Jun
19
2008

May's Top Multimedia Websites

No surprise that YouTube is the top site with all the user-generated content.  MySpace video is a distant second.

Jun
17
2008

A Few Free Web Analytics Tools to Consider

Web Analytics World discusses some web analytics tools (free) to take a look at, including Woopra, Crazy Egg, Enquisite, 4Q, and ClickTale – 5 Great (Free) Web Analytics Tools You May Not Know About Yet.

Jun
17
2008

Your Customers May Soon Be Voting On Your Ads

A growing number of marketers are taking their chances with having their ads rated, and possibly banished, on social networks and community-oriented Web services that have grown popular by inviting users to rate what they see. – This Ad Stinks: Let Readers Vote – Business Week

Websites and social networks which allow their readers to vote on advertisements may provide you valuable feedback for your marketing campaigns. However, they may also humiliate your company on a public stage. Learning how ratings work on a site/network and whether there is any chance for removal are key to understanding the risks involved in being involved on these sites.

Jun
16
2008

Oauth and OpenID – Trust is in Vogue

Without knowing it, my father has skillfully summed up a crisis we are facing online. ‘I have too many $#@%ing passwords’ he told me the other day ‘Just email them to me’. We had just uploaded our latest series of pictures starring his granddaughter. ‘Dad, its real easy. All you need to do is get a Flickr account. Tell me the account name and I’ll share my pictures with the account. Then you can login and look at them online’ I said as if I had just solved all of his problems. But, as I mentioned earlier, he has too many passwords. Too many accounts to remember. Too many places that want the same pieces of personal information over and over again. When he visits he brings his own camera.

The issue is one of those big, nasty problems that would have been solved already had their been an obvious solution. In the internet’s infancy the World Wide Web was just that, a web of interconnected, hypertexted documents. Plain old text-heavy Web Pages which were free to any browser who could connect and request them. Back then, who you were was a very uninteresting question to ask. Web sites didn’t care much what your username was or what street you live on or what your phone number is or who’s in your address book. It is back in this era that the Authentication and State models were developed for the simplest of cases where a sensitive document may have a basic password protecting it. This is years before online Shopping Carts, Home Banking, Corporate Intranets, Web Applications and Social Networks. We are today banging our heads against the limitations of past decisions.

Over time sites started implementing “login” methods as a way to validate users. They all asked the same personal information because no independent website talked with any other. Programmers typically call this a ‘Share Nothing’ approach. As more and more and more and more websites became important in our lives, this share nothing attitude was cause for a growing concern. Your information was being used as currency upon which you were granted services online, grossly inflating the chances of that information becoming misused or abused. Online user accounts were completely disjointed from your actual identity, to where on different sites you may be referred to as “aaronworsham” or “worshama” or “aaronw” or “IndyMusicFan56″ or “MgoBlue1997″ depending solely on what name was free and available at the time. Worse yet, many sites are using your email address for a username, forcing most of us to setup dummy accounts that we must now maintain for password reset requests.

So what is to be done about this? Scary as it may sound, we need to pull away from our “Share Nothing” architecture and start interconnecting these web services. What if my Father had an account at Google for his mail. If Yahoo trusted Google, it could ask Google to “log in” my father so that he could get into the Yahoo owned Flickr site and see his granddaughters pictures. His personal information, including his password, would be housed on Google only. The identity he uses to login could be his Google account or can be related back to his personal blog account or his personal domain name. His identity would remain static. This is the basic idea behind OpenID

The OpenID initiative was started by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal as a way to start distributing trust relationships for sites like his. In theory it works when one company agrees to be a provider and many companies trust that provider for their authentication. To date many more companies are agreeing to be providers of OpenID than sites willing to trust them. This is still early on, so I feel that this will change over time as more sites start out with the decision that their users do not want yet another place to store their personal information.

