Out of My Gord

Microsoft's Walk vs Microsoft's Talk

2009-04-10T08:42:45-07:00:00

Not so many columns ago, I urged Microsoft to do something amazing in search. Last week, they did. But it wasn't in a good way. I was on the road last week, and I saw three different things land in my inbox about Microsoft and its search efforts. With each email, my frustration mounted. Finally, Friday as I was sitting in Seattle airport, I couldn't contain myself anymore. I sent an email to the most senior person I knew at Microsoft Search. The gist of the email was "don't do it," Yesterday, I got an email back thanking me for my "honest" feedback. Yet somehow, I don't think it will make a difference.

Here were the articles I saw:

One - Google can't innovate but Microsoft can, according to Bloomberg.com:

"Being the underdog in the Internet- search market has one advantage for Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer: He says his company can experiment, while rival Google Inc. plays it safe. 'Google does have to be all things to all people,' Ballmer said... Our search does not need to be all things to all people.'"

I believe Ballmer is right here, in theory. What's happening in reality is something very different. But let's hold that thought for a moment.

Two - Search isn't solved, according to Arstechnica.com:

"We're not at where we'd like to be," Weitz [Stefan Weitz, Microsoft Web Search Team] began, and then dove in to explain that people are generally happy with how their search engine is working, until the data shows that they are not."

Nobody is arguing that the 10 blue links is the pinnacle of search, especially Google. So it's hard to disagree here. We judge relative to what we know, but we're on the brink of blowing that away.

So far, Microsoft is saying all the right things.

Three - Microsoft to spend $100 Million in advertising new search engine, according to Adage.com
"Industry executives expect JWT, part of WPP, to unveil an estimated $80 million to $100 million push for the new search engine in June, with online, TV, print and radio executions."

What? This was the email that drove me over the edge. $100 million? On Kumo..or Kiev or whatever they call this? This is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to start.

I'm not going to pass judgment on a search interface I haven't got my hands on. I don't think it's fair to make a call on a few leaked screenshots. But I will say that I've seen nothing revolutionary about this. And that's the point. As I've said over and over and over, Google is a habit. You don't break a habit with $100 million in advertising. You don't break it with promises of search usage kickbacks. And you certainly don't break it with a marginal and incremental change in the search experience. Microsoft is right to introduce categorized search. They're right to explore changing the search interface. No arguments there. But this is not the time to draw $100 million in attention to it. Best case scenario: no improvement to market share. Worst case, the biggest drop yet, if the usability aspects haven't been fully thought out.

If you accept the message in the first two emails, Microsoft needs to be a search start-up: bold, nimble, visionary, passionate and rebellious. And there's no way in hell that will happen on the Redmond campus. Bold, nimble, visionary, passionate rebels are nowhere to be seen.

The First Step is Admitting the Problem

So accept what you are, and more importantly, accept what you're not. Tweak your search product to improve experience, catch up and try to stem the market share bleeding. There's nothing wrong with that. And stop with the rebranding. Every time you do that, you're breaking the established habits of your own users and giving them the chance to go elsewhere. This strategy will blow up in your face.

At the same time, stop worrying about winning the 10 blue link search war and start planning for the next battle. That's when the Google habit will be broken and where you have a chance to change the game. Here are the things Microsoft needs to start thinking about:

Stop worrying about relevance and start worrying about usefulness.
Understand that search patterns represent a complex system and look at ways to discover emergent behavior from that system. Use your findings to improve everyone's search experience (this is an element in Stephen Wolfram's Alpha project)
Use every signal at your disposal to interpret user intent in an implicit way. Embrace personalization, behavioral patterns, the social graph, task context and anything else that helps uncover what's in a person's mind.
Reinvent the interface. Embrace how humans follow information scent. Use more intuitive interface tools to allow us to choose, filter and drill into promising paths. And make it workable in much less real estate.
Make a better search experience personal and portable, seamlessly transferring from the desktop to the mobile device.
Hold Google's feet to the fire. Follow your own advice and innovate faster and better than they do. Because you're right, it's difficult for them to innovate and risk alienating their user base. But here's the flipside to that. It's easier for them to take that risk when there's no strong alternative to go to.

Before You Say No, Just Listen...

If Microsoft really wants to spend $100 million on search, here's my suggested plan. Take $20 million and fund 10 start-ups for $2 million each. Give them a one-year mandate to reinvent search. Take the remaining $80 million and use it to develop a TV reality show. Call it "Google Killer." Get Steve Ballmer to host. He can throw chairs, do the Monkey Dance and lead the audience in a chant of "Developers, Developers, Developers." I guarantee you'll get a better return on your investment.

And if someone at Microsoft is listening, I'm free to discuss the development deal for the show. Hell, I'll even be one of the contestants. Call me anytime.

More On The Confluence Of Spring Break

2009-04-04T08:50:56-07:00:00

And the third "Spring Break" column, with a little history lesson thrown in! This was published last Thursday in MediaPost.

Starting in the 1400s, an explosion of exploration came from Europe called the Age of Discovery. Prior to that, the world was a much smaller place. In fact, the end of the world was reckoned to be somewhere past Cape Bojador in West Africa. But during this time of exploration, the boundaries of the world were pushed back dramatically. By the end of the 15^th century, Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope, Vasco da Gama sailed by this route to India and Christopher Columbus had sailed to the new world. Just 20 years later, Ferdinand Magellan would become the first to circumnavigate the globe. In just over 100 years, the world as we know it was discovered. And it was all due to one person: Prince Henry the Navigator.

Meet Prince Henry

Prince Henry was born in 1394, the third son of King John I of Portugal. At the age of 27, his father made him governor of the province of Algarve, in the south of Portugal (coincidentally, where I spent my spring break family vacation). Although he became known as Prince Henry the Navigator or Seafarer, neither is very close to the truth. Prince Henry spent little time on a boat. Henry was really more a very capable administrator. He built the foundations that would propel Portuguese explorers to explore the world, expand the empire and bring untold wealth back to Portuguese shores. Henry set in motion a chain of events that changed history.

