It appears that there is no free to use website for gauging the balance of public opinion - good to or bad - for a specified keyword or phrase. This keyword could be a product, brand, country, website, whatever. Now I did find that a company called SkyGrid does offer a similar service but it is not free (according to GigaOm it costs about $500 a month) and it appears to be for use with brand/company names only.

It seems to me that there is room for a similar product with wider appeal and which in true web 2.0 fashion would be free to use. It could be ad-supported of course but I would imagine that more a creative business model could be found - for instance a basic service could be offered free and a premium features offered for a fee - richer data for example or analytics.

I have written here before about evaluating business ideas. Now I don’t know about you but I find that I am continually adjusting and fine-tuning my methods and criteria for assessing mine and other people’s ideas. Recently I read about YouNoodle - a controversial startup that allegedly claims to be able to predict the success or failure of other startups. I say allegedly because following some bad press, the company has come out to clarify its claims. I don’t know about all that but whilst YouNoodle apparently focuses on the founders in making its predictions, I prefer to look at the product itself and the market it aims to serve. So here are some questions I ask myself.

Notes:

Y = Yes; N = No; x = It doesn’t matter; M = Maybe

• Columns 1 to 4 are basically saying that if your idea does not solve a problem (i.e. relieve a pain) worth relieving or if it does not do so better than everyone else, then don’t bother building it. The only exception being when the benefits can be easily explained to consumers and you can easily find and market to your customers without spending tons of money - then it may be worth an experiment.
• Columns 5 to 8 say that even if your product will not be free, as long as you are relieving a real pain and doing so better than anyone else, it is probably worth experimenting with your idea out - but not if it is too difficult and expensive to do so. If on top of this the benefits of your product can be easily explained and you can easily find and cheaply reach your target customers then do definitely go for it.
• The point of columns 9 to 12 is that if you are addressing a real customer pain better than anyone else and doing so for free then there is a really good chance people will flock to you - definitely so if the benefits are easily explained. If you can reach those customers easily and cheaply then you should definitely do it. Of course there must be some other way of making money from your product if you are giving it away for free. Advertising is a popular choice these days but as regular readers may know, I am not too fond of having it as a sole source of revenue.

As always, all the best with your ideas.

One idea that has bounced in and out of my head for a couple of years now is to give website publishers and bloggers the ability to show in a widget, photos of people mentioned on a web page or blog post. In its simplest form, the widget could have an admin interface that would suggest match words in an article to names in a database of people - Facebook or Wink for example - and display their photos. Since a name could match to several people, the publisher could then pick and choose the actual matches.

In a more sophisticated approach, the widget could be based on some sort of semantic web technology whereby the identities of the people mentioned on a web page are automatically determined and relevant information gathered from various sources about them and displayed alongside their photos in the widget.

When I originally thought of the idea I conceived it as part of a people search engine and that the accuracy of results would somehow be improved by a) the contents of web pages that people are matched to and b) the contexts they are mentioned in. I guess I was thinking about the semantic web even before I was aware of it.

Interestingly and hence me posting about this now, I read today on VentureBeat about Adaptive Blue’s BlueOrganizer. I haven’t looked at the product closely enough yet but what I have read suggests that it could be adapted (pun intended) to provide this people-in-this-article service. It is something that print media have offered for decades - it should be easy for new media to do so too.

Much is often made of how Google could improve search results (or do a lot of evil) by learning from our search histories. Since there are a lot of valid privacy concerns with that approach, I think Google could still improve results considerably by learning from a user’s result-clicks within a search session.

As an example, I Googled “Roll your own” earlier today, looking for white label web solutions. The results included a lot of “roll your own cigarette”  items. Given that I ignored all of those and instead clicked on the tech-related results, each time I returned to Google using the back button and then moved to the next results page, Google had an opportunity to filter the results on that next page to remove items that I didn’t seem interested in.

I guess the Similar Items feature is meant to do this sort of filtering but for some reason I never remember to use it.

So what do you think - would you find this kind of feature useful?

