Way back in 1999 when I was working as a Web Traffic Analyst I remember the mantra coming from the big internet portals (Yahoo, Excite, MSN, AOL and Alta Vista),they were all saying “Make us your home page!” Then came the personalized experience, you could give the page a theme, move around some information, and see your favorite headlines all in one place. The idea was that people could find the information they wanted quickly. That was when we heard “Make your personalized page your home page.” Then came Google, and the concept of an information cloud. Suddenly, the “portal” seemed dead, personalized homepages languished, and without asking too much people began setting their home page to this new, simple search box that pulled anything they wanted out of a cloud.

For years it seemed like the personal home page was dead in the water, and then came iGoogle, a MyYahoo re-launch, Live.com, and a surprisingly familiar mantra “Customize this page and make it your home page.” I had to ask myself, haven’t we been here already? The answer, to my surprise is yes… and no….

Yes and no you ask?? How is that? Well, yes –we have had a personalized portal, but it was not until recently that we had the ability to publish our personalized pages to communities, follow the activity of our friends, and watch twitter feeds all day long. Something changed in recent years. In a world of Facebook and MySpace where people follow friend activity, share music and videos, rate headlines, and create media online, all of a sudden we are no longer simply pulling information out of a cloud. Instead we are actively participating in the creation, organization, and distribution of media– and the big guys are trying to position themselves to be the platform of choice for doing so. Hence, open application interfaces, the modularization of content and applications, and a renewed breath of life for the personalized home page as the place where this can all live.

As we become more and more involved with the internet the personalized home page is changing. It is becoming the place where we follow our twitter feeds, our friend updates, our YouTube videos, and even a place where we publish our content. We’re beginning to see it as a place where we go to store online files, manipulate and re-create media, and access online applications. It is no longer just a personalized view of the internet. It is not just about getting information, instead it is also about creating and interacting with information. It is a ground movement that has caused the personalized home page to evolve into something much more than it has ever been. The new personalized home page has changed. You can now follow your twitter feeds, you can see your buddy information, there are applications that you can interact with and all of this cool stuff is being organized in your personalized home page. In short, your personalized home page has changed, it is no longer just a home page. In short it has become more of an internet dashboard. It is a place where you can access your entire online life. You can pull information from the cloud, you can see your friends activity, you can publish, you can create, and you can organize your life.

Now, if we could just get some file storage, all creative suite apps and MS office applications integrated into the dashboard so that I can stop storing files on my hard drive, and stop spending thousands each year to update software. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google… which of you are going to do it first? The fighting bell has rung, let round two begin!

Google recently announced Knol, a new personal publishing platform than hopes to enable people to to author authoritative content.

“Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it,” writes Udi Manber, VP Engineering. “The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts to medical information, from geographical and historical to entertainment, from product information to how-to-fix-it instructions.”

Google Blog Post

As soon as this post went live on Google’s blog people started calling it a Wikipedia rival. Cnet’s Tom Espiner went so far as to say:

Search and advertising giant Google is developing a user-generated online encyclopedia that could rival Wikipedia.
Read Tom’s article

My problem is that looking at the functionality and the focus it seems more like a non-geek blogging platform designed to get people to write about subjects as if they were experts. If anything, it is more like About.com. It is hardly a Wikipedia rival. For those of you who may not have realized this, Wikipedia is a wiki first and an encyclopidia of knowledge second. What makes it “great” is the fact that it accounts for a “collective knowledge” rather than an individuals knowledge. It is the collective that writes each page. It is the collective to which each producer of content is accountable and without the ability to have the collective edit and re-work each page, it would not be possible.

But, let’s get out of web 2.0 for a second. Let’s go back to web 1.0. Remember Geocities? For those of you who don’t, way back in 1994 there was a tool for building personal home pages called Geocities. It was originally intended to give anyone a voice on the web by providing free web pages. Wikipedia has loads more information on it. What google has done here is said, “Okay, we want to have the experts write on the web using our platform, how can we do that?” So they took the Geocities concept from web 1.0, decided to organize it into something that they are calling an encyclopedia, made it possible for contributors have the option of revenue sharing for their articles, and took the ranking systems similar to Digg or Newsvine along with a few other 2.0 features and poof… you have Knol.

Some might call it genius. But I am skeptical. Don’t get me wrong, I think Google has done some amazing things, but this one seems off the mark. Why you ask? Well, without the community actually being able to contribute and edit each other’s pages what Knol will create is a mess. It will be a few of people writing so called “expert articles” and still more writing absolute crap.

