Since its launch, Google has been buzzing all across with over 9 million posts and comments. Business Standard take a look at the buzz around Google’s latest product.

Link to the original story by Leslie D’Monte & Priyanka Joshi

When Sanjeev Handa logged on to check his Gmail a week back, he was welcomed by a screen which invited him to join Google Buzz or proceed to check his email. “I was pleasantly surprised, but did not know what the buzz was about,” he said, adding: “When I clicked on the link, it asked me if I wished to connect with my Gmail friends. I thought why not?”

Handa is one of the nearly 176.5 million Gmail users who have impulsively clicked on Google Buzz, scaring the life out of other micro-blogging sites like Twitter and social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace.

“Where else can you get such a massive installed base with a single click? By building Buzz directly into Gmail, the service has an instant audience,” says Mahesh Murthy, founder and chief executive officer of search marketing firm Pinstorm. It is hard to start a social network from scratch, which explains why Orkut has not made much of a dent in markets like the US.

On the other hand, since its launch, Google has been buzzing all across with over nine million posts and comments. There were tweets on “Google Buzz” within every 11 seconds and technology forums were discussing Buzz with over 1,000 posts per day.

Incidentally, there are now more than 200 Yahoo! and third-party sites that feed into Yahoo! Updates. These include Flickr, Twitter, YouTube, Yelp and Yahoo! But the Buzz around Google (like all its other products) is very strong. Why is it so? Buzz can be said to be a stream of status updates, pictures, links and videos from your friends. You can “like” these items and comment on them. And if you use Flickr, Picasa, Google Reader or Twitter, you can automatically have those items imported into your stream. Buzz also recommends items you may like based on your friends’ activities. “The first thing we do when we find something is to share it,” reasons Google, adding: “…more sharing happens online”.

Google Buzz resonates a lot with FriendFeed but with a massive installed user base — all of which has literally made it the talk of the town (rather world).

“Google Buzz has created a whole new platform for promoting brands to create visibility through Google profiles. It would be bliss for the new age of spammers, because spam would not be in the guise of emails anymore, but in the shape and size of Buzz,” points out Moksh Juneja, social media analyst. Harish Tibrewala, joint chief executive officer, Social Wavelength, agrees: “The inclusion of GPS-tagging for text messages on Buzz is a very interesting feature and complements the social networking tool.”

Google had a gap in its offering when compared to Facebook and the introduction of Buzz could help it establish a Google-searchable social network. Users, however, do not see Buzz as a Facebook-killer. Subhash Pais, business head at i9 Communications, would like to see Buzz evolve more. “Too many people are sceptical about Buzz, and are running it down as a Twitter ‘me too’. Buzz needs to be given time.”

From Orkut to Lively to Google Friend Connect and beyond, Google has tried to succeed with social products that just haven’t caught on. But for Singapore-based automobile designer, Bikram Haldipur, Buzz was the most logical step for Google. “It’s built right into my Gmail page, so I don’t have to invite a new set of friends from the scratch. I am already following 54 friends and their updates,” he says.

Facebook has so far been the social networking leader with nearly 400 million active users worldwide, compared to Gmail’s approximately 175 million users — scale, of course, matters in social networking.

Nineteen-year-old Pune University student, Ankita Lunawat, wondered on her Facebook page: “It seems to me that Google Buzz is exactly what Google Wave should have been in the first place.” Google Wave, launched last year, was intended to be an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration.

Vikram Shirur, manager (corporate communications) at Victorinox India has not taken to Google’s latest social networking tool. “Having one window for social networking and mails is irrelevant. I wouldn’t like mixing my business contacts with Buzz without my approval on Gmail.” Shirur is referring to the default settings on Buzz, where people you follow and the people that follow you are made public to anyone who looks at your profile. In other words, before you change any settings in Google Buzz, someone could go into your profile and see the people you email and chat with most.

The user’s online identity has evolved beyond the email address and it is unlikely that one’s entire social network uses the same email provider, argue users. “One need not know an email address to find someone on Facebook or Twitter, making connecting an easier process than it will be on Gmail,” said New Delhi-based Kiran Khemani, social marketing specialist, over a Facebook message. Khemani believes the social functionality will enhance the Gmail experience but the new product does not appear to provide a compelling reason to switch from Facebook to Gmail for social networking.