Most air travellers travel with hold baggage pieces well within the allowed limits but many others travel with excess baggage - typically on international, long-haul flights. I haven’t done much detailed research on revenues from excess baggage charges but my guess is that they are substantial.

My idea is for a web-based system that allows passengers travelling on the same flight to trade their baggage allowances, particularly where the airline operates a “piece system” for baggage allowance. So assuming each passenger on a flight is allowed two pieces of luggage, if Person A has only one piece and Person B has two then Person A can ’sell’ her unused allowance to Person B. The system sends a file/message to the airline which then imports it into its reservation system, such that Person A’s allowance is reduced by one and Person B’s increased by one. Person B makes a monetary payment for the extra allowance. The payment is likely to be at a discount relative to payments made at the check-in desk. The payment is either shared by Person A and the airline/service provider; or the airline may reward Person A in kind, e.g. with air miles. Pricing may be fixed or be determined by a bidding process. This could be implemented as a stand-alone website serving multiple airlines or may be incorporated into an airline’s website.

What problems would a system like this solve?

• Payments made at check-in desks, for excess baggage charges contribute to check-in delays. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that many of the major airlines now offer passengers the ability to pay online for excess baggage and often offer a discount for doing so, suggesting that it is in the airlines’ interest for such payments to be made in advance.
• Air travel is usually stressful in its own right. For a passenger on the way to the airport, who has excess baggage and is aware of it, the uncertainty about how much of a delay and how much of a charge awaits tend to add to the this stress. Paying for excess baggage in advance makes for one less thing to worry about.
• Excess baggage payments at check-in desks require payment processing that could involve cash or credit card handling. Advance payment reduces the need for such processing and associated issues at the check-in desk.

What advantages does this model have over the current model?
Many airlines now offer passengers the ability to pay online for excess baggage and usually offer a discount for doing so. I call this existing method a “Passenger to Airline” (P2A) model because the passenger simply pays the airline for the privilege of carrying excess baggage. I like to think of my proposed model as a “Passenger to Passenger” (P2P) exchange model, because it involves two passengers exchanging baggage allowances. I think that my P2P model has the following advantages over the P2A model:

• It enables the airlines to reward passengers who travel light, which in turn increases loyalty. It is conceivable that a light traveller might opt to fly with one airline over another because one of them will reward him/her for travelling light.
• Rewarding passengers for travelling light will encourage more passengers to travel light, which presumably is desirable by the airlines.
• It is better than P2A in helping the airlines to predict flight baggage levels, which presumably helps them establish fuel requirements for flights. It is better at this than P2A because not only does the airline know in advance which passengers will travel with excess baggage, it also knows about some passengers who will not use up their baggage allowance.
• In the case where the system is incorporated within an airline’s website, it could attract more passengers to the airline’s website, which enhances the airline’s interaction with its passengers.

I guess the biggest problem for this idea would be getting the airlines to buy into it. My guess is it would take a big player like Sabre to make this sort of idea work, but who knows, a startup with the right connections might just be able to swing it - but would it be worth their while? What do you think?

A recent post about social objects by Hugh Macleod of The Gaping Void got me thinking about what opportunities might lie in making otherwise solitary online activities into social ones. This led me to think about how a previous idea that I posted could significantly increase the viral coefficient of search.

You may want to check out Hugh’s post for a detailed description of social objects but my take on what they are is that they are objects of common interest to two or more people over a period of time and conversation, however brief. So if you and I strike up a conversation about the weather then the weather, albeit fleetingly, becomes a social object.

For me, there are three primary online activities that we still predominantly engage in by ourselves as opposed to with other people – browsing, searching and shopping. There are probably opportunities in making any of these three activities social – hence the seemingly endless queue of start-ups trying to be the next big thing in social browsing, social searching or social shopping. I will focus on searching however because quite frankly, as demonstrated by Google, hardly anything beats search for generating online ad revenue.

