It’s a hallmark of great success for a company, particularly an Internet company, when the major media and practically all customers buzz about the slightest slip-up. That happened to YouTube today when an unexplained outage kept visitors out of the sight during many peak daylight hours. A “database error” took the site down from around 7 a.m. PDT to 1:30 PDT, although YouTube put up a message that implied it was performing routine maintenance.
Visitors to the site received the following message along with a very clever graphic (I actually visited the site when it was down and should have copied the image): “We’re currently putting out some new features, sweeping out the cobwebs and zapping a few gremlins. We’ll be back later. In the meantime, please enjoy a layman’s explanation of our website.”
The highly public snafu during daytime hours (YouTube, like most sites, does go offline for maintenance and upgrading, although usually in the wee hours of the morning, PT), came on a day when web measurement firm ComScore released big news for YouTube. In July, the video sharing site broke into the comScore Media Metrix Top 50 online sites for the first time, debuting at number 40 with 16 million visitors, a 20% jump over June levels.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:44 PM | Print | Comments (0)
The Wall Street Journal’s Kevin Delaney had this piece yesterday (a free feature) on how Google is wooing Hollywood studios and other content producers. The search giant’s $900 million deal with News Corp. and its pact to distribute Viacom content are the result of Google’s effort to staff up with industry veterans.
In particular, Delaney profiles new Google employee David Eun, a Time Warner and NBC executive who has helped spearhead negotiations to bring Google closer to the video content community. CEO Eric Schmidt is refreshingly honest in how describes the benefits of hiring entertainment insiders such as Eun:
Now “we can approach them (the media and entertainment firms) in a way that we can actually do business together and not screw things up,” said Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt at a press conference Wednesday.
In the relatively tight-knit traditional media and entertainment businesses, it’s important to connect with someone who is known to be “one of us,” a lesson that Google has absorbed relatively quickly.
Google “didn’t show proper respect for us as potential partners,” said Larry Kramer, president of digital media at CBS, last year. (CBS in January announced a deal to distribute episodes of several shows, including “CSI” and “Survivor,” through Google Video. “We’re quite happy with them,” Mr. Kramer says now. “They have more people who have taken more time to understand the business of their partners.”)Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:06 PM | Print | Comments (0)
I really hate to be mean to people who believe they are trying to do good in the world, however misguided their notions are. But I can’t help myself this time…a coalition of consumer groups formed to oppose the AT&T-SBC-BellSouth merger(s) has launched a new web site called MergerMonster.com.
It’s not that the coalition has misguided notions — there are legitimate debates to be had on consolidation in the telecom world — it’s that this group has a loopy (or totally brilliant, you decide) approach to advocacy. Here are the first two paragraphs of the press release announcing the launch of the site.
After 20 years, the Merger Monster is back! Like a bad horror sequel, the bulky beast that we all thought was dead and buried has risen and is preparing to terrorize consumers with poor customer service, inflated prices, job cuts, digital discrimination, and privacy invasion.
The Monster, delirious with power, did not count on a courageous coalition prepared with the facts and ready to stand up to its unquenchable thirst for even greater market share. Now the Merger Monster has met its match in the Competition Coalition, an organization that joins a chorus of voices opposed to this latest monopoly merger — consumer groups, community organizations, competitive carriers, public interest groups and others – all terrified of what it would mean if the Merger Monster were allowed to swallow everything in its path.
Wow! The Monster (the uninitiated reader might reasonably be confused as to which monster is freaking people out, where he is and why he’s doing it) has arisen and is terrorizing people with only a group of brave villagers to stop it. Is this for real?
The actual web site itself, however, is even more entertaining. I don’t mean the content so much as the graphics. At the top of the page is an AT&T logo that functions like a Pac-Man, gobbling up companies…and people too! Which people? Why, Teddy Roosevelt, Senator John Sherman of Ohio (author of the Sherman Antitrust Act) and…Ronald Reagan!
How’d he get in there? Well, maybe it’s because the divestiture of AT&T took place in 1982, on Reagan’s watch. But really, that litigation had been going on for years and years before Reagan took his first oath.
Meanwhile, an animated octupus, again with the AT&T logo, brandishes fang-like teeth and red eyes at the top of the page as an airplane carrying the banner “competition” crashes into a cityscape. Subtle this site ain’t. And maybe that’s its political genius — you’ve got to see it to believe it.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:45 AM | Print | Comments (0)Google’s meteoric success and subsequent infiltration of the public consciousness has a downside - the giant search engine has become so ingrained into daily life that the company’s name, its trademark, is almost generic. The popular usage of the name and noun “Google” is a good thing, according to Google’s attorneys, but don’t go using the verb “to google.”
The Mountain View giant has sent out legal notices to media organizations warning that “google” as a verb is verboten. Here’s what a spokesman had to say:
“We think it’s important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues.”
Google’s attorneys have distributed examples of what’s permitted and what’s not permitted.
“Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that hottie.”
Much mockery has ensued and some have even questioned whether Google has gone all corporate all of a sudden. But, these letters have apparently been going out for years, and my guess is that Google is merely trying to preserve its trademark rights in the event some serious infringement occurs down the road (imagine Yahoo! taking out an ad that uses “to google” in a generic way).
After all, if Google doesn’t periodically object to the generic use of its name, a future infringer might have a good argument that Google never took steps to protect its trademark. As far as actually stopping people — including writers and journalists — from using “google” in a generic way, we see how well that’s worked for Band-Aid, Xerox and Kleenex. Go ahead, google these terms and you’ll see.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:43 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
