Dynamic Ads and Re-targeting

February 28, 2012 Leave a comment

Re-targeting and Dynamic Ads:

It seems that there is a lot of buzz around dynamic ads and re-targeting in the online digital publications these days.  I have read a few different articles from colleagues in the space covering different aspects of the three opportunities from a consumer and technology perspective.

Over the last year, I have spent numerous hours pondering the effectiveness of an ad which re-targets a consumer, layered in with dynamic elements from a shopping cart, landing page, or a cross sell leveraging the latest RTB technology to bid on that user.  After spending countless hours (Not really), I figured that you could essentially break it up into 4 elements of such a campaign that are required for it to be successful.  The metrics for success can be a branding or a performance metric like a click or conversion.

1.       Element of Messaging

The message after the initial contact with the user has to be relevant and personalized.  The re-targeting ad is creepy as it was pointed out in a WSJ article at some point last year, but for a savvy online shopper it’s that additional reminder that the product they wanted is available or an additional discount

2.       Non-creepy element aka personalization

There are elements of personalization that are effective, like putting an accessory in a banner ad which goes with the dress or the shoes the person was viewing.  You could also show an upgrade to 1st class if you are a travel advertiser. However, personalization should not be around where a person lives or any PII information.  Most people online will freak out if you show their city name in the banner ad.  Online

3.       RF Element

It’s important to be able to control what I call the RF element, which stands for Recency and frequency.  Recency is how fresh the first contact was with the user, and when you should re-target them.  For a Travel site, they generally have a 7-14 day window for that user who visited their site where they can re-engage them with a re-targeting campaign and drive a transaction.  While an Auto MFG has a 30 day window for to retarget the user who is in the market for a new vehicle. The Frequency element is also important because you don’t want to show the same ad to the same person 10 times in one day, even if it’s personalized and performs really well.  Frequency if not controlled can become creepy and drive down performance

4.       Technology Element

One colleague pointed out the importance of re-targeting a person with the right ad at the right time in a recent Adexchanger.com article.  She was targeted with ads for a product she had already bought two days later.  I would say that using the right dynamic ad technology solution is paramount to both a successful and engaging campaign when deploying a re-targeting campaign.  There are plenty of companies that can help support such an initiative for Advertisers.

Categories: Ad Networks, Display

Brand Performance Marketing Challenges in Mobile

October 12, 2011 Leave a comment

We are in the 3rd year post the big shakeout in mobile, which included the acquisition of Admob and Quattro to Google and Apple respectively, and many countless others.  In surveying the mobile landscape, which includes conversations with mediation companies and reading studies released by networks, I have found that although there is an abundance of mobile inventory, there is not enough demand from advertisers.  The smartphone and tablets devices proliferation across the U.S. has increased the value of mobile web inventory, and not that ugly 3 letter word that we referred to a few years back (WAP).  Also, mobile applications across both the IOS and Android have reached critical mass in usage is by consumers.  Some stats reveal usage numbers increasing for both surfing the web with the mobile devices up near 30% or more. (See Admob for more data: http://metrics.admob.com/)

However, that increase has not led to a surge of marketing dollars in mobile like we saw with Social Media, which is on pace to hit $8 billion by 2015, while mobile has been around just as long but will reach only $5 billion by 2015.

The mediation companies in mobile report that only around 30% of their inventory is monetized at a decent rate, while the rest is left to house ads or low performance CPA campaigns.  Meanwhile, all I hear from supply side players in the space is how they don’t have enough mobile ad impressions for campaigns.  One reason for the supposed shortage of inventory could be that App developers have a high expectation for rates, and pass up on low paying advertisers.  The other is that players like Mobclix provide advertisers with on demand inventory, and passback whatever they can’t fulfill at the requested rate by the app. Lastly, the online publishers are not very focused on their mobile web inventory opportunities at this time.

The issue at hand is that brand advertisers don’t feel comfortable with the thought of spending millions of dollars a year in a channel that might produce clear enough results, which is leading to the shortage of good demand and lower than normal fill rates for a channel that has reached critical mass from a user perspective.

According to Nielsen, 1 in 2 Americans will have a Smartphone in 2011:

The brand advertiser has good reasons to limit spending on mobile advertising because of high CPM rates and lack of clarity on how a network or publisher will hit their goals.  I am excluding CPI campaigns, which are driven by incentivization of the user, and may not lead to usage after it’s been installed.  My focus is on banner ads, interstitials, immersive ads, video, etc.