Looking at the various start-ups doing so called social searching, it seems to me that most are trying too hard to make too much of a big deal out of it – focusing on group search, human-powered search etc. I have always felt that after search, Q&A is probably the next best thing for intent-based ad serving. So why not combine the two, allowing users to turn their unresolved search queries into questions for their social network and others outside their networks who have expressed an interest or expertise in that topic or related topics?

The beauty of this marriage for me is that as financially rewarding as search has proved to be, its viral coefficient is zero. Redeye VC defines the viral coefficient of an application or tool as “how many new users get added virally from each additional user”. So the viral coefficient of search is zero because when you do a search on Google say, you typically do so on your own and the ads shown are only seen by you. By combining search and Q&A however, you increase the viral coefficient of a single search by multiples and by so doing also increase the number of people exposed to ads related to that search.

As I have suggested in another post, I think Facebook is in a prime position to implement such a search/Q&A application, in conjunction with Yahoo (through Yahoo Answers perhaps) or either of the other two search giants.

What do you think?

Music monetisation was one of my top technology segments ripe for innovation in 2008. Whilst there have been some signs of change in this space recently, it surprises me that no one appears to be doing what I am proposing here – at least not that I know of and not in the way I am proposing it. Perhaps I am overlooking some major obstacle beyond technology and the politics involved but I’ll let you be the judge of that.

As I see it, the main problem is that people just aren’t willing to pay for music these days when it is so easy to share and make digital copies. So instead of device and software makers wasting so much effort on trying to stop sharing and copying outright, why not enable fans to share tracks with their friends and make money from doing so, with a cut also going to the artiste and to the service operator.

The key to the success of such a model might be the platform(s) chosen for it. I can see at least two potential platforms for this sort of service – social networking sites like Facebook and mobile devices like the iPhone.

Social Networking Sites
It is no longer news that social sites like Facebook and MySpace are great for music discovery and sharing. Why not enable people to make money from songs they buy? It would work sort of like this:

• I discover a new track (perhaps the service – a third party application on Facebook - has recommended it to me based on my stated preferences, or one of my friends is listening to it). Let’s call the service MusicPay, for lack of anything more original at this time.
• I like the track and purchase it – knowing that I can now make money when someone discovers the track through me and goes on to buy it.
• My Facebook friends get notified that I have just bought track X.
• In addition, I recommend the track to some close friends.
• The track is also displayed on my Facebook profile.
• Friends click on the track to listen to it and are informed that if they buy the song, they can make money whenever someone buys the track through them.
• One or more friends buy the track.
• I get a small share of each transaction as does the MusicPay service, Facebook and the artiste, who of course gets the lion’s share.

The key things here are that a) there is an incentive - however small - to buy songs; and b) selling a song is just as easy for me as sharing it with someone for free – there is no extra effort required from me, so I might as well ‘sell’ rather than share for free. I also do not feel that I am being un-friend-like by not sharing the song with my friends for free, since I am giving them a chance to also make money.

Portable Music Devices
I am talking about your iPods, zunes, iPhones and other mobile phones here – in conjunction with their enabling software like iTunes. The MusicPay service would work on these in a similar manner to the following:

• I buy a track on iTunes or similar and download it to my computer and my iPod – knowing that I can now make money when someone buys the track through me.
• I add a “Songs I’m listening to” link to my IM/email signature/blog
• A friend discovers the track in one of the following ways:
1. Clicks the link in my signature or blog (is taken to my MusicPay profile on iTunes)
2. Comes to my house or is my car and hears the track
• If my friend has clicked on a link to go to my profile, he or she can then go on to listen to one or more tracks that I have purchased and proceed to buy them from iTunes, via MusicPay. iTunes, MusicPay, the artiste and I all get to share the proceeds.
• If my friend hears the track in my car or my house and likes it, I tell him or her that I can ‘sell’ it to them and that once they’ve bought it, they can also sell it on and make money. I can then either send my friend a link by email to the song (takes him to the track on my MusicPay account) or perhaps more smoothly point my device to his and share the song by some magic connection that is superior to Bluetooth. Either way, the result is the same – my friend buys the track and all parties involved get paid a share of the revenue.