Authentication usually has a “on or off” connotation. You are either allowed in or you are not. That need not be the case. Taking the idea of trust relationships further, we imagine using the OpenId model to ask for permission to use services on another site. Take, for example, My father logged into Flickr through his Google OpenID. Now Flickr wants to email out a picture to each of his friends on his email address book. My dad could put all those email addresses into Flickr, but he wouldn’t like it. What if Flickr could use the OpenID trust relationship to ask Google to share dad’s address book. As long as Dad was prompted to provide his password, Flickr itself could be granted limited authorization into google to use dad’s Gmail address book. This is the idea behind OAuth.

The OAuth was a group project between the main engineer at Twitter and some engineers in the OpenID community. The official OAuth site has a good analogy to help get the concepts behind limited system authentication straight

Many luxury cars today come with a valet key. It is a special key you give the parking attendant and unlike your regular key, will not allow the car to drive more than a mile or two. Some valet keys will not open the trunk, while others will block access to your onboard cell phone address book. Regardless of what restrictions the valet key imposes, the idea is very clever. You give someone limited access to your car with a special key, while using your regular key to unlock everything.

These concepts of OpenID and OAuth are even easier to apply to closely controlled interconnected systems like within a company. Sure, most companies have standardized on an LDAP solution by now, but as more applications become web-enabled, it becomes advantageous to consider supporting the standards that the web is using on the outside. Once you try interconnecting your internal applications with outside, 3rd party systems that do not have access to your LDAP repository, you will want that trust relationship model OpenID and OAuth brings.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Jun
12
2008

Text Ads – Advantages & Disadvantages

Text ads come in several different forms, including link ads, contextual ads, pay-per-click and online directories. These ads have several advantages & disadvantages to consider before purchasing them to promote your website, products or services.

Advantages

  • Cheap – Since these ads are just text they are usually the cheapest type of online advertising you can purchase.
  • Search Engine Friendly – These ads are often are embedded right in the webpage which gives search engine ranking to your site. This is not always the case and many websites will demand that these ads go into their ad serving systems for tracking and security reasons.
  • Attention – Since they are only text, these ads are less annoying to readers, so they are actually more likely to read and click on them, especially contextual ads. Readers are less likely to classify them as ads which need to be ignored.
  • Easy – Creating a text ad is as easy as thinking of the text. Creating engaging text within the character limits can be a bit more challenging.

Disadvantage

  • Limited – Most text ads have character limits which restrict the amount of information you can convey. Text ads by their very technology convey less information than rich media ads and some display ads.
  • Little Information – Information collected about text ads is usually limited to impressions, clicks and possibly some information about who clicked on the ad (if the site has registration tied to their ad serving – more on analytics in a future post).
  • Not Accepted – Some websites do not accept text ads since they can demand higher rates for display ads.

If you’re new to advertising, text ads are a great place to start for ease-of-use and budget.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Jun
11
2008

Web Ads – AdJuggler

Continuing the web advertising thread, we are going to look at an Ad Hosting service provider.

ThruPort Technologies, the company behind the AdJuggler ad hosting service, was started in 1999 by Bruce Waldack of digitalNation fame. Bruce founded digitalNation in ’91, which was early enough in the dedicated server space to gain market share and grow it to one of the largest players in dedicated hosting at the time. In 1999 he sold digitalNation to Verio and started ThruPort the same year. AdJuggler was launched as one of ThruPorts first named services. As ad hosting services go, AdJuggler is well known in community. There are a few competitors to AdJuggler on the market, mainly because hosting ads itself is not a high technical feat to accomplish. That having been said, reliability and reputation carry a ton of weight in the advertising game and AdJuggler currently seems to have both.

AdJuggler offers up its service in three flavors. For the Enterprising web provider, Adjuggler will sell a license to run their code at your hosting location on your equipment. Ill get into why that is a great option later on. They also offer the traditional Turnkey service where all hosting and storage remains within their location, you simply link up a JavaScript tag on your site to pull the ads down. Lastly, they are available as consultants and API solutions for the roll-your-own crowd. Having worked with the guys at AdJuggler on integration projects with their API, I can say that they do know a thing of three about serving up web ads.