Let’s look at the issue within an app environment for a brand running a banner ad campaign on a smartphone, the banner ad clearly is too small to make an impression on someone engaged in an app and it’s probably a nuisance for the user.  The targeting is based on the content vertical of the App like entertainment.   The odds of the ad performing and hitting the advertisers ROI goal are small.  When I refer to ROI it’s not a click but an action that leads to capturing information or drives a sale.  The issue with the banner in an app is the same as online, studies show that around 8 to 12 percent of the people click on them.  Luckily, advertisers use other metrics to determine success like view based conversions, funnel attribution for their online campaigns, but can’t in mobile because of the lack of the cookie tracking.

The issue with mobile web inventory for advertisers remains to be addressed as well. The effort behind the user experience tends to mimic online campaigns, while the interaction is completely different for a user on their smart phone or tablet device.  In some cases, the banner ad that appears on a mobile web page tends to be same banner that was developed for online campaigns.  In other cases, the advertisers site is not mobile optimized and user experience tends to be poor, which leads to a drop off and hurts performance of a mobile campaign.

The publishers of ads are not doing much to address the lack of performance as well, instead they are focused on securing as many high dollar cpm’s.  The publishers or ad networks can also do much more to optimize a campaign for a brand advertiser by providing additional insight from the data they have access to in the application or building optimization technology on their side to eliminate waste increase performance, which will give the advertiser the confidence to allocate more budgets to a growing and important vehicle for advertising.

Last but certainly not least, the 3rd party ad servers like Atlas and Dart don’t integrate seamlessly into the fragmented mobile technologies being leveraged by networks and publishers.  There are way too many discrepancies because of counting methodologies or issues with the ad tag implementations.  The standard for mobile in ad serving is not clear and is preventing the large scale growth for revenue to flow through the mobile channel.

The issues with mobile will not be easy to overcome, but certainly are not insurmountable or impossible to overcome.  The advertisers need to push for standardization across the ecosystem, so that it is easy for them to justify increasing ad spend across a very important and growing channel

Categories: Ad Networks, Mobile

What should Yahoo do next?

September 12, 2011 Leave a comment

Since a lot of people have shared their opinion on what Yahoo should do next, I will throw my hat in the ring and give them my two cents.

The board of Yahoo, its employees and shareholders need to see the company live up to its full potential as one of the first powerhouse digital companies, which over the years failed to innovate.  Further, the company failed to protect its turf in search and display, allowing others to overtake them in a short period of time, like Facebook and Google.

Before moving to actual remedies to cure Yahoo, I will take some time analyzing the symptoms of what has been ailing them for the last 5+ years.

Symptom #1 – Display

The acquisition of Blue Lithium and Right Media for a combined $1 billion should have permanently allowed Yahoo to maintain its position as the number player in Display.  Instead, here is what exactly happened.

Blue Lithium turned out to be the typical ad network, with a ad server and advertisers, revenue of around $35 million at the time, and a good story teller in the CEO.  I heard from sources on the integration team at Yahoo that once the deal was done and integration started, the entire thing was a mess.  BL was just an ad network, run with smoke and mirrors.  This clearly didn’t give Yahoo any type of an advantage in the marketplace because there were 50 other networks with similar tech, if not better.  This was a $300 million mistake that Yahoo is paying for today.

The Right Media exchange was suppose to be the first of its kind with great tech that should have set Yahoo apart from anyone else for a long time to come.  I personally experienced RMX as a source of blind, sometime scary place for inventory that brands stayed away from.  It wasn’t really built for real time buying and never lived up to its name.  The technology was only built to sustain a certain amount of scale and really couldn’t grow to be a true exchange.  The development team behind it was long gone building a competing product in Appnexus, while across town Google had acquired Doubleclick to power its display business.

Symptom #2 – Video, Social and Mobile

The largest portal in the world failed to take advantage of the consistent eyeballs and traffic on its site by producing quality video content or acquiring companies focused on developing original content.  Instead, Yahoo has a fragmented video offering for users, which isn’t very appealing.

The opportunities in Social should have been Yahoo’s because of their long presence as an email provider.  The users and their contacts were at Yahoo’s fingertips, and all they needed was a simple social offering, heck even copying Facebook’s functionality would have done the trick.  This by far was the biggest opportunity missed.

I don’t think that anyone expected Yahoo to develop its own OS like Google or MSFT, but I am not even clear on what their objective is in Mobile.  I don’t hear anything about mobile inventory in the exchange or a big content push, while Google goes out and acquires Ad Mob to firm up their position.  Another missed opportunity.

There is probably much more that I can write about, but the important part of all of this is remedy. We all know that pointing out problems is easy.

