Trends

...now browsing by category

 

The Death of User Generated (UGC) Review Sites

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

Growing up one of three brothers my parents conditioned us to questions the norm.  As Andy Grove said — “When “everyone knows” something to be true, nobody knows nothin”   This questioning and debating extended to a variety of topics but centered mostly on business, world affairs, and politics. We grew up without a TV.  That meant for purposes of entertainment we all read the NY Times and Chicago Tribune  - and not just the sports section.  These papers provided the knowledge base to feed our debates.  This constant questioning and debating serves me and my brothers well when it comes to business;  most industries often times get caught chasing an idea well beyond its useful life.  A few years ago (during the excitement of Yelp, Wikipedia, etc.) my brother shot off an email questioning why there wasn’t an authoritative travel review site based that did not rely on the whims of a few unknown reviewers.  A bit less then two years since that email Oyster Hotel Reviews was born today.  Oyster generates unique reviews and undoctored pictures of hotels across tourist destinations like Miami and Jamaica amongst others.

Oyster Hotel Reviews contrarian take on travel review site marks the end of review sites built purely on user generated content (UGC). There are literally thousands of sites set-up to enable people like you and me to review restaurants, books, airlines, hotels, apartments, and much more. Except for a few companies that one can count on a single hand the rest never make it as they operate under the motto of “build and pray.”  For the starters, the underlying technology is not complicated to build quickly and most end up differentiating on user experience.  Secondly, as the name denotes the companies themselves don’t generate any unique assets (content, pictures, etc.), rather are left praying that they will be able to somehow socially engineer a set of users to contribute high value content.

Even the successful UGC review sites like Yelp provide inconsistent reviews between cities and restaurants making it difficult to rely upon unless you trust a specific user who shares similar tastes.  Ironically, UGC review sites are highly susceptible to death at the hands of their own users — who either become too verbose and unfocused in their reviews (see the Yelp one-thousand word review), degenerate into yelling matches between users, or find ways to game the review system (see TripAdvisor).

If you are about to spend $1500+ on a hotel you want to know exactly what you are buying.  When spending this kind of money you want to ensure that an authoritative service dug deep into the hotel rooms, pools, conference rooms, food, and more.  Pure UGC reviews sites cannot cover products and services at this level of depth across all products. Yet, these details matter. Details like:

Don’t be mistaken UGC will still have an important role, but I doubt savvy investors will form entire business built exclusively on UGC content. After all, people are social animals and love  to voice their opinions, but they don’t do so in a vacuum. They need to something to respond to, and in Oyster Hotel Reviews they have quality content and pictures to respond to.  Have an awesome picture to share or want to share your own experience at the Fairmont Turnberry in Miami — you can do that on Oyster.com.

[Full Disclosure:  If not abundantly clear from the opening paragraph -- the founders of Oyster.com are my brothers - Elie and Eytan]

Poetic Justice

Sunday, July 20th, 2008

from flickr.com

Innovation at the expense of laziness and old-minded dogma

  • Ford Motors pumps billions into upgrades of its Ford F-150 pickup truck (i.e. gas guzzler)
  • Ford Motors loses $15.3 billion in 2006 and 2007 and more to come.
  • Ford Motors shuts down its Menlo Park, CA car dealership
  • Tesla Motors (an electric car manufacturer) opens up a new car dealership in Menlo Park on the same site as the old Ford dealership.
The game is not over, but Ford has lost its shareholders tens of billions of dollars by a failure to innovate and to “move where the puck is going to be.”


Software Companies Should Kill the Cubicle

Thursday, January 31st, 2008

Cubicles are the ultimate form of a poor compromise. Lets consider the two reasonable extremes of providing a working environment for employees. On the one hand you can go with the bullpen approach or you can go with offices. Somebody must have said, well if we just built walls around these desks then we would have the best of both worlds (lots of bad products get developed with this type of thinking). We would have the privacy of an office as well as the open and egalitarian benefits of the bullpen. Nothing could be further from the reality as cubicles

  1. provide a false sense of privacy — you can’t make a private call from your cube.
  2. generate just as many distractions as a bullpen environment as you can hear every conversation.
  3. rarely provide the upside associated with the bullpen model where ideas can flow quickly and people have the latest information required to make good decisions.