Henry accomplished this in four ways:

He convinced Portuguese patrons, primarily the very wealthy Order of Christ, to provide a consistent source of funding for discovery, allowing for ongoing exploration.
He ordered the development of the much lighter and faster caravel, which allowed for more precise coastal navigation and faster crossings. It became the preferred vessel for Portuguese exploration.
He created a center for navigational education and cartography at Sagres, where the Portuguese developed the techniques to allow them to sail much further away from land, something that almost certainly would have resulted in disaster before this.
He created a "revenue model" for exploration, convincing his family of the benefits of opening up the spice and incredibly lucrative slave trade (moral judgments aside), all flowing into the nearby port of Lagos (where we stayed during our vacation).

In short, Henry created the conditions for success that lead to the explosion of discovery. The desire to break the Portuguese stranglehold was why Spain financed Columbus's journey (rumor has it that Columbus spent time at Sagres). And the later period of English discovery was also precipitated through competition with Portugal and Spain. And it all began with an effective administrator.

Taking a Lesson from History

Now, let me draw together my three disparate ideas that I started last week, (although I'm sure you're already well ahead of me):

In "Outliers," Malcolm Gladwell argues that success isn't pure chance. It's a combination of conditions that can be planned and set in place. Certainly, Vasco da Gama didn't luck into his discovery of the route to India.
Ray Kurzweil (whether or not you agree with his vision of the future) shows that technology can release us from the constraints that threaten our world, including disease, poverty, environmental damage and even death.
And Henry the Navigator provides historical proof of the value of a visionary and capable administration.

We who are fortunate enough to find ourselves in rich, developed countries have enjoyed a disproportionate share of success. Even during the current financial turmoil, we are still, by far, the wealthiest and most advantaged people on the face of the earth. But we cannot move forward with a misbegotten sense of entitlement or by taking our success for granted. We have to put the foundations in place that will lead to success in a new and dramatically different world. We have to follow in Henry's footsteps, building the foundations that will lead to discovery and expansion of our world. If we don't, someone else surely will. In fact, they already are. To the East, exactly those foundations are currently being put in place.

We need an administration that is capable of building this foundation. And here, we can learn a lesson from history. This administration must:

Realize that discovery is an incremental and imperfect process. For every success, there will be many more failures. But success is impossible without those failures.
Be bold and consistent in guaranteeing funding for technological discovery.
Be wise in balancing the moral dilemmas presented by technology. The good of the many must prevail against the knee-jerk reactions of the few.
Be prepared to completely reinvent our concept of education, because we are being quickly left behind.

We have been blessed with huge advantages and the future is ours to lose, but there is nothing guaranteed here. In the 1300s, Portugal was a small and relatively insignificant player on the European landscape. But, because of one man's vision, they ruled the world just one hundred years later. It was an era of discovery and opportunity that was unequaled in history. But it pales in comparison to what awaits us.

Let's not blow it.

The Confluences Of Spring Break

2009-04-04T08:44:53-07:00:00

This was the second "Spring Break column", originally published in MediaPost on March 26, 2009

It's funny. Given three disparate ideas and enough time out of the office, I can somehow manage to tie it all together into a Search Insider theme. The ingredients for this column? The two books I chose to pack to read on my Spring Break vacation, and a bit of history from Southern Portugal, where I've spent the past week.

Odd Man Out

The first book was Malcolm Gladwell's latest, "Outliers" (chosen primarily because reading Gladwell doesn't seem like work at all, a key criteria for vacation reading). In typical Gladwellian fashion, he takes a central idea -- the outliers that fall beyond the bell curve aren't there solely because they're on the thin edge of pure statistical probability -- and explores it with a mix of story telling, research and undeniably compelling writing. If one can excuse Gladwell for his "Just So" tendencies, putting his ideas across from his single perspective, with a rather fast and loose selection of supporting arguments, it made for a painless and fascinating read.

In "Outliers," Gladwell looked at statistical oddballs as diverse as Bill Gates (in terms of success), The Beatles (again, success), Chris Langan (a genius with an IQ of 195 who never made it through university), Korean Airlines (for the frequency of crashes in the '80s and early '90s), a small town called Roseto in Pennsylvania (where everybody lives longer than they're supposed to, statistically speaking) and the hockey players that make it to the WHL (Western Hockey League) and eventually, the NHL (like me, Gladwell also grew up in Canada).

Luck is What You Make It

Gladwell's point, which he makes persuasively, is that these things are not simply a matter of odds or blind luck. There are distinct patterns of influence that tend to create outliers. They include your socioeconomic status, your culture, your upbringing and even your birthday. Here is a smattering of Gladwell's reasonings:

NHL hockey players make the big leagues because they're born early in the year, physically dominating their age groupings in minor hockey, advancing to rep teams, thereby getting more coaching and ice time.
Bill Gates, through a series of lucky occurrences, managed to amass 10,000 hours of programming experience as a child and teen at a time where access to computers was very hard to come by.
The Beatles jumped ahead of their contemporary competition because the 8-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week performing schedule in Hamburg ground down their rough edges and smoothed out their act.
Korean Airlines had an abysmal safety record because Korean culture made it taboo to question the wisdom of the pilot, even if he had the plane heading directly into a mountain
Chris Langan was born with one of the highest measured IQs in America, but was also born poor and disadvantaged, leaving him without the social skills required to successfully navigate through university and on to adult success.

Gladwell's conclusion Luck, either good or bad, isn't simply left to chance. And even inherent gifts, like Langan's IQ, aren't a guarantee of success. Luck can be manufactured. The conditions for success can be consciously put in place in a system where the desired outcomes are known. So, what are those outcomes? That brings me to the second book I brought on vacation.

Welcome to Kurzweil's Singularity

Ray Kurzweil is definitely out there. This is a man who takes 250 nutritional supplements every day and gets seven blood transfusions every week so he can re-engineer his body to live longer. He believes humans and computers will merge in the next few decades, vastly pushing back the known limits of human intelligence, an event he calls the Singularity.

