public service in making long-out-of-print books available in the digital age. Others claim that it was part of a strategy to challenge Amazon.

Despite an earlier unfavourable ruling, a recent appeal has helped Google’s case in two ways: first, the previous decision to establish a class action comprising disgruntled authors and publishers has been set aside (on what looks like a technicality); second, the courts must now consider whether Google can claim its scanning activities (involving an estimated 20 million titles) constitute “fair use”, one of the few defences to allegations of breach of copyright.

Personally, I don’t think the “fair use” provisions were designed to cater for mass commercialization on the scale of Google, despite the latter saying it will restrict the amount of free content from each book that will be displayed in search results – ultimately, Google wants to generate a new revenue stream from 3rd party content that it neither owns nor originated, so let’s call it for what it is and if authors and publishers wish to grant Google permission to digitize their content, let them negotiate equitable licensing terms and royalties.

Finally, the upcoming release of Apple’s iOS7 has created consternation of its own. Certain developers with access to the beta version are concerned that Apple will force mobile device users to install app upgrades automatically. If this is true, then basically Apple is telling its customers they now have even less control over the devices and content that they pay for.

Publishing is Dead – Long Live Publishing!

Posted on by
Reply

The name of this blog was inspired by a former colleague at The Thomson Corporation. As our team embarked on a major push into digital media in the mid-90s, he reminded us that the old publishing mantra “Content is King!” was being recast as “Content in Context”. Simply having loads of content was no longer enough to command a dominant or exclusive market position – publishers had to make sure their content was timely, relevant and easy to navigate. Ultimately, content has to help users find insights to their problems and solutions to their needs quickly and efficiently.

I was reminded of this recently when I heard some data storage experts talking about the challenges of what to do with all the data we are creating – especially at the rate we are going. According to latest analysis, 90% of all data was created in the last 2 years.

We keep being told that publishing is dead, but it is clear that we are producing more content than ever before – in which case, it’s great to be part of a dying industry! Sure, the business models are changing, and so is the technology; but there are still a number of core publishing disciplines that we risk losing sight of as we continue to develop boundless and limitless volumes of digital content.

There are several skills that publishers traditionally bring to any new content, print or on-line. And it’s not just about technology, SEO or the number of “Likes”. Any content owner seeking to engage vendors to develop their digital assets and manage their on-line presence would be well advised to ask potential suppliers about their experience, strengths and processes in each of the following areas:

  • Commissioning – having a nose for new authors, where to find them and how to nurture their talent
  • Editing – turning text and data into meaningful and coherent content, including length, structure, tone, clarity and access (tables of contents, indexing, cross-referencing, citations, footnotes, bibliographies, etc.)
  • Design – using appropriate formats, layout and fonts to suit the material and the readership
  • Customer Engagement – bringing the audience into the publishing process, through market research, pre-sales activity and user groups
  • Marketing – knowing how to distribute particular content or promote a particular writer
  • Content Management – analysing the usage data and capturing audience feedback, to understand the value of the publishing assets

Yes, these skills do exist in the digital realm, but increasingly the publishing process is being made subservient to the technology, often at the expense of meaning and comprehension. Doubtless this stems from the misconception that the speed and frequency of publication renders everything as mere ephemera – so why do we need to bother with such archaic ideas as an index?

An author acquaintance of mine recently lamented the response of his publishers who, when informed that his text-book needed an index before it could be distributed in schools, responded, “what a great idea – why don’t you send us one!” I can only assume that the publishers were so caught up in on-line media that they had forgotten how most readers navigate books or other content, especially when they are accessing them for the first time.

On-line developers do us a great disservice if they forget that digital content needs tools such as indexes and tables of content to aid user navigation and accessibility – text tagging and search functions are all very well, but they do not always return relevant or meaningful results, and they can create unintended or unforeseen linkages that may be completely out of context.

As a consequence of the exponential growth in on-line content, and our simultaneous interest for archive material (and the demand for data analytics), publishers are increasingly taking on a new and important role as curators – managing content assets, understanding how to present them, knowing the value of the material they are dealing with, and finding the right context in which to provide this content.

This shifting role of publishers is just confirmation that publishing is far from extinct.