Okay, some will say that Knol is way better than Geocities and this isn’t a fair comparison. Let’s say I give that to them, and instead we look at about.com. You may think about.com is a search engine, but that is far from the truth. About.com “is” the closest thing to Knol. It’s content is organized in logical categories and they attempt to have experts write about everything online. My issue with About.com has always been that the “expert information” lacks the depth needed to be anything of real value. Most of the time it is fluff. Which is to say there is just enough information there to have a light conversation but never enough to get any real work done. Where do I go for deep information?? Ahem.. cough- wikipedia.

So, is knol going to be an About.com killer? That may be the real question of the moment. But one thing we do know is that it is definitely not a Wikipedia rival.

With the rise of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, portals like Google, and Yahoo have begun mounting a significant response. It’s no surprise that recent product releases and news reports indicate they hope to integrate their e-mail systems and personalized home page services (iGoogle and MyYahoo) with social networking tools and utilities in an effort to shift users back to the essential tools for online communication and information gathering (IM, email, and personal home page services) while satisfying user demand for social networking style integration of community and connectivity. As this shift takes place personal home page services such as My MSN, MyYaho!, and iGoogle become increasingly important as the central hub of activity for users.

In the case of My Yahoo! there is significant buzz around it’s latest personal home page but critics seem to feel that it doesn’t go far enough. Billing itself as a gateway to the user’s frequently visited pages in Yahoo! and the Web, we can agree that the latest version of My Yahoo! has taken a huge leap forward. User response to feature updates has been largely positive. Most notably users appreciate the ease of use and solid integration with other online tools such as email, and IM. Most negative feedback surrounds the placement of advertising, third party widget integration, and arbitrary limits imposed on customization.

Key features include (compiled list from sites mentioned below):

• Drag and drop content: with the click of a mouse users are able to select and drag content around their personal home page. This demonstrates adoption of 2.0 programming techniques (AJAX ) to make the page more interactive and fluid. These techniques create a pleasing user experience because pages do not have to re-load in order to update .
• Search is right at the top and easily accessible. This is important because the accessibility of search within the page limits the need to leave the site and go to an alternative search engine such as Google, or MSN search. It’s great for Yahoo! and it is nice for users too.
• My Yahoo is now analyzing known data about the user (zip code from IP address and the areas of Yahoo that the user visits often) to create a customized version of the My Yahoo page right at signup. This results in targeted category pages for topics such as cooking, finances, etc along with “content suggestions”. The analysis makes the page much more sticky. Users who see relevant content right up front are much more likely to stay on the page and begin the process of customization.
• Users can further customize their page with drag-and-drop modules, and new four-column and small search box layouts. The ability to customize layouts is key to providing users with the feeling that they have control over their online environment. Additionally, users who spend the time to truly customize their content are less likely to switch personal home page providers.
• Feed previews and a full post reader on the page. Users use RSS feeds to follow their favorite sites, their social networking sites, their blogs, and to receive news updates. Integration of this service keeps users at the personal homepage and limits the need to leave the page.
• Editable Personal Assistant with instant access to things like Yahoo! Mail, IM, horoscopes, local traffic, etc. This is a nifty feature that many smaller competitors are not able to offer because they do not have the range of services that Yahoo has to offer. Keeping users in contact with the range of services the Yahoo! offers helps keep users within the network while encouraging addoption of other network offerings.
• Redesigned modules from Yahoo! and select partners, with games, music, commerce, sports updates, weather, finance portfolios, TV listings, etc. This is a value add for users who want pre-defined content modules and a way to offer support for selected partners but fails to be as inclusive as many users would like because it isn’t openly available to sites that may or may not be viewed as “competition”. For example, there is not Hotmail module, but there is a Flicr module.
• Sharing feature, enabling users to send their My Yahoo! page or favorite modules to friends and family - note, this is very similar to Pageflakes’ sharing feature, only Yahoo says that their sharing service doesn’t require sign-ups. Keeps users connected to their friends etc. Demonstrates a push toward social interaction but still falls short on full social networking power. For example, it would be nice if connected friends could also receive updates when information, pictures etc where shared between users. It would also be nice if users were able to tag communication between friends as public or private within a connected network, essentially allowing public communication update notices to travel to other connected network user pages.