Remedy – Leadership

I will keep this simple, put Ross Levinsohn in charge and let him do what he does best, which is digital media and innovation or another young digital CEO, who has the experience and chops to see the value in the Yahoo brand and can innovate quickly through acquisitions.

Remedy – Display

Yahoo should make a big acquisition in the display space; go for someone like Appnexus or Openx to show that they are not afraid of taking risks.  Both of these companies have good tech platforms and teams that know how to innovate.

Also, they should also scoop up someone like Rubicon or Pubmatic to bring in quality publishers to plug into its exchange, and have a supply side focused on premium publishers.

I don’t buy the idea of selling RMX to someone and getting out of the exchange space.  The exchange space is highly liquid and advertisers are dipping their toes in the water through the RTB platforms at a much higher rate today. Yahoo needs to double down on some tech and relationships in display both on the demand side and supply.

Remedy – Mobile, Social and Video


It’s clear to me and many others that Yahoo will not be able to catch up Apple or Google in the OS wars, so they are better off working with one or the other to develop mobile content for syndication.  They should partner with Google to power content for the Android OS.  The lack of good applications and content is a well known flaw in the Android OS for tablets, and Yahoo has a ton of content and the content team, which it acquired in Associated Content.  They should strike up a partnership that will make them a part of the Anroid OS.  If Google is not a good option, then look to Redmond to provide them content for their last in show Window’s OS.  Finally, Yahoo should look to acquire a few of the app development companies to build on it capabilities in mobile.  The idea would be to bring some of the smartest app dev people to help with building amazing apps leveraging Yahoo’s content.


In video, Yahoo needs to be the number one in premium content, and to accomplish this, they have to make a big bid for Hulu, which will reel in Jason Killar to add the Yahoo team under Ross Levinsohn.  If this bid fails, they must look to consolidate their video offering under one property and go on an acquisition spree for content, with the focus on premium.  They must be the opposite of Youtube.  I am just repeating what I know and what I read about the video space.  They have to become a big player in Video fast, and the only way to do that is to make some bold moves and go on an acquisition spree.  The key is to acquire content and start a streaming service, which can be free at first, subsidized by ads.


I still think that there is plenty of time to engage users in a Yahoo driven social environment, and even if it’s not in the US, they can focus on an offering in Asia or outside as the test bed.  The power of Yahoo’s email account can help them to build a great social platform.  I could imagine the email platform being transformed into a social environment where I see friend’s updates, and I am not talking about integrations into Facebook or Twitter.  I would even suggest that Yahoo look to acquire Twitter, sounds impossible, but it can’t hurt to try.

Bonus Remedy – Local Deals

Why not look at the local space and see if they can acquire one of the players like Groupon, which by all accounts will be dead in the water soon enough because of a failed IPO and lack of profitability.  If not Groupon, then consolidate the rest of the players in the space to be become number 3 or 4 player.  There is plenty of revenue in local, and what good are partnerships with the newspapers at the local level if you can’t deploy them for strategic opportunities.  The newspapers are dying a slow death and are in need of new revenue lines.  Yahoo can deploy those partners to sell the daily deals to local merchants.  Furthermore, there is a big need to service focused daily deals.  Yahoo has been too quiet on this front, but has the assets to be a player quickly. Now is the time to use the free email accounts that people have used for many years by providing a daily deal on the side and getting to opt-in and transact.

They currently have $2 billion in cash and lots of assets in Asia to build a war chest to get through this period.  The reality is that Yahoo is not capable of innovating at this stage because of the infrastructure and two failed periods of leadership, which did not happen at Google.  However, they can innovate through outside talent, which will come in the form of solid acquisitions

Yahoo has too many assets, too much revenue to sell off in pieces or merge with Aol.   They need to open up the bank account and start spending money, which will bring in fresh blood and new ideas.  The key to a big turnaround will be acquisitions that are remedies for their ailing business, and ones that will integrate smoothly, and provide a real difference in the space today.  These companies should bring in some of the best minds in display, mobile, social and video.

This is all conjecture on my part and how I see the ecosystem, but I truly hope that Yahoo survives and maintains its place as the brand we have liked and used for email, news and advertising, while innovating in mobile, social and video.

Private Exchanges: A solution for driving higher revenue and relevance for large scale publishers

September 12, 2011 Leave a comment

We are now past the business validation stages for both exchanges and SSP’s in the display space.  The two models have scaled and are very healthy.  There have been multiple acquisitions of exchanges and SSP’s in the last few years with healthy multiples, which is good for the investors, founders, employees and small to mid-sized publishers.  However, the benefit of an exchange or SSP still has not trickled down to the large scale publisher.  Some will counter that exchanges provide additional revenue that ad nets and direct sales teams could not bring, and that SSP’s provide an outsourced operations and optimization team to manage demand sources for the publisher.  The two have also enabled the use of RTB for publisher inventory, which is now at 40%+ of all display media buys coming through the trade desks and dsp’s.