My other book was Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" -- a book chosen primarily for its heft of over 600 pages. I knew it would keep my busy through to the end of my two- week vacation. A quick summary of Kurzweil's predictions from the book might lead one to question his mental stability:

Physical bodies will become essentially meaningless in the next century, as we will live in a virtual world with physical representations of our own design.
Table top "nanofactories" will create everything we'll need, atom by atom, from a lump of raw materials.
We will upload our personalities to a computer, thereby living forever.
Technological evolution has taken over from biological evolution, giving humans the freedom to design our future.
Aging and disease are a few decades away from being conquered forever.
Nanobots will allow us to control every element of our environment, eliminating pollution.

Kurzweil is manically optimistic about our future, and that future is not hundreds of years away. Most of Kurzweil's seminal events happen before 2050. As the title of the book says, the merging of biology and technology is near (starting in 2030).

Just Crazy Enough to be Right

But Kurzweil is far from a quack. The reason for the imminent horizon is the rapid, exponential increase in the rate of technological advancement. Kurzweil is meticulous in pulling together the current state of affairs in areas including nanotechnology, robotics, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and neuroscience to build a rock-solid foundation for his predictions.

Kurzweil's view of the future is positively blinding in its enthusiastic brilliance. He is adamant that there is no problem that can't be overcome with enough intelligence, a resource that will explode in abundance thanks to the Singularity. And his track record is sound. Kurzweil's predictions have been remarkably accurate in the past. It's hard not to get caught up in his optimism. Even if it all doesn't come to pass, Kurzweil paints a picture of a future worth striving for.

So, those are the first two ideas that converged over my Spring Break. Luck doesn't just happen. We're not held prisoner by some probabilistic crapshoot. And for the first time in memory, I saw a vision of the future that wasn't predominantly pessimistic. I'll leave it there for now. Next week, I'll tell you the story of Portugal's Henry the Navigator.

Looking For The Future? Look For Chaos, Not Stability

2009-04-04T08:39:01-07:00:00

I recently had the opportunity to go to Portugal and London with my family for Spring Break. Three Search Insider columns came out of different impressions, books I read or other thoughts I had while away. This was the first one, originally published on MediaPost on March 19th.

This week, someone asked me about sustainable business models in the Internet. Earlier the same day, another person asked me about defensible models. Both questions left me perplexed. I wasn't trying to avoid them. I just didn't know how to answer. So, some 48 hours later, I offer this column as a somewhat belated response. It isn't an answer, as I'm still just as perplexed. But now at least I know why.

So why are people asking about defensible and sustainable business models on the Internet? Well, if there's one thing the Internet has done, it's brought sky-high valuations back to earth. So, investors doing what investors do, they're suddenly looking for "bargain" companies that have mature business models and trial-tested management. Hence the quest for sustainability and defensibility. Reasonable, right? It certainly makes sense if you're going shopping for a private equity fund. But in the last two days, I've decided it's almost exactly the wrong question to ask. It's like looking for dry ground in a tsunami: it may give you some temporary peace of mind, but don't count on it to last long.

The Quarter Century Electric Switch

Nicholas Carr's book, "The Big Switch," ties the development of the Internet to a previous discontinuous innovation, the electrification of America. In it, he provides a fascinating recount of the unsung visionary who laid the foundations of the power grid we take for granted today, Samuel Insull. Insull started as Thomas Edison's clerk, but soon split with his mentor in his vision of the future of electricity. Edison, for all his brilliance, was thinking too small. He was concentrated on building individual DC generators for industrial applications. Insull saw the promise of a ubiquitous power supply, centrally generated and then distributed. It is Insull, not Edison, who is responsible for the power receptacle that probably sits no more than 10 feet away from you right now.

In the very earliest days of electricity, one would have been a fool not to choose Edison as the forerunner, the candidate most likely to carve a business out of the new frontier. His innovations harnessed electricity and made it usable.

But if you had bet on Edison to provide a sustainable model, you would have lost. It was Tesla's AC standard, not Edison's DC, that proved to be the one adopted. And it was Insull's vision of electricity as a utility that changed our world.

The idea was simply too big for one man. And it was bringing all the implications of that idea together that proved to be the true agent of change. It launched a shift in American (and global) lifestyles that Edison never envisioned. But from the initial stages in the final years of the 19^th century, that shift took three decades to be fully realized. It took the building of new infrastructure, the development of new industries and the adoption of certain ways of doing things. It took thousands of visionaries, not one, to realize the significance of harnessing electricity. Imagine then the impossible task of finding a defensible, sustainable business model for electricity in 1895. In hindsight, it's clearly laughable to even attempt such a thing. But today, we're trying to do exactly that with the Internet.

Fragmented Functionality

There is one big difference between the Internet and electricity. An electrical appliance is an electrical appliance. Its functionality is usually independent. A blender doesn't become more useful if you also plug in a toaster. But the Internet lives on mashups and APIs. Apps can become exponentially more powerful if they plug into other apps.

Today, the Internet is a fragmented place. Functionality lies across the grid in a million different shards and chunks. Some of these are larger than others. Search is a particularly large one. And today, we're just beginning to explore how all this functionality can come together. The infrastructure has been laid. The grid has been built. Now it's time to start plugging in apps and see how they can work together. If you think the last decade brought discontinuous change, wait til you see what the next decade has in store. We're just getting ready to take the Net for a spin and see what it can do.

I've come to realize that there's no such thing as revolutionary change. It only appears so when you look at it in a historical perspective. Instead, there are tipping points of incremental change. Every supposedly revolutionary development was built on the back of hundreds of other developments. Cumulatively, they indeed change everything, but each development could never have happened without its supporting cast. It wasn't Edison's development of the incandescent light bulb that lit up America. It was a thousand developments, by Faraday, Golvani, Ohm, Volta and many others. Each one pushed us closer to the tipping point. When we reach it, we step forward, never to look back.