So far so good huh. I like the features but it isn’t all good news. Though most user reaction to My Yahoo! has been positive and there is general agreement that they have done a good job at not upsetting their core audience there are several weaknesses: The advertising on the page is way too big and intrusive causing many to mention that they will be looking at Pageflakes and iGoogle as an alternative. They also fall down on their ability to deliver open modules and widgets. Meaning they don’t have an open platform for developers and the modules don’t support the competition. From a business standpoint this type of behavior was understandable in web 1.0 but for those of us pushing web 2.0 this is a failing business modle. The reason is that the little guys are making modules and widgets that are completely open and that support anyone willing to develop (competition or not).

Here are just a few choice quotes from arround the web that demonstrate where My Yahoo! should be going:

“Functionally Yahoo should also start thinking about allowing their widgets to live anywhere, ie giving people the ability to embed their widgets anywhere…. Widget portability is crucial” — User response to Richard MacManus, Read/Write Web article. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/my_yahoo_web20_makeover.php

“There are a couple of areas where My Yahoo is still lagging competitors like Netvibes. Widgets cannot be added to the site, although that is coming eventually, the team says. Users also can no longer have bookmarks linked right from the main page - that feature has been moved to a drop down control panel. That makes some sense from a user interface perspective, but I’ll miss being able to access bookmarks with a single click. Finally, My Yahoo has a large ad unit on the site that cannot be removed - something none of the other services force on users.” – Michael Arrington, Tech Crunch. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/08/all-new-my-yahoo/

“The new My Yahoo is a step forward but misses the mark. It is more about Yahoo! and less about today’s users of the Web, who expect more from their personalized page. Their new personalization feature steers you towards Yahoo! services while restricting access to others like Google and MySpace. The new version limits user choice because it isn’t open to developers. Lastly, you can’t publish your personalized page on the web, or collaborate on your page with others.” — Pageflakes CEO Dan Cohen (former head of MyYahoo). http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/pageflakes_response_myyahoo_beta.php

Conclusions

Although My Yahoo! is doing better and is still the largest thanks to that “first to market” advantage back in the 1990’s, it still hasn’t fully commited to the core principles of web 2.0. I’m excited by the recent changes, but also am excited for the competition. There are a whole lot of things yet to be built into personal home pages and it is only a matter of time before someone does it right.

It happens to the best companies out there. One day while checking into their e-commerce revenue, site traffic, newsletter subscriptions, and Google rankings something seems amiss. Things have been chugging along for years but suddenly the revenue is down, or the site traffic is a little off, or the number of people subscribing seems to be dropping off.

The problems are very minor at first and companies typically rely on their web team and marketing department to resolve them. But, no one seems to know just what the issues are? That is because traditional marketing does not take into account the three rules of doing business in a web 2.0 world.

Web 2.0 Rule #1 What the Community Wants, the Community Gets

But, you ask, what does that mean? Let’s look a quick example.

PlanetOut.com (www.planetout.com)

Way back when I worked for them (it was a fun company to work for at the time) they were building a small empire that relied heavily on revenue generated from subscriptions to personal add services in addition revenue generated from advertising and sponsorship. They also made some headway in the travel and destination side of things. It was a good business model for the time and worked well for them until about 2005. Now the company is nearly defunct. It’s stock has hit an all time low and things don’t look good for the company.

What happened?

From the outside it is pretty clear what happened. MySpace and FaceBook, along with a host of other social networking sites changed the rules. Suddenly the community wanted to be able to claim their friends and meet people through their own acquaintances. They wanted more interaction on their profile pages than PlanetOut was willing to give, and more importantly, they didn’t want to think of their “social networking” as hooking up through a personal ad.

What could they have done? Way back in 2005 when they noticed things were dropping off they had an opportunity. It would have had to have been drastic, but the opportunity was there none the less. At this time, PlanetOut knew something was wrong. MySpace was on the rise and their own membership was flat. At this point a company has a couple options. Re-design your own website so that you can more effectively compete by adding the social networking services that your competition has, or purchase your competition.

In 2005 I would venture to say that PlanetOut didn’t need to compete head to head with MySpace, but they did need to answer the community’s call for social networking services, the likes of which only MySpace and a few others were providing at the time.

In effect, the wave of technological innovation that began way back in 2003 created new ways of doing business which we are now calling web 2.0.

