Many consumer brands are trying to incorporate voice interactions or voice commerce into their products. Apple has Siri locked in its ecosystem. So does Google for the most part. But Amazon is pushing Alexa to be the first mainstream voice touch point.
I wonder if that is the end goal. Sure Amazon would like a frictionless interface for consumers to buy more. My hypothesis is Alexa is meant to convince developers and startups that Amazon has all the products and tools that any “technology” company would ever need. The product line has everything from $5/month VPS instances that compete with Godaddy to running oil and energy market-related applications for GE. All infrastructure and data processing needs can be fulfilled within the Amazon ecosystem.
You would think that Google and Microsoft would leverage their expertise into selling more cloud infrastructure. Google’s revenue is overwhelming based on advertising. Microsoft’s comes from Office and licensing enterprise software. Both are in the process of shifting their mindset, but it is not a natural process. This direction might be in Amazon’s DNA or at least related to their previous experience with AWS. They built their website and realized they could leverage that knowledge and rent it out to others. They were the first big cloud provider that enabled developers and shadow IT groups to test, build, prototype and run their products in the cloud. Once hooked those customers were not going anywhere else as they developed more sophisticated products and moved on to other jobs. The use of AWS was organic. It had to be. They didn’t control any of the touch points like the operating system or devices (even though they tried).
How will we know if this hypothesis is correct? The easy answer is we see an uptick in new voice products developed on AWS. It will take time. Voice interactions or commerce have challenges. For example, the discovery of skills or apps. Can you search for Alexa skills without a phone or going through a website? We can’t turn the knob and find more content like on radio. Any form of monetization will be intrusive. How about interjecting ads? We all know how much consumers love pop-ups and interstitial ads. These points of friction require resolution. Otherwise, voice technology will have a short hype cycle.
Scott Brinker interviewing chief marketing technologist of Xerox:
8. Any advice you’d offer to someone starting out their career in marketing today?
Compare to the email sent out in preparation for the first course in Udacity’s Deep Learning Nanodegree Foundation:
Our team has compiled an excellent selection of resources for you, so please review these as you use this week of preparation to your full advantage:
You would think WordPress would be an easy sell nowadays. WordPress is not the right tool for every website, but the size of that pool is shrinking. It powers a significant chunk of the web.
Automattic has already leveraged WordPress into business with their VIP WordPress service, meant for high traffic sites. Facebook runs their company blogs on it. Practically every large news publisher has something running on VIP WordPress, like NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and many others. Using that platform, now it is actively (aka spending ad dollars) going after the SMB market with a hosted solution against the lower priced services like Bluehost or Host Gator.
WordPress has a yearly “State of the Word” thingie. The most recent one:
The significant bit during the speech was the creation of the WordPress Growth Council. Why? Proprietary CMS competitors will spend $320 million on advertising, some of it directly against WordPress. In Matt’s words (around 27:30 in the video):
“Advertising does work…even though I think we have a better product and infinitely better community, we are starting to see in certain markets these tools which are typical proprietary, start to pick up shares.”
The Growth Council as a concept is not flushed out, but Matt / Automattic wants to start working on it, and he wants a small number of companies that work with WordPress to help figure it out. It will be interesting to see what direction they take.
Time picked these photos. They are memorable. They are influential in part because everyone knows them. Is it possible for any image/video/story to be that prominent nowadays? There are too many channels vying for our attention. 75 million watched the Seinfeld series finale. The Walking Dead had ratings of 9.6 in 2016. Sure, comparing a series finale against a regular episode may not be fair, but how does any group of people have a set of common cultural stories if there are no standard channels for consumption? The assumption is that it is much easier and faster to share, so theoretically it is possible. If all the social platforms are algorithmically personalizing content for clicks/engagement/whatever, essentially customizing for the individual instead of the common, how do you build the common?
Fascinating topic. We think of societal and cultural breakdowns led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. That might not be true. Rome had a thin layer of bureaucracy. Local officials ran the different regions and cities. They invested in their communities, and they connected the locals to Rome. Over time and changes in leadership, the governing model became more centralized. Rome co-opted the local officials, and those officials were more interested in making Rome happy and less invested in their local communities. Collapse coming in 10…9…8…
Ah, the early 90’s. Everyone remembers that story. The woman who sued McDonald’s was an example of stupid lawsuits. But read the link. It doesn’t sound like she was greedy and McDonald’s did know it was handing out coffee that was too hot. McDonald’s presented a different story which became embedded in society. Media and truth are fungible concepts.