Now some of you may be thinking that the incentive is likely to be too small to be worth users bothering to use the service. You would be missing the point, which is that it would be no bother since it would be just as easy as sharing a track today, or perhaps even easier. It would be a bonus to get paid for it. Also, you must realise that MusicPay could decide to allow users to download and perhaps even share music freely without purchase, but would take every opportunity to remind such users that they could be making money every time they share a track. It may well be a step too far, but MusicPay could even go the MLM route whereby the user gets a cut every time a track that originated from them gets sold - even when they haven’t directly ‘made the sale’, i.e. when someone they sold the track to sells it on and that person also sells on and so forth. Note that by ‘sell’, I mean to have someone buy the track through me, as opposed to selling my copy of the track and thereby giving up rights to it.

So what do you say - isn’t it about time the long awaited, much discussed but as yet (IMHO) weakly attempted disruption to the music industry actually happened? Any takers? Perhaps this is what Amazon or Microsoft needs in order to make a dent in Apple’s dominance in the music downloads and device space.

There are probably more 2008 prediction posts in the blogosphere right now than we need, so rather than add another, I thought I might outline a few areas that I think are ripe for innovation in 2008 and beyond. So here goes …

Website Monetisation

As I have posted before, I think that the advertising only business model may be holding back the evolution of the Internet. The Internet community owes it to itself to figure out an alternative way to monetise websites.

Social Network Monetisation

You may be wondering why this doesn’t come under website monetisation above. I think social networking sites are a special case - special enough to require a separate monetisation approach to the rest of the web.

Now don’t get me wrong, Mr Zuckerberg and his Facebook crew are obviously making money but as was obvious from their bold and clever but poorly executed beacon play, they know that they should be making a lot more money. Personally, I think that Facebook is right in trying to innovate with behavioural targeting type ads, but they should also be seeking more ways to serve contextual, intent-based ads like Google does. It may seem that social networks don’t offer much opportunity for contextual ads but think again.

Besides, with over 40 million users, there have got to be other things beyond advertising that can bring in the big bucks. Oh wait, it looks like the innovation has started. I just read this post on Mashable about Badoo - a deceptively popular Facebook rival that is apparently seeing success in charging its users small amounts to promote their profiles on the site.

Music (and other digital content) Monetisation

I have a detailed post coming up soon about an idea that I have for music monetisation in particular but suffice to say for now that since the record companies seem incapable of coming up with a new model, even in the face of undeniable evidence that the current model is destined for imminent death, it’s high time someone either gave the record companies a new model that would work for them and everyone else or that would completely knock them out of the picture for good. Whilst there has been some innovation in this space recently, it just all feels like pussy footing to me. A decisively disruptive new model is needed and is bound to come sooner or later. Perhaps the same can/should be said for video and other digital content. Death to DRM!

New TV

As I will post more about presently, I think that there is too much talk of online video disrupting traditional TV when effort should instead be going into the convergence of the two. Internet video is quite frankly never going to replace traditional TV - it just can’t. So, I am still waiting for the day when someone delivers my ultimate TV experience.

News/Blog Feed Aggregation

This is as close to making a prediction as I will come. I see more and more people complaining about being inundated with feeds and blog posts on a daily basis. These people seem to feel like they are addicted in some way and could do with some sort of tool to help them cut down on their intake. I certainly feel that reading blogs sometimes gets in the way of my productivity and I routinely purge my subscriptions when I particularly feel the need to increase my productivity over a period of time. So I see a need for more services that will summarise and perhaps provide analyses of the top news of the day/week/month.