Back to the Original Question

To return to the beginning: What is a sustainable, defensible business strategy online? I have no idea. I don't think such a thing exists. For all the excitement, for all the promise, there are no sure bets. The two concepts are incompatible. You'll have to pay your money and take your chances. To cause investors even more discomfort, almost all innovation comes from small start-ups. They far outpace the level of innovation coming out of corporate America. So if you're looking to capitalize on the growth of the Internet, don't look for stability. It's the wrong place to look.

Google: Bad Behavior?

2009-03-15T07:42:01-07:00:00

It seems that every time I'm getting ready to go on a family holiday, Google decides to up the game with personalization. Two years ago on the cusp of a spring getaway they announced default opt ins for search and web history. This time, they're siddling up to behavioral targeting, courtesy of that same personal information. In the process, they've recanted much of what they've said about behavioral targeting over the past 2 years. I have always said that of course Google was going to go down the behavioral targeting road. Why else would they be collecting the data? The official line of making your search experience better didn't hold much water.

I'm torn on the whole question of behavioral targeting. As a marketer, I appreciate the potential. BT was the tactic that marketers were most interested in according to the latest SEMPO Search Market Survey. But as a user, I'm profoundly disappointed in Google's tip toeing around the issue. I think it shows a more fundamental issue at the heart of Google's culture, which has been rearing it's head more often as of late.

The disastrous economy has created a split personality within Google.It seems that Google, once the brash, idealistic young university student out to change the world is now being severely schooled in the more pragmatic ways of that world. Google is growing up, and I'm not sure we'll like what it turns into. It's double talking, pulling the bait and switch, sacrificing ideals for cash and sometimes outright lying. In short, it's becoming just like every other company in the world. The company John Battelle wrote about in The Search is rapidly disappearing. In it's place is an online juggernaut that seems intent on keeping advertisers happy. The one thing that always set Google apart was it's respect for the user. If you read the official Google press release on this, the carrot for the user is more relevant ads. Okay,that's a stretch of epic proportions. You're tracking everything I do, based on a promise to make my search experience more useful. You know what? My search experience hasn't changed too much in the last 2 years. I haven't noticed a huge increase in relevancy. But now you're using the information I volunteered, giving it to marketers so they can serve me more ads? That wasn't part of the original bargain Google. You violated my trust. And you did it to keep more revenue rolling in.

Behavioral targeting of ads was inevitable. Everyone knew Google was going there. So why were they so righteous (and so dismissive of other BT providers) in saying that it just wasn't a targeting approach they were going to take? Not cool, Google, not cool.

When Search and Social Collide

2009-03-15T07:11:04-07:00:00

Originally published in the Search Insider, March 12, 2009

I feel the ground shifting under my feet. And I'm not the only one. John Battelle voiced his perception of shift in a post this weekend:

Search, and Google in particular, was the first true language of the Web. But I've often called it a toddler's language - intentional, but not fully voiced. This past few weeks folks are noticing an important trend - the share of traffic referred to their sites is shifting. Facebook (and for some, like this site, Twitter) is becoming a primary source of traffic.

Why? Well, two big reasons. One, Facebook has metastasized to a size that rivals Google. And two, Facebook Connect has come into its own. People are sharing what they are reading, where they are going, and what they are doing, and the amplification of all that social intention is spreading across the web.

Talking the Talk

I find Battelle's analogy of language particularly apt here. I'm a big Steven Pinker fan and am fascinated by the way we process language. It maps well to our use of search.

There are two bursts of language development that correspond to the two biggest periods of brain development. The first, during the first few years of our lives, are when we assimilate the rudimentary rules of our mother tongue. We move from single words to small sentences. We use our new channel of expression to begin to connect with our physical environment, telling others our basic needs (hunger, diaper changes) and asking why things are. At the earliest stages, we explore through language.

The next is during adolescence. Now, we use language to connect with others. We fine-tune empathy, create relationships and probe the fit and fiber of those relationships through words. We mirror others' emotions in our own minds, and language is an essential part of that process.

As Battelle says, our use of Google equates to our first explorations of our online world. Our queries are quick and primitive stabs in the dark, hoping to find something of interest. But now, we're become online adolescents. We're connecting and conversing, and in that, there is a new and indexable Web or words that becomes very interesting.

Humans being Human

Online becomes fundamentally important when we use it to do the things that come naturally for us. Seeking information is natural, and search gave us a new and more effective way to do it. Connecting with others is natural, and Facebook and Twitter give us a new way to do that as well. This isn't about technology. This is about being human. Technology should be transparent in the process.

But when those fundamental activities leave lingering digital footprints that are quickly converging, there is something staggering in the implications. The ability to create feedback loops between patterns that emerge in the complexity of online, and then use that ability to navigate and connect to places and people, foretells the future of the Web. Twitter and Facebook are not replacements for Google. They are social signals that potentially increase the effectiveness of our online language exponentially. To quote Battelle again:

The conversation is evolving, from short bursts of declared intent inside a query bar, to ongoing, ambient declaration of social actions.

Consider the implications: Google's mission to index and organize all the world's information; the increasing use of personalization to uncover your conscious and subconscious intent; and, the ability to tap into the very vibrations of a vast social network. It will take time to bring it together, but when it does, it will change everything.

Your Brain on Google: Interview with Dr. Teena Moody

2009-03-05T21:27:50-08:00:00

This is the full transcript from my interview with Dr. Teena Moody from UCLA's Semel Institute about the Your Brain on Google Study. Today's Just Behave column on Search Engine Land has more commentary and analysis of the findings.

Gord:

Why don't we start with the study where you were comparing activation of the brain using Google versus reading text? What was your original hypothesis going into that study?

Dr. Moody:

Well, we were very interested in two ideas. One was how do the patterns of brain activity differ when you're doing an internet search versus reading, since computers are such a big part of our lives these days? And then we also wanted to look at different groups of people, people who were internet-savvy and had lots of computer exposure and experience, and compared that to naive subjects – with "naive" we mean people who don't use computers or the internet very often.