The technology behind their service is, as I said before, basic stuff. Basic is not a bad thing, especially when you have a solid foundation of hosting experience backing you up through ThruPort Technologies. While hosting ads is the foundation, reporting clicks and impressions is where the real work is done. They do a nice job of providing many reporting options for you at the web application. For that extra special reporting itch, the API is available through authenticated SOAP. I like to combine my AdJugger statistics with my registered user information from my web app and my traffic logs from the Apache server. The API lets me pull that information down easily and store it locally in an aggregated format. The Enterprise solution is a cool option for sites that are big enough to conduct pre-processing on their ads before sending them out to the reader which can increase cache-worthiness of the page as well as compression and optimization of the media files. It also makes the stats and the workflow a whole lot easier to tie into your system.

Price: AdJuggler charges by the impression. They do not provide pricing information publicly on their web site though Jonathan Rivers, Executive Vice President of Ad Juggler, has indicated to me that their contracts start at a $.04 CPM range (CPM is cost per Thousand impressions, think Roman Numeral M).

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Jun
10
2008

Measuring the Effectiveness of Display Ads

Here are the basics for measuring the effectiveness of your display ads:

  • Impressions: How many times is the ad served to a person (or as near as can be estimated). Impressions to search engine crawlers and bots should be filtered out (most ad servers do this automatically).
  • Clicks: How many times someone clicked on the ad (and was taken to your website – remember to target the landing page). This should also filter out search engine crawlers and bots.
  • Click-through rate (CTR): The number of clicks divided by the number of impressions multiplied by 100 for a percentage. This number will typically be pretty small. CTR of 3% is very good for rich media ads, but will quickly decrease the longer the ad is left on a website. Many CTR will be under 1%. This is an indicator of how effective the ads is or how many times the ad was seen each time before it was clicked on.

Also important are:

  • Unique Visitors (UV): As near as the ad server can tell to the number of actual people who have seen your ad. This is usually measured by IP address (think of this is your Internet address) – but several people can share the same IP address (like all the people at an apartment building). This sometimes is measured with a cookie or login to a website to get better accuracy.
  • Share of Voice (SOV): How many other ads are you sharing space with on the website? I’ve seen this measured in terms of share of impressions on the whole website or section or as the share of ads on a page (impressions is more common). More importantly, this is a measure of how many other ads are competing with your ad for readers to look at it. The better the share of voice, the more likely people are to notice and click on your ad.

Most important to measuring the effectiveness of any ad is how it is fulfilling your goals for advertising. Are you advertising to improve your brand awareness? Then the number of impressions your ad gets is important. Are you trying to sell products? Then clicks and click-through-rate are important as well as how many of those clicks are resulting in a sale on your site. Remember, statistics are just a tool to measure effectiveness. First you need to set goals for your advertising and understand how to use available statistics and tools to measure how effective your ads are at reaching those goals (more on that planned in a future post).

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Jun
10
2008

JavaFX – In more places than Flash

In a recent podcast put out by the good guys over at JavaPosse, Brian Goetz made an interesting comment near the end

JavaFX code compiles down to ordinary Java classes, so a simple JavaFX program can run anywhere you have a JVM. now hardware support for acceleration is different for different devices, but the intention is to have a program that will run on a phone, on a desktop, on an Applet, in a Blueray device, anywhere where Java can run. Flash dominates in the RIA space and there is excellent support in Windows, and pretty good support on the mac, and random support on other platforms. Java has the advantage where there is good JVM support on many more platforms, including mobile platforms. ~ Brian Goetz

If having your application work mobile and on the desktop and in the browser matters to you, I feel this will be a big consideration for you when choosing your RIA platform

Jun
09
2008

Quote of the Weekend

I think web 3.0 is going to be about the real time web. XMPP is going to play a major role in this movement… ~ Ezra Zygmuntowicz

I found this quote in an article up on InfoQ discussing EngineYards ‘backbone’ work in Cloud Computing. They are developing a new platform called Vertebra that will use Erlang and Ruby to ‘automate the cloud as well as distribute real time application development’. It sounds like Vertebra will be both a deployment tool and a back end messaging platform, using XMPP. XMPP is the messaging protocol used by the Jabber community.