I have no doubt that technology companies and especially those companies whose success relies on developing code cubicles are a significant drain on productivity and general employee satisfaction. Rather, a better model would provide employees (especially software developers, product managers, qa, etc.) with a small office and in the center of the floor provide an ad-hoc meeting places (not conference rooms that you need to reserve) with Wi-Fi (of-course), refreshments, etc. where employees could congregate around if they need to ideate, exchange information, etc.

Silicon Valley Power Play — When will the Pendulum Swing?

Sunday, September 23rd, 2007

Silicon Valley is fortunate to have leading Pendulum Swingscompanies in large industries — media, computer/devices, and micro-processors. With lots of cash on the balance sheets, confident execs, and smart folks on the payroll some of these growth companies (Google, Apple, HP, etc.) in these industries are starting to expand out of their core business. This expansion has been pushing the pendulum to a point where the concentration of power in Silicon Valley may soon hit a wall.

Lets have a quick look at the current lineup of major industries in the Valley and the top players in those industries:

Media companies

  • Google
  • Yahoo (ok, 9% growth is not exactly hitting it out of the park, but there is untapped potential here — full disclosure: i work at yahoo)

Computer/devices companies (both of these companies are on a tear)

  • HP
  • Apple

Micro-processor companies

  • Intel
  • AMD

Well — when times are good folks start to expand beyond their core and these companies are expanding — especially the folks at Google — into the following industries:

  • Wireless & Telecom
    • iPhone
    • Gphone
    • Buying wireless spectrum: Apple & Google are each other
    • Undersea fiber: Google
  • Entertainment
    • Apple TV & iTunes –> distribution hub for all entertainment
  • Energy (alternative forms)
    • Silicon Valley in general is playing a major role in this space — however with the exception of Intel and AMD the companies above are more dabbling then anything else — but $20M here and $30M there and it becomes a bit more then dabbling.

For the past 4 years the pendulum has been swinging in favor of these Bay Area companies but when you expand beyond the core you inevitably start to piss off the legacy players… Once these legacy players start fighting back and the economic slowdown forces these companies to curtail their investments beyond the core will the pendulum reverse?

Protect Your Downside with Farecast.com

Sunday, February 11th, 2007

Farecast is a great service — here’s why:

  1. Clever use of free data (costs a ton to process this much data, but the data itself is free)
  2. Deliver the right information (will fare’s increase or decrease) at the right time (at the point of search or transaction)
  3. Leverages consumers fear of overpaying. 

However, will your average consumer spend enough time to grok how this works — not sure about that one.  Some good marketing folks will be needed on this one. 

A Quick Comparison of Google and Indeed.com Trends

Saturday, February 3rd, 2007

Steve Rubel has a good post on the use of basic (yet powerful) analytic tools such as Google Trends and Indeed to develop insight into whether or not certain technologies are hype or here to stay.  While there is no doubt that these tools are powerful I have some concerns with the use of the Indeed data for a few reasons:

  • Unlike Google Trends or Flickr Camera Finder which rely on data that is directly provided by users on their respective sites the data on which Indeed trends is based on is based on their crawled data and therefore very suspect (full disclosure I did work in the Yahoo!’s HotJobs group).  Lets go one level deeper and look at the Indeed corpus and why it is not suitable for analytics and trending:
    • Hiring managers and recruiters flood their job descriptions with buzzwords in order to rank higher on Careerbuilder, Monster, HotJobs, etc. hence generating hiring trends based on the occurrence of certain keywords in a job description won’t tell you that much and for certain keywords will likely lead you in the wrong direction.
    • Aggregating job listings via a crawl (which is what Indeed does) is not easy and it yields tens of duplicates per job (every recruiter posts their jobs to multiple sites).

By the way Indeed is a pretty good job search engine, this trends feature is a bit out of place.  It would be far more interesting if they provided trends on what their users were searching for.