Now there are some difficulties in recruiting for this group because so many people have access to computers these days and that was part of our rationale for choosing an older group of participants here, because you find very few 30-year-olds who don't have computer experience.

Gord:

So for the purpose of this study, what was the definition of "internet-naive"?

Dr. Moody:

A naive person, we were ideally getting someone who had no internet experience, although they could have computer experience. And it turned out we had a self-rating for them – their frequency of computer use, their frequency of internet use, and then a self-rating of their expertise. And it turns out that the net-naive people use the computer usually once or twice a month, and the internet-savvy people several times a day. In terms of the internet, some of them had never actually been on the internet and some maybe used it once a week or once a month for the naives. Again, the savvy people use the internet multiple times a day.

Gord:

Okay.

Dr. Moody:

So we were able to get a very good spread there between the two groups.

Gord:

So what is an fMRI machine? If I was looking at one, what would I be seeing?

Dr. Moody:

Well, it isn't the same as an MRI machine. It uses, rather than having ionizing energy, you're using a magnetic field and radio frequency to generate a pattern, and we can look at what's called the BOLD signal, and that's the blood oxygenation level dependent signal in the brain, and it is correlated with brain activity. So we're interested in an fMRI, which is functional MRI, and looking at a pattern of brain activity. And that's what we were looking at in this study, differences in the pattern of brain activity between savvy subjects and naive subjects, and comparing that when they're doing internet searches and doing reading…just to see the pattern of activity… if we see different parts of the brain being activated.

Gord:

Okay. So you're getting them to do different tasks, you're getting them to read, you're getting them to actually do online activities. How were the stimuli presented to them, because in an MRI machine, you're basically in a tube – right? – and you can't move your head…

Dr. Moody:

Yes. Keeping your head still is very important in an MRI machine. It's just like if you moved your camera when you're taking a photo, it will be blurry. So the participants do have to lie in a tube, essentially – they can't be claustrophobic – and they wear goggles. It's very much a virtual reality experience. They wear goggles and they have headphones so that we can speak to them and they can speak to us, we hear each other. And before the actual experiment starts, we usually start with a movie to let them become relaxed in the environment and also they're aware that they are seeing through the goggles. They watch a movie and we take structural images of their brains so that we have references to overlay their functional activity. So usually there are 5 or 10 minutes of structural images where we're getting detailed information about the structure of each individual's brain.

Then after that we follow up with the experiment, and it's very much like playing a videogame. In this case we had a button box where they could press buttons 1, 2, or 3 to indicate their choices for selecting either a book chapter or an internet site. So rather than having a mouse for this first study – we did not have an MRI-compatible mouse – we used a button box for choice of the selection. But it's very much a virtual reality experience. It would be like playing a videogame, and I use the analogy of, for the button pressing, changing channels on your TV with your remote control. Most of the participants were very comfortable with the situation.

Gord:

Let’s get on to what you found actually in the study. First, I want to start by asking why did you use reading text as the baseline for neural activity in the study as your comparison point?

Dr. Moody:

Well, actually, both for the reading and for the internet and Google searching, we used a different baseline. We had a button-pressing baseline where white bars appeared on the screen and they just pressed the button when a white bar appeared for the location on the screen. And we compared the pattern of activity when they were reading and making… selecting different chapters or when they were selecting Google, from the Google search screen and reading off the internet to that pattern of activity. So our control was more of a low-level control baseline.

Then, in a higher-level analysis, we compared the pattern of activity while they were reading to the pattern of activity while they were doing the internet search. So both tasks had a lower-level baseline control.

Gord:

Okay. So let’s just cover off what you did find. So when you compared the parts of the brain… And we’ll deal first with the internet-naive. When you compared the parts of the brain activated with text reading versus web searching, what did you find?

Dr. Moody:

Well, we found that the pattern of activity was almost identical, and that really frankly surprised me at first because I thought that the internet even for the naive participants would require additional areas, because when you’re searching the internet you are engaging in decision-making, you have to suppress extraneous information, so there’s inhibition required. So I was surprised to find that it looks like in both the internet task and the reading task the subjects are just engaging their language areas, their visual areas, there’s some sensory integration areas as well, but it looks like they’re reading in both cases. And not surprising at all about the areas recruited, because they’re language areas, memory areas, and visual attention areas.

Gord:

But you found something different when you were looking at the internet-savvy group.

Dr. Moody:

That’s correct. And for the internet-savvy group, their reading areas were virtually identical to the reading areas that were activated for the internet-naive participants, but the very interesting part was the savvy group did recruit additional areas and these were frontal areas that had to do with decision-making, cingulate areas that have to do with conflict resolution. It’s not surprising, it’s what we expected, that these additional areas for decision-making would be required and higher-level cognitive function would be required, and that’s what we found in the internet-savvy group.

Gord:

To explore that a little bit, we’re seeing that people are actually cognitively engaging with the results – they have to make decisions, they’re comparing them. What happens there? With the internet-naive, obviously they weren’t engaging with the content nearly at the same level, but the internet-savvy… Is there a certain level of fluency with search where you elevate it to a higher level and you’re using that input to make decisions?

Dr Moody:

Yes, that is certainly one interpretation, and one interpretation that we have for the data – that it does require additional areas and as you practice it, you do become more fluent and more expert at it.

Now there are two different schools of thought on this. One is that when you first learn a task, you require greater activity and more attention, and that one could expect higher levels of activity if you were new at something. People with expertise can actually show decreases in their functional MRI pattern of activity. But what it seems here is that while engaging in internet searching, you are still very actively engaging these decision-making areas and it might be that the naive people are overwhelmed by the situation and are just treating it like a book – you’re still not trying to integrate the information, they’re reading it as though they were reading a book.

There’s one other interpretation as well, and that is that internet-naive people just have a different pattern of wiring in their brains from those who are internet-savvy – people who prefer using the internet and enjoy that mode of reading are wired differently from the internet-naive people. And we can’t distinguish that in this study, but that is also a possibility.