So, the model works well for the small to midsized publisher who doesn’t have the big direct sales team or operations budgets to manage multiple demand sources, develop RTB capabilities or have the scale to be a viable media source with a couple of million unique.

An ideal candidate for such a private exchange would be a publisher focused on a particular vertical with 10 to 20 million plus unique’s, offline, social and mobile presence.  Some verticals with good ad dollars allocated to them are finance, travel and auto.   This type of a publisher generally has enough media across multiple channels to have an appeal for the media buyer to focus on using branding campaigns and audience buys using RTB.

This publisher would not want to participate in any type of an exchange outside of their own to avoid the devaluing of its inventory.  Additionally, this publisher would have enough data at scale to develop its data exchange leveraging one of the many pure play or exchange like DMP’s like a Blue Kai.

The revenue opportunities across other channels would be fairly significant as long as they have a popular mobile application, a large following on Facebook or Twitter, and video content repurposed for online.  The publisher could use its Facebook presence to promote advertisers buying media across other channels through promoted messages.

The private exchange would have API’s out to all major demand sources to enable the buying of automated media across multiple channels or dedicated account executives focused on the largest agencies. The same private exchange would also have its own RTB enabled demand team that can run campaigns for advertisers that don’t have the ability to do automated RTB buying.

The value of the exchange would increase with the addition of the data enriched by layering in 3rd party data of the users across the multiple channels, since its first party data only used on the site and not sold to 3rd parties for use across the web.  The data compiled through its multiple channels should only be bundled and sold direct, so the value of the data remains for someone in-market.

The exchanges and SSP’s lack a traditional demand sales force, and rely heavily on ad nets, dsp’s and trade desks for revenue. A large publisher with scale should deploy all of its monetization efforts to exclude intermediaries like an external exchange or SSP, and focus its sales and business development efforts on multi-touch campaigns through either automated or full service buying into its exchange for display, email, mobile, social and video.  The ability for a multi-channel publisher to connect users in mobile and web can be accomplished through login’s to enable re-marketing campaigns across display, mobile and social for its advertisers.  This data will be drive multi-channel buys from the demand sources.  The importance of a private exchange and the ability to serve advertising off one platform across multiple channels will be the key to securing demand from Advertisers looking to remarket to users across multiple channels at scale.

In summary, a private exchange for a large scale publisher addresses many issues from channel conflict, data fatigue from reselling cookies through DMP’s, higher premiums for unsold or remnant inventory, and avoiding the pitfalls of devaluing inventory through multiple exchanges or SSP’s.

The Importance of coordinated multi-touch campaigns

At the beginning of my career, I was fortunate to work for a Direct Mail Marketing company, which had been around for nearly 80 years.  In my 7+ years at the company, I learned the importance of data analysis and multi-touch marketing.  The company specialized in apparel for mature women, who would purchase our products through our brick and mortar stores as well as our call center.  Our catalog division would send out nearly 40 million catalogs to our customers, segmented by recency, frequency and monetary value of the customer.  We would develop a portion of our catalogs for our house file and a portion to acquiring new customers.  In the late 90’s we launched our ecommerce site, which would carry all the same products in our stores and catalog.

Multi Touch Marketing 10 years ago, offline and online

I was responsible for managing and marketing for ecommerce site.  Our focus as a unit was to be in sync with our offline divisions and ensure the availability of products that a consumer would be viewing in their catalog or seen at one of our 50 stores.  I had to develop a production cycle that lasted 30 days, which involved the procurement of all offline assets and converting them for web usage.  This was a tedious process and had to be well managed with coordination across our creative team, product, technology and finally our ecommerce vendor. I could not afford to miss my deadline for having the products available on the ecommerce site for when a catalog was shipped to millions of customers.

As our ecommerce business grew from nothing to 12% of a $100 million plus business, even further cross channel opportunities emerged.  In the late 90’s the options for digital marketing were limited to display, email and search as the primary channels for driving revenue.  Google was not the search giant, mobile was non-existent and social media was just born.  In some ways, life as a marketer was easy.  I could lean on my internal email list to drive re-marketing dollars and do search on some of the directories and engines of the time.

I found that email was the best channel for driving good incremental revenue, but more importantly I had the ability to coordinate our digital marketing message to our existing and potential customers with our offline efforts. My marketing calendar for email had all of the dates of our catalog drops, which drove the days I would send out my announcement of the new line of products for that particular season.  The subject line and creative matched the cover of the catalogs, and I was able to segment my lists as we did offline.  The performance of these email drops coordinated with the arrival of the catalog were always higher than subsequent emails during that season.  They would produce the bulk of the revenue for the seasons drops.