In addition to sites that rely on revenue from personals adds like PlanetOut and Match.com there are a number of other sites which may soon be in trouble. Like who you ask? One example are sites which provide photography services. For example a site like Snapfish which relies on revenue generated from photo printing services is at an extreme disadvantage to a site like Flickr. Let’s look at them side by side and see why.

Snapfish vs. Flickr

It is true that for the moment Snapfish is a profitable company and they have done very well, but web 2.0 changes everything. Here is the core of the issue. Snapfish is clearly focused extracting revenue by touting value for their customers. Glancing at their hompage makes this clear. Their homepage reads:

“Welcome to the best value in photography”

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with extracting revenue. All business needs to generate revenue, but they are missing the big picture. And unfortunately for Snapfish, Flickr has their eye on it. Glancing at their home page you’ll notice a very different message:

“Share your photos. Watch the world”.

So what is the danger to Snapfish? Snapfish is breaking rule #2 for doing business in a web 2.0 world.

Rule #2 Enabling Community Comes Before Revenue

Just looking at the two home pages gives you an insight that many inside Snapfish will fail to see. Snapfish is not moving quickly enough into the world of web 2.0. They are still putting revenue before community while Flickr is focused on creating a community first, then extracting revenue. Both companies have a similar revenue model. They sell photo services to their customers. The advantage that Flickr has at the moment is that they are doing a much better job of enabling the community to live through their photographic experiences. What this means is that if Snapfish does not change its focus so that it puts community first, they will soon be left wondering where their market went? The answer won’t be surprising; their market will be hanging out on Flickr.

What’s worse is that, at the moment, I’m sure the folks over at Snapfish believe that they are focused on community. But looking at what they say tells another story. Just check out their “about us page” where they say:

“Snapfish is a leading online photo service with more than 40 million members and one billion unique photos stored online. We enable our members to share, print and store their most important photo memories at the lowest prices.”

Most people would say that this proves they are developing community and committed to web 2.0 but this is not the case. I’d read this differently. From the statement above I’d say they are committed to building a leading online photo service and happen to have a community as a result. There only mention of interacting with other members comes down to a line about sharing their photos. This shows a lack of dedication to rule #2 because community is not the first priority; instead they are focused on revenue.

Finally, in the battle between Flickr and Snapfish there is one more clear advantage that Flickr has. That is, that its members create content that other users want. It isn’t just sharing with your friends and loved ones. It is sharing and creating content with the world at large for free, and without the need for registration. This leads to rule #3.

Rule #3 Community Builds and Manages Itself

But wait you say, Snapfish members are free to upload and do what they want right? Wrong, Snapfish members are simply using a tool for organization and management and sale of their existing photos. Those members are not managing other members, building community tools, creating their own content to be shared across the network, or developing Snapfish interfaces. On flickr they are. Community members police their own user generated content, they build application interfaces and mashups to allow their flickr content to appear on their blogs and on their own personal websites. And the folks at flickr enable organic community growth. The flickr team is focused on enabling their community to be as creative and self managing as is possible with their flickr accounts. This is an area where snapfish fails miserably.

But don’t think that Snapfish is the only one with an issue. Snapfish is just one example of a good company facing challenges. There are a host of very solid companies that will need to address the same type of issues.

Apple and iTunes

Apple iTunes is also breaking the rules. Don’t get me wrong, it is a great application and right now is the industry norm, but it is only a matter of time before another company pops up and takes a real bite.

By selling downloadable music with digital rights management (DRM) encrypting Apple is faced with a conundrum. Users don’t want DRM. Unfortunately for Apple most of the music industry does. This has left Apple calling for an end to DRM, but not actually being able to completely break free of it. Amazon and a host of other music services have latched on to this opportunity and are now launching music downloading services which are DRM free. But this is not the only area where Apple could face a challenge. What happens when a site or application pops up that provides open, DRM free music and video downloads? What happens when that site focuses on enabling the community to experience and truly share music with the world? But let’s take this one step further, what happens when those users are enabled to mash existing music tracks and share their creations for free online? Where do you think all of the iTunes users will be hanging out?

Summary

As you can see the rules apply to all companies operating online. Some, like PlanetOut, have been hit early and are already feeling the effects. Some, like Snapfish, are just now beginning to notice that something is happening. And others, like Apple with its iTunes music store have not yet been hit. The one thing we can all be sure of however is that the rules are there, and companies will live and die by of them.