Gord:

Which is interesting. You say they’re wired differently. Would that be the typical, neural “fire together, wire together” wiring that happens when we learn anything, or is this something more fundamental in the pruning that happens during the formative years?

Dr. Moody:

Well, certainly in development, you know, we have good evidence that things do wire differently depending upon environmental influences, and definitely there’s evidence now against the old theory that adult’s brains don’t change, but definitely after brain injury there’s been evidence of re-wiring or re-mapping brain regions to overcome deficits. We don’t know what’s happening here. This is a very preliminary study, but one interpretation could be that there was a re-wiring, as people practice on the internet that these areas become more active. But all we can really say is that the pattern of activity is different.

Gord:

So one of the things I’ve suspected, when we’ve looked at behaviours in interacting with search, is as you become more used to using search, more comfortable with the interface, you don’t have to worry so much about navigating through the interface, that becomes more like a conditioned, habitual behaviour. Which means your prefrontal cortex is free to kick in to do those cognitive assessments, to say, “Okay, here’s what Option A offers me versus Option B,” so it’s almost kicking it up to a higher level of processing. Does that seem to make sense? It’s like I said, Google has become a habit and at some point the basal ganglia takes over and runs it as a habit which frees up the prefrontal cortex to do more heavy lifting.

Dr Moody:

Well, our data’s definitely consistent with that interpretation, and I think that that’s what part of our interest is, is how can we enrich our lives as we age, how can we improve our cognitive function or slow cognitive decline? And so yes, that’s an interpretation we would like to have because we would like to say, “Oh, we can do something to make our brains better as we age,” so that’s very exciting and interesting, and it is consistent, however we can’t conclude that. We don’t have any causality here at all.

Gord:

One of the really interesting questions, in reading the maps that came out of the study and looking at the areas that seemed to be lighting up, it looked like as memories were being retrieved or concepts were being retrieved, different cortical areas were being activated. Are you seeing that as people are reading text, there’s corresponding visual activation or auditory activation from those cortical areas that are mentally building the images that correspond to what they’re reading in the search results?

Teena:

Well, we definitely see a huge amount of occipital and visual area activation, and that’s just as we expect because for reading and for the internet you’re looking at visual input. And so that was not unexpected at all, that’s exactly what we would expect.

We don’t have… With fMRI, you don’t have very good temporal resolution, so we can’t… And this was a block study as opposed an event-related study, so we can’t really get into what’s happening second to second in the brain here because we average across these big blocks of 20 to 30 seconds. So we can’t say much about the time course and of what’s happening during the reading and internet searching. I’m sure future studies could do that. So we have good information about what happened in these comparisons, but not in the time domain.

Gord:

But there was a note in the study saying that although the visual stimuli were identical, with internet searching there seemed to be enhanced activity in the visual cortex area. Any ideas what might have caused that?

Dr. Moody:

Well, I think the most parsimonious explanation is that they were attending to it more.

Gord:

Right.

Dr. Moody:

So we’ll probably have to go along with that. But it could be that different areas were recruited and additionally were required, but certainly other studies have shown with attention you do recruit these additional areas.

Gord:

Now one of the things that we’ve seen is when people are looking… And it’s hard because in looking at your study, the layout of the results wasn’t a typical Google result, it was kind of pared down and I think there were only three results shown, right?

Dr. Moody:

Yes. I did some pilot testing and I really had to slim it down for a couple of reasons. One is I just looked into the literature to see how many words a person in a certain age group could read in 30 seconds, so I did have to reduce the amount of information on the screen for that reason. Also, presentation of the information in the goggles in the scanner, we wanted to make sure that everyone could actually read the words on the screen. So when you’re looking in the goggles and you’re looking essentially at something… a very, very small computer screen, we had to limit the number of words. So I did pare down what, you know, would normally be on an internet site. Also, in an early pilot version, I included pop-ups like you would get when you’re actually searching the internet, and that was so distracting for people we, you know, immediately took out the pop-ups. The pop-ups were way too distracting for us to be able to make a legitimate comparison of information presentation, comparing a book format versus the internet format.

Gord:

One of the things that might be interesting, when we’ve seen people scanning search results through eye tracking, it’s very obvious when we look at the saccades and the eye movement that they’re scanning, they’re not reading, and we suspect more of a pattern-matching activity. And that would be interesting to see if they’re scanning it visually to look for matches with the query they just used as opposed to actually reading text and engaging those language centres and the translation of that?

Dr Moody:

Yes, but eye tracking would be a great addition to this type of a study. And also once… You know, now there are MRI-compatible mice so that one could actually do more of a click-around within the internet page itself rather than just making a selection of which site to go to. Those would be great additions for the future.

Gord:

I think what I want to talk about a little bit now.. I think this is going a little beyond the scope of this study, but it ties in with some of Dr. Small’s work. I think you’ve worked with him on some of these ideas of the digital native and the digital immigrant. Moving beyond the group you recruited and looking at the young who have been exposed to technology during those formative neural pruning years and what the differences in brain activity might be. What happens when you’re young and you’re exposed to technology at an early age, as opposed to someone like myself who’s 47? The technology I grew up with was basically two channels of television.

Dr. Moody:

Well, I can only comment on this just from personal experience with my children. I haven’t done research on how children interact with the internet. I’ve read some of the papers but I’ve not done any research on that. But it does seem that, you know, they interact more readily and more fluidly. It’s amazing how quickly your kids can navigate across something on the internet compared to how I do. Of course, I’m pretty computer-savvy, I use the computer hours a day. So I think there is a difference between young people and old people.

Recruiting for this study, there were some people… finding people who were internet-naive, we could find them but they really had no interest in learning how to use the computer either. You know, it was very difficult to find naive people who really wanted a chance to participate in a study about the internet. So young people, I think they’ve grown up with it, they accept, you know, MP3 players, cell phones, visual impact touch screens – all that is so natural to them and some of us are still trying to figure out how to program our DVD players.