Behavioural Targeting of Ads

Given that behavioural targeting is not limited to social networking sites, I thought it deserved a separate mention. It just feels like the world could do with an alternative and worthy competitor to the Google-led contextual advertising model. Behavioural targeting has for a few years now promised to provide just that, but hasn’t yet lived up to its hype. Facebook: If at first you don’t succeed …

Mobile Internet

More than anything else in 2007 or before, the iPhone has provided a much needed boost to the mobile Internet space. Perhaps now we will see the mobile web deliver on some of its much-hyped promise. Richard McManus over Read/WriteWeb seems particularly passionate about innovation on the mobile web.

Mobile Phones

OK I lied, here is a another prediction - as bold as they come. Nokia and Microsoft cannot afford to not respond to the iPhone. So I predict that we will see some direct responses to the iPhone from these two and other players in this space. Personally, I am looking forward to an iPhone-beating/ Windows Mobile device - or even a direct rip off of the iPhone. I am excited about the prospect because I was, and continue to be appalled by Apple’s decision to use only one carrier per country. I was not an O2 customer and was never going to sign-up just to get a particular phone - not even the iPhone. So unless Apple decides to open up to T-mobile in the U.K, I won’t be getting an iPhone and will wait patiently for the first iPhone clone. I hear the Samsung f700 and LG Viewty are sorry attempts and personally, I hope the iPhone beater comes from Microsoft and HTC.

Oh, I almost forgot that Android is also a factor here. Serves Google right for peddling vapourware. OK, so assuming Android does materialise, I guess it could lead to some interesting innovation on the mobile phone.

Web Application Development

2007 has seen a slew of startups emerge with tools that help users quickly create basic websites. I am talking about the likes of Weebly, Synthasite, Jimdo etc. We have also seen a different class of startup aiming to help their users build basic applications primarily to automate workplace tasks and processes - examples include Coghead and LongJump. There are also startups that provide tools for building social networking sites, e.g. Spruz and of course Ning. I think more can be done though to help non developers build richer and more complex consumer focused web applications. OK, so I don’t expect a tool that will automate the development of a Google search clone but any tools that speed up the progress from idea to not-too-basic web app for non developers will be very welcome.

So there you go - my predictions ideas for innovation in 2008. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and keep innovating.

Lately I have been thinking of learning Ruby, Python or similar to develop working prototypes of some of my ideas. It occurs to me that it would be a good idea for someone to offer a training course in programming where the student brings an idea that they want to implement and over the duration of the course writes the required code with, and under the guidance of the teacher.

For the student, it is kind of like paying for your application to be developed but learning to do it yourself at the same time. Next time round, you may well be able to do it all by yourself.

So if there is anyone out there willing to and patient enough to train me in this way, do get in touch.

I travelled to Botswana this week for work and all through the last couple of weeks in the run up to the trip, I received tons of emails and documents relating to the trip, which I filed away but was too busy to read. None of it needed immediate attention but I knew I had to read it all at some point before the trip.  I figured that in the worst case scenario I would just have to print it all off and read it during the flight to Botswana.

The day of my trip came and of course there I was rushing to do what seemed like a million and one things all at once. Now my life is not usually this chaotic but this was an especially ill-timed trip. My last minute print-all approach suddenly seemed like a very bad idea. I did manage to print off the most important messages and documents but I would have given anything for a tool that:

• Enabled me to search for everything related to my trip
• Automatically compiled a dossier from such content, eliminating any duplicates, for example by detecting a single, whole email conversation and discarding the separate, individual emails that made up the conversation.
• Allowed me to add and remove items from the auto-generated dossier
• Enabled me to print off my finished dossier in a nice format

Now the first of the features above is already provided by Google’s and Microsoft’s Desktop Search tools. If someone were to create a plug-in for one or both of these tools that would execute the rest of the above, I reckon that they would soon get acquired by one of these giant companies, looking to beat the other to the punch.

By the way, if you think the idea of an auto-generated dossier such as this is far-fetched, check out what TripIt is doing. You basically send them your travel-purchase email - you know, the ones that the travel companies send you to confirm your booking etc. TripIt then sends you a detailed, auto-generated travel plan that includes your itinerary, weather and destination information, maps etc. It is a little different to what I am talking about but it shows the power of software.