[lbo-talk] Windows Vista as Neoliberal Instrument

bitch at pulpculture.org bitch at pulpculture.org
Mon Feb 5 08:23:40 PST 2007


At 11:49 AM 2/3/2007, Willy Greenfields wrote:
> In the end, I think Google will mainly stick to
>its paid search knitting, using its checkout product
>to further its lead. Then they can stop throwing
>billions at YouTube-like "opportunities" and their
>publishing partners. I'd wager that in a few years
>we'll here more bitching against Google for denying ad
>revenue to sites it deems inappropriate than we do
>against MS, actually.

I'm not sure what this means. "knitting"? "checkout products"?

I'm not sure what you're saying, but I dunno. Back when I was both doing my own google ad campaign and observing they way they were implemented at blogs like Max's, I started writing on the 'Bake Your Own Bread and Circuses' theme -- having never bothered to look into Web 2.0 hyped until slashdot picked up the blog with an article geared toward poking holes in Web 2.0 hype.

Essentially, what Google has going os a version of the Tupperware party model. Or Avon. Basically, back when there were more housewives, women sold Tupperware or Avon to earn a little extra cash, often spending it on... tupperware and Avon. Dumb asses like me who can't sell their way out of a paperbag would, in fact, practically give it away at cost -- cos I thought that other poor people really shouldn't be spending their money on shit like ruby glassware and dolls that you stick on your spare toilet paper rolls. ha.

While the 'hobbyist' housewife generally didn't make much money, there was always that one or two who did -- like the friend's neighbor who drove around the pink Mary Kay Cadillac. These people keep the rest of the hobbyist buying into the program. Meanwhile, *most* people make diddly squat b/c they don't know what they are doing or simply aren't driven enough to figure it out -- much less have the time when it comes to online marketing specifically.

Anyway, what I gather is that people will make diddly squat on blog advertising -- or, heh heh, google advertisements on LBO Archives. :) People will try it, hoping to make some bucks, learn that it doesn't much work without effort, and just let the ads ride, raking in their 10/month.

Small change -- but not when you add it all up among the thousands of people doing the same. Now, if people PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR BLOG DESIGNERS TELL THEM, then they might make more cash. I'm referring to the fact that Max changed the design for google ads. HINT: the google ads needs to blend in!

But most folks are awkward enough about aggressively trying to make cash, so they are afraid to be ridiculed -- and there's plenty of that going on re: Max's decision to take Pajamas Media ads. Whatev.

Others don't have the technical know how to place the ads correctly. Still others don't realize how they can write their own content to purposefully bring up relevant ads. But, who has time -- except someone who sees it as more than a hobby.

On the other side, people using Google for their online marketing, face the same problem. They think they can do it themselves to save a buck. Fact is, you really have to know what you are doing. So, people invest small change into a campaign, just to see. They may keep at it, tweaking, hoping to get it right 'til they give up or pay someone.

It's generally pocket change to them and, if it doesn't work out, no big deal. Meanwhile, Google, again, picks up all this, small potatoes turns into a big heaping bowl of Turkey Day Mashed potatoes and gravy.

And then there's what google also gets: information. What google has always been after is information, social networking data, etc. I have forgotten their dissertation research, but Sergey and Larry seem eminently interested in ways to make money with the information. And being able to track every little thing people do online is hugely valuable to the world they envision. Who hangs out with whom? How does information travel?

Just look at the way they got gmail up and running. By making it appear as if an invitation was coveted. And by doing invitations, what they get is information: who knows whom? Who answers what email and who doesn't?

Processing all that information, you have yourself some major information that is valuable to someone, especially marketers, whether online or off. Google keeps providing things that provide them with access to your site statistics, too. E.g., The latest is Google Webmaster tools. You stick code on your small potatoes site, Google gets information about visitors, who clicks what, how ppl got to the site, where they go when they leave.

It's all in the plan, man.

Now, some folks might think big whoop, who can process all that info. But isn't that what they are up to. And I'd submit that it's more sophisticated than we know. A couple of years ago, I switched ISPs. In the meanwhile, that ISP bought out another ISP and things were foobar for awhile.

Next thing you know, I'm getting error messages to an address I used exactly once, from a competitor ISP, Earthlink. I used it b/c my Verizon account went foobar. I needed access b/c I worked from home, so I grabbed a dial up account with Earthlink to get me thru until Verizon fixed their crap. I used it exactly 1 day and didn't upgrade the account after getting that one month for free.

Somehow or other, 3 years later, Knology ends up in possession of that information, making the connection between the user data I gave them (my name, current address) with the user information i gave earthlink 3 years before (my name, and ANOTHER former address).

I think a lot more of that stuff goes on than anyone knows. And if that kind of minor stuff goes on, then what else?

At any rate, while it's a massive amount of info, it seems to me that it's what Google wants to do: to develop the computing power to manage and interpret it in humanly meaningful ways -- which can only mean one thing: ways to make money.

Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list