Gord:

Right. But I guess there’s speculation too that as they become more comfortable with technology and it becomes more of a natural extension of how they communicate, there’s potentially a trade-off there. I mean, the whole concept of pruning is that you get better at what you do all the time and you gradually lose capabilities in the things you don’t do very often. And so might this mean, for instance, that the young are losing the ability for face-to-face communication or more kind of focussed reasoning over a longer period of time.

Dr Moody:

You know, I think that’s a very real concern, and I know that people are looking at some of those issues, attention in particular. The studies that I’ve actually looked at have used computer gaming to enhance visual attention. So we know that you can actually enhance attention using internet gaming practice. But it might be, as you say, that you also have a negative impact for longer periods of attention, like being able to read an entire article versus clicking around and having this immediate visual gratification of changing very quickly. So I’m not aware of the studies that have looked at the negative impact on attention. I’ve actually been looking more on the positive end of how attention has been enhanced and how people are developing computer packages to help children with ADD for instance be able to focus for longer periods of time. But certainly, just it seems that young people have shorter attention spans. I’m not aware of the research, however.

Gord:

So let’s step back within the scope of the study that we were talking about. I’ve got a couple more questions. One is we’ve also seen fairly significant differences in men versus women when they’re doing information foraging basically, when they’re going out and looking for information. Did you notice any differences in this study?

Dr Moody:

You know, unfortunately we had fewer males in this study. Every study you have limitations in terms of funding and timeframe, etc. And so we did try to recruit more males. Some of the males were the ones unfortunately that had head motion during the scan and we weren’t able to keep them in the final results. So we didn’t have enough male participants to make any kind of comparison male-female. And anecdotally, I can’t really say anything different about the two groups.

Gord:

All right. There was actually a post I ran into after I did a preliminary article on this by a cognitive psychologist by the name of Bill Ives and the point he made in this study was that because we saw that as you become more comfortable or learn tasks that you activate more parts of the brain, he said really what the study shows is that once you know what you’re doing, it increases brain function, you generally engage with the content at a greater level. You’re doing this research to find ways to possibly improve cognitive function. What is it that’s most exciting about internet activity as opposed to learning to do any kind of other complex puzzle-solving or mental activity?

Dr. Moody:

Well, I think that because we have a situation where almost everyone has access to a computer, it can make this almost universal. Especially as we age, we’re not getting out there as much to walk around and some people don’t have the ability to go to senior centres and interact with other people, but that you could do something in your own home without requiring great mobility is very exciting. Also, there would be so much choice, there’s so much variety on the internet, it can be individually tailored to your personal preferences. So in this study I tried to pick topics that might be interesting to older adults – you know, walking for exercise, Tai Chi, health aspects of eating different types of food. I think that if it’s enjoyable for someone and if you don’t consider it to be a job to get out there and stimulate your brain, that people will do it more frequently. So that’s part of what’s exciting about it, is that it should be easily accessible to people once they know how to turn on the computer and activate the internet.

Gord:

Okay. So this is an easier path potentially to mental exercise?

Dr. Moody:

I think that it can be, yes.

Gord:

For the purpose of this interview, I’ll wrap up by asking you what’s next? What are the questions you’d like to explore further?

Dr. Moody:

Well, we would like to see what the impact of internet training might be on people who have no internet experience or very little internet experience. So that’s our next direct path. We’d also like to look at interventions for specific groups. If people have memory issues, is there something we could do to improve that? I think Dr. Small, Dr. Brookheimer, and myself are very interested in improving memory and improving people’s lives as we age, so that part of it would be a great bonus if we can discover techniques that might improve memory or enhance cognitive function. So the next step will be to look at training, and then we could look at patient groups, and I personally have interest in developmental learning too and we’ll probably look in young people as well.

Gord:

Okay. Well, fascinating topics to explore. Thank you, Teena, so much for the interview. It was fascinating to walk through it with you.

Brand Religion: A Reading from the Book of Skittles

2009-03-05T10:21:34-08:00:00

Originally published in the March 5 Search Insider

There's something about Tuesdays. Just when I'm starting to think about what my Thursday column is going to be about, something hits my inbox that seems freakishly timely. This time, it was David Berkowitz's ode to Skittles.com. My intention was to write about brand religions playing out online, and here, in all its gory, real-time splendor, was a parable made to order. It would be unseemly, not to mention unfaithful, not to read the signs from above and pick up this story thread so graciously thrown in front of me.

Now, let's get the Skittle Scuttlebutt out of the way, as more has transpired since the last time David spoke. As David said, Skittles.com is no longer a site, but a Flash navigation bar that hovers over live feeds from other Skittles-oriented online destinations. Originally, the home page was a live Twitter Feed, but the ignoble masses had the temerity to use the Skittles name in vain, so that idea was scuttled and the TweetFest was moved back to a section called "Chatter." Now the home page is a feed of the Wikipedia entry (which has been updated to include the story, so it's like a never-ending feedback loop). You can also visit the brand's Facebook "Friends" page. There are some massive usability issues, but that aside, nobody can scoff at Skittles for a lack of courage. It remains to be seen how successful this is, but the fact is, almost 600,000 fans have signed up on Facebook, and the brand has generated huge buzz.

So, what is a parable for, if not to learn from? And here are 10 commandments for every brand who fancies themselves a religion, if they have the courage to go where Skittles has gone:

1. Thou Shalt Not Expect Everyone to Believe. As was shown in the Skittles case, if you choose to live by the Social Media Sword, understand you can also die by the Social Media Sword. Opening up the conversation to your believers also means you open the doors to the non-faithful, who will take every opportunity to express themselves.

2. Thou Shalt Not Build Your Own Churches. Believers like to build their own churches and not have the brand build it for them. This is almost never successful. Skittles is trying to find middle ground by using their site as a shortcut to a few online destinations that help define the online image of Skittles. It's an interesting move, but I believe it will ultimately be a short-lived one. For one thing, it's confusing as hell.