This is exciting stuff, especially when Ezra mentioned that they will be open sourcing their technology. Imagine if hosting providers could standardize on one distribution platform whereby work could be passed along beyond institutional borders. One hitch may be billing, but I don’t think so. The math behind atomic charge-backs has already been calculated by the phone industry, a model they have always operated under.

Real Time Web. It makes more sense to me than a semantic web as far as a web 3.0 stake in the ground.

Jun
09
2008

Web Ads – Why JavaScript is misunderstood

Some programmers understand JavaScript. They get it. They see through the ugliness to behold magic potential deep within your browser. Other programmers just think that first group is touched in the head. If you are a programmer you have an opinion about JavaScript. If you are not a programmer you likely don’t care all that much. That is, unless, you are in the business of buying or selling advertising online. Then you should care a great deal because JavaScript is the reason you have a business model in the first place.

Web Advertising, thought to be the only way to monetize this freely collected warehouse of information and services, cannot happen without a little event involving Netscape and Sun back in December of 1995. Earlier that year Microsoft had introduced the Internet Explorer browser as direct competition to Netscape’s Navigator. There was bad blood in the water from the start, mainly due to the incompatible natures of the way IE and Navigator displayed the same website. Both were secretly working on a proposed standard language to allow websites to do anything more demanding than showing some text and a picture. Microsoft had vbscript derived from Basic in the works. Netscape whipped up a language called LiveScript, partnered with Sun to get the Java clout, quickly renamed the language to JavaScript for PR, and launched it to the world. Netscape had the market share to win hearts and minds, forcing Microsoft to support a modified version called JScript. JavaScript was then handed over the the European Computer Manufacturers Association as a standards committee who again renamed it to ECMAScript to clear up confusion about the fact that JavaScript really has nothing to do with Java.

With one standard language behind the major browsers (eventually) we were able to do some cool things with our websites. AJAX, the crazy new buzz all the kids are talking about, is using JavaScript to do cool stuff to avoid refreshing a web page. So what does this have to do with your Ad sitting on someone’s site? Everything.

You see, a content provider is very unlikely to ever see your ad personally. Despite common sense, they do not insert your ad into their web page themselves. Most ads served from a page go through an advertising network like Federated Media. The network slurps up space on content providers and you pay them to put your ad out to the world. That means that, at a technical level, it is impractical for a network to email new ads to the content people to have them inserted manually. Usually these are entirely separate companies. To facilitate things, Ad Networks use Ad Hosting companies like AdJuggler (or similar technology internally) to store the ads and to generate JavaScript tags. These tags are like special instructions you give the wait staff to hold the mayo and have the dressing on the side. The wait staff sends the special order to the kitchen just like the content provider combines their content with the JavaScript tags and send them down to your browser.

Here is where it gets interesting. Your browser reads the JavaScript tag and follows the instructions. In this case, it will go out to the Ad Hosting company and pull down the ad that is associated with this tag, the one the advertiser paid to have up on your site. This is somewhat analogous to Network TVs allowing syndicated stations to insert local advertising to which the Network has little involvement. A content provider can be just as shocked as you are when your ad shows up associated with inappropriate content. Slow ads, broken ads, misappropriated ads are typically unrelated to the content that the provider is serving up; one has little connection with the other. It is the Ad Networks job to facilitate that part of the agreement and a good network will do that part fairly and professionally.

The answer to ad placement, traffic patterns, click through rates, Share of Voice are much more complicated than we want them to be. Understanding the little dance going on behind the scenes helps, if only a little.