But will Buzz do a Twitter eventually? The number of Twitter users has risen 75 million, but the growth rate of new users is slowing and many Twitterers are inactive, according to a new study by RJMetric Inc, which develops online metric analysis software. The rate of new user growth peaked last July to about 7.8 million a month. That number has dropped to about 6.2 million new users a month. Twitter, according to the report, has between 10 million and 15 million active tweeters. Earlier, HubSpot — a Cambridge, Mass.-based Web analytics company — revealed that the number of users joining Twitter started to drop off dramatically last fall.

And what about privacy concerns? Google announced some changes to Google Buzz. It will now ask Buzz users, “How do you want to be seen to others?”, when they log into the service for the first time. The default option will be, “Show the list of the people I’m following and the list of people following me on my public profile,” but that box can be unchecked and the option is easier to find than the convoluted process that was required to hide that list prior to the update. Tibrewala feels, “Within 24 hours, Google had addressed the privacy concerns and Buzz now distinguishes between followers with public profiles and those with private profiles.” Google, though, is yet to Google Buzz to its Privacy Dashboard.

While reading Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement, Mahesh Murthy noticed that Yahoo will sell your privacy for $10 to governments who need info about you. He tweeted about it and within minutes people were talking about it online. Clearly, privacy concerns are top-center in the minds of online users and this issue is discussed here below.

Link to the original story, by Ranjana Kaushal.

Any guesses on the worth of a basic user information uploaded on online sites? Going by a recent document put up by Internet major Yahoo, the purchase cost of a basic user information is a mere $ 20 or under Rs 1,000.

According to the document titled ‘Compliance guide for law enforcement’ Yahoo states that it provides subscriber information, including chat details to the respective state governments for a price. And this price starts from Rs 500 for identity proof records that individuals share while using emails, chats or social networking on its platforms. The price for doling out information rises, depending on the nature of requirement.

Take, for example, the basic group information (including information about moderators). This is priced at approximately $ 20 or under Rs 1,000 for a group with a single moderator. The contents of the subscriber accounts, including emails can vary between Rs 1,500 and Rs 2,000 per user. The price of the contents of the groups ranges between Rs 2,000 and Rs 4,000 per group.

Clearly, this means that any information that users put up in the virtual world is up for sale and Internet companies are more than willing to part with it for a price to government agencies.

"Most of the Internet companies share user information with law agencies. But in the case of Yahoo I find it particularly interesting wherein the company has put up a price list for the service. I would say it appears like a spying rate card.

It is difficult to say what kind of revenue this business might generate," says Mahesh Murthy, founder of Pinstorm, a pay for performance digital company.

While Internet firms such as Google, Rediff and others are known for providing data to government agencies for curbing terrorism, what comes as a surprise is the blatant tariff card put up by Yahoo.

Points out an industry observer, "There is little to debate on doling out information because recently terrorists have been actively using the online world to plan attacks using different IDs across the globe. Internet companies passing this information to governments help in track antisocial elements. The only thing is that pricing of such activities should be kept discreet." In the compliance guide, Yahoo mentions it has worked with law enforcement agencies and the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), US to develop practices for reporting instances of apparent child pornography (CP) as required by US laws.

Upon becoming aware of CP, Yahoo’s customer care department disables public access to the content and escalates it to the company’s legal department, which reviews the content and determines whether it is required to be reported to NCMEC. "Cases where Yahoo has helped democratic governments to nail criminals are commendable. But in the Presidential form of government the state uses this power to extract information about citizens who might indulge in (even) honest protests. Looking at these aspects I feel companies should refrain from putting a price tag on consumer-related information," says Murthy.

Pinstorm’s Mahesh Murthy spoke at the 140Conf in Los Angeles last month and we covered the reactions of his talk in an earlier blog post. While you can view his presentation there, checkout the video of his talk below:

We suggest you crank-up the speakers to max or listen in with headphones, the volume is a tad low on this one.

The term ‘Real-time’ is the flavour of the year. Twitter was recently valued at $1 Billion and the reasons for this large valuation are known to those familiar with the Web for a while – companies like Twitter are at the forefront of the Real-time Web.

Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important to plug into this ‘river of information’. In the slide presentation below, Mahesh Murthy of Pinstorm shares his views on Marketing in Real-Time on Twitter, which he presented at the 140Conf in Los Angeles on the 28th of October 2009:

Here are some reactions to his presentation from those at the 140Conf on Twitter:

This one tweet by @gbolles sums up Mahesh’s presentation rather well:

[Link]

by Satrajit Sen

Consim Info, which owns matrimony portal BharatMatrimony.com, recently filed a trademark infringement case against the internet search company Google and three other matrimony portals Jeevansathi.com, Shaadi.com and SimplyMarry.com in the Madras High Court. The court while hearing the case ex parte, gave an interim injunction to Consim. In the light of this case, AlooTechie tried to talk with some experts and see how they view the development.
According to Murugavel Janakiraman, founder and CEO, Consim Info, there are two reasons why the group has sued Google, and competitors Shaadi.com, Jeevansathi.com and SimplyMarry.com. “Firstly, we filed the case seeking prevention of competitive advertising on Google. People searching for our trademarks know what they are searching for, and Google is the entry point for our sites. And hence the users should not be shown ads of other similar websites. Secondly, we have asked Google to stop allowing our competitors using our trademarked keywords as headings. For example, if someone searches for ‘Tamil Bride’, which is a generic keyword, competitors use our trademarks (Tamil Matrimony) as headings in Google AdWords, which linkback to their websites,” Janakiraman told AlooTechie.

Following the Consim Vs Google case, AlooTechie tried to explore if the practice of showing competitors’ ads when one is searching for a brand name on Google, is happening only in the online matrimony space or in other verticals as well and found that there are similar cases happening with even offline brands such as Adidas, Dell and Max New York Life. For instance, a search for Adidas, Puma or Reebok on Google shows advertisements from Nike, while a search for LIC shows up ads from Max New York Life and Aegon Religare. Similarly, a search for HP leads us to ads from Dell and a search for Dell shows ads from Samsung. Looking into the online real estate space, we found that a search for 99acres shows ads from MagicBricks.

Clearly, this appears to be a common problem across the verticals and categories and is not only confined to the online matrimony space or even online space. Hence, we caught up with Mahesh Murthy, founder and CEO, Pinstorm, to know more about the practice of using a competitor’s registered trademark to advertise one’s products and services online.

According to Murthy, Google already has a rule in place which says that if a company can show the proof of its registered trademarks to Google, no one else would be allowed to advertise using these keywords. “For example, words like Jet and Microsoft are registered keywords for Jet Airways and Microsoft Corporation and Google doesn’t allow any other advertisements around the same search keyword. Now, in India, if a company fails to show the proof of its registered keywords, Google allows competitors’ ads to appear on search results, but restricts usage of the keywords in the copy of the ads,” said Murthy.

Speaking on whether BharatMatrimony is right in asking Google to stop competitors from using its keywords as ad headlines, Murthy said, “As claimed by Consim, ‘TamilMatrimony’ (without a space) is a registered keyword of the group. So, it appears that the group owns a combination of two generic words Tamil and Matrimony. Now, the competitors are using Tamil Matrimony as two separate generic keywords in their ad copies and hence BharatMatrimony can’t claim that these two separate generic terms are their registered keywords,” he added.

Agreeing with Mahesh Murthy, Pavan Duggal, advocate, Supreme Court of India, said that the usage of two generic terms separately in the search ads cannot be considered as a registered trademark infringement as BharatMatrimony just owns a joined version of the two generic terms. According to Duggal, depending on usage patterns, even a generic word can be registered as a keyword and once the trademark is registered the party has the legitimacy to ask search engines to protect the usage of that particular keyword by competitive properties in search results.

Describing the complaints made by BharatMatrimony as meaningless, Mahesh Murthy said that the group itself can be held guilty for a similar practice. “Though the Madras High Court has given an interim injunction, this is a wrong judgement and the decision should be challenged or else Jet Airways will tomorrow say that ‘Airways’ is their registered keyword and they want other airlines to stop advertising around that keyword,” said Murthy. He further suggested Google to stop using different policies in different countries and to make a standard keyword advertising policy across the world.

Commenting on the Consim Info Vs Google case, Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert, further said that the existing provisions of Indian cyber laws are being tested by the new challenges of this growing medium. “However, in this case where there is an Indian dispute, between Indian parties and in an Indian court, the enforceability of the law in favour of BharatMatrimony is something which is expected,” said Duggal.

When asked why Consim focused its trademark infringement case on the group’s matrimonial competitors, Janakiraman said that though the problem persists across categories and verticals, they have decided to go for BharatMatrimony as it is the company’s premiere and well-known brand. He further said that the company had earlier contacted Google on the same but did not get a good response and hence had to move to court.

Responding to the case filed by Consim Info, a Google India spokesperson has said, “We have received the court papers and are in the process of reviewing those. We believe that our policies are in compliance with the mandate of trademark law and we will defend our position on that basis. We also believe that consumers are smart and are not confused when they see a variety of ads displayed in response to their search queries. We will not be able to go into further details of the case, since the matter is sub judice.”