3. Thou Shalt Have No Illusions of Control. If a brand goes down this path, they have to accept (everyone, repeat after me -- and that means you, Mr/Ms CEO) that by opening the door to the masses, they abdicate all control. If Skittles.com turns sour, all Skittles can do is pull the plug on their official endorsement. The buzz will outlive the campaign and take on a life of its own.

4. Thou Shalt Understand the Web is a Fragmented Place. What is interesting about the Skittles experiment is that it's a tentative acknowledgement that the sum total of a brand lives in many places online. The idea of defining the boundary within one Web site is long dead.

5. Thou Shalt Honor Thy Product. You have to have a pretty damn popular product to take this step. There's probably nothing more innocuous than Skittles (who could hate a little fruit candy?) and yet some still managed to spout bile all over this little social media stunt. The more beloved the product (and the company behind it), the more secure you can be in letting your fans be your spokesperson.

6. Thou Shalt Accept What One is Given. If your brand builds a devout following, your customers will take it upon themselves to generously share more than you ever expected about what the brand is, what it isn't and what it should be. You have opened up more than a dialogue; you have embarked on a weird and wonderful partnership with your customers. Embrace this or lose it. Consider the story of Timberland, who had no idea that they'd become the chosen footwear of hip-hop. At first they disbelieved it, then they ignored it, then they fought it -- and finally, they embraced it. Today, you can customize your Timberlands in pink and purple with your own monogrammed tag and customized embroidery: a fully pimped pump.

7. Thou Shalt Know Thy Flock. If you're going to intersect your faithful where they live, you have to know something about them. David wondered if Twitter was really the best social media choice for the Skittles target market. If your brand has already established online places of worship, spend some time in stealth mode and get the lay of the land before you go public.

8. Thou Shalt Listen. Online gives you thousands of listening posts to get the pulse of your brand. One example I saw this week: the iPhone app Dial Zero. It's a nifty little assistant that gives you tips to avoid the dreaded voicemail dead zones for over 600 companies. A quick look up and you have tips to connect with an actual live person. But what's even more interesting is that it shows real-time comments from people who've recently called.

9. Thou Shalt Live Up to Your Flock's Beliefs. With devotion comes responsibility. In return for their brand loyalty, they will hold you to a higher standard. They have emotionally invested in your brand, so if you disappoint them, it will leave a bigger scar than just a passing frustration. Hell hath no fury like a customer scorned.

10. Thou Shalt Count Thy Blessings Every Day. Brand evangelism. Brand loyalty. The willingness to pay a premium. An unwavering devotion untouched by the millions in advertising spent by your competitors. A much lower cost of acquisition. And millions of pages of customer-generated content. All brands should be so lucky.

Don't Think Recession, Think Resetting

2009-03-01T08:11:36-08:00:00

I was listening to an interview the other day and heard the best piece of economic news I've heard in over 2 years. The person being interviewed was talking about changes in urbanization in North America and he said he doesn't think of the current economic situation as a recession, he thinks about it as a resetting of the economy. That got me thinking.

His point was that in the two most dramatic economic pull backs in the last two centuries, there was a corresponding seismic shift in how we worked and how and where we lived. And after the pain of resetting, the world emerged and prospered for a significant period of time.

Consider the economic turmoil of the 1870's. By all accounts the world was in economic ruin. The colonial empires of Europe were beginning their long, slow decline. The largest bank in the US, Jay Cooke and Company, failed. The speculative bubble after the civil war burst. Labor unrest was epidemic, leading to riots in Chicago, San Francisco, Pittsburgh and New York.

Or the Great Depression of the 30's, the economic disaster that's still only a generation or two away for most of us. A stock market collapse, followed by a banking collapse, followed by massive business closures and unemployment.

But the fact is, significant change and yes, advancement, came from both these periods. In the 1870's, an agrigarian society moved to an industrial one, significantly increasing our production capabilities, creating the huge factories and huge relocation from rural areas to the dense urban centers. Immigration swelled North America with millions determined to create a better life. There was massive change, which always brings pain and unrest, but also advancement. One can't seperate the two. They come as a package.

As the world emerged from the Great Depression and the Second World War, we began the move to the suburbs and the Great American Dream, brought to you by Kelvinator, Pontiac, Maytag and hundreds of other bread and butter brands. A second wave of immigration brought new dreams and aspirations to our borders.

Techonology always moves faster than humans. And, in the shift, entire societal frameworks have to be reinvented. This never happens incrementally or smoothly. History has shown us that existing infrastructures have to be torn down and new ones erected. Through the process, human emotions run rampant, which flood our ever so fragile economy. This has always been the way, and it will always be the way, because we are who we are. Our mental hardware hasn't changed in thousands of years.

But in this reinvention, this resetting, we build the foundations for the next stage of our ongoing story. And in this regard, there are tremendous reasons for economic hope. If you rise above the micro view and look at the macro picture, the efficiency of the digital marketplace is extraordinary and will provide the greatest boost to our productivity in history. Forces of globalization are leveling wealth distribution and the tide is raising all boats. Science is on the verge of hundreds of life altering breakthroughs on almost every front. The global standard of living has never been higher, along with life expectancies and levels of education and health care. The challenges are not so much economic. There we just have to rebuild sustainable infrastructures to accommodate the new realities of enhanced potential and get rid of some nasty habits of over consumption. And while we're working through the process we have to make sure we don't rape our planet beyond repair.

The world is not in bad shape. We just have some significant house cleaning to do. This will not be fast (we're in the middle of a huge transition shift, so think decades, not years) nor will it be painless. But if we handle it correctly, it could be the biggest jump forward in history.

Belief in Evolution still 50/50 in the US

2009-02-26T09:53:29-08:00:00

It's amazed me how slow the US has been to accept Evolution. It's been 150 years since the publication of Darwin's theory and as I said in a previous post, more people in the US believe in angels than Evolution. I ran across an interesting chart in The Economist that showed the acceptance of Evolution in different countries around the world. Guess what? Of the countries shown, only Turkey comes in below the US.