The difficulties with multi-touch marketing in digital 3.0

Fast forward 10 years later, and marketers live in a far more sophisticated digital marketing landscape with display, email, mobile, social and video.  All of these channels are now viable customer retention and acquisition vehicles for a marketer.  The CMO responsible for marketing efforts wants to be in all these channels and gives this directive to his employees and the agency running the campaigns on behalf of his/her brand.  In theory, coordinating a single message across all these channels would be easy with great technology platforms and brilliant product development personal across the 1000’s of digital marketing companies that service the marketer and his/her respective product or brand.

In theory it all sounds good, but the reality is far from any type of actual cross channel coordination of campaigns.  Yes, a marketer can coordinate a TV campaign with display, email and search, but what about social, mobile and video.  The emergence of these channels has caused a major fragmentation of resources which are working in silos and lack coordination.  The planning team at most agencies are different for each of the emerging channels, when in reality all the emerging platforms have elements of original digital opportunities of email, display, email and search.  The most common threads across all 3 are display and messaging (email).  However, a campaign running on social might just be focused on driving  likes or a mobile campaign is only looking at the click or context of the application the ad is running on.   A campaign running pre-roll might have elements of BT and RT like display, but it doesn’t translate in social.  The lack of coordination at the media buying level and the absence of a singular platform focused on scaled cross channel buys limits the multi-touch marketing that a marketer could have executed 10 years ago, delivering the same message to a user offline and online.

The solution

The solution to this problem is for digital solutions providers to better coordinate their efforts by not having silos across the multiple channels.  The media buyer responsible for digital buys should to be educated in cross channel, multi-touch opportunities for their clients.  Additionally, digital marketing solutions providers should work towards developing one single platform to provide media at scale across multiple digital channels like display, social, mobile and video.  They should also provide reporting and attribution across the channels for the marketer to understand ROI, SOV and attribution for each marketing dollar spent.

The ability to do a coordinated multi-touch campaign in all the digital channels on one platform will provide the CMO the single dashboard to understand what kind of an impact his marketing efforts are having on the equity of the brand, acquisition of new customers and retention of existing customers.

The media buying teams will have a centralized place to go to for media regardless of channel, and understand the levers and drivers to push towards additional ROI and scale for their clients.

In the end, all parties win including the consumer, who is delivered the same message by the brand across all of the possible digital touch points.

Who will win the Social Media Platform War?

If history is any indicator for future success, then we should not take the Google+ launch lightly or dismiss it as another attempt by Google to get into a space it has failed at before.  One could argue that maybe the Social Media Platform belonged to Google all along, and it was just a matter of time before it claims it as the rightful leader.  Here is a brief look at their success coming from behind to take the top spot in advertising and technology.

Second to Search, but really number 1

Let’s use our time machine to go back in time circa 2000, Overture is the king of search (Later Acquired by Yahoo in 2003).   While Overture was focused on fixed priced bidding for the top spot in searches, Google was building traffic through its organic listings which attracted advertisers away from the fixed bids that Yahoo+Overture focused on.  Also, they developed a great syndication business in Ad Sense to increase distribution of Ads, thus eliminating any chance Yahoo+Overture had to compete.  Finally, the Google interface was easy to use and made it easy to get up and running quickly as an advertiser or publisher.  This was a brief walk down memory lane, but will prove my point about why I think G+ will win out in the end.
Here is a good article with much more detail:

The big juggernaut of Display, it’s not Yahoo

Again, Yahoo in the early 2000’s had forsaken search for Display.  They saw the guarantees of the CPM buys and lack of ROI measurement from advertisers, which had made Yahoo the biggest and baddest display player on the block.  They acquired one display company after another to build up their capabilities and arsenal to protect its turf from any second comer.  They obviously didn’t do a good enough job, because before you knew it Google decided that display was next and they were going to build a business that eclipsed Yahoo in revenue and technology.  They set out to build their display business through acquisitions like DoubleClick, Invite, Terracent, and now finally Ad Meld.  The results have been phenomenal growth in revenue and traction, while Yahoo is working on fighting with more content and no real plan in place to fight off Google.  One report suggested that Google had surpassed Yahoo in pure Display dollars, but those numbers probably included some Ad Sense Display revenue as well.

Let’s take a bite out of this Apple 

If being the king in search and display was not enough, Google decided that they had the assets and resources to build a competing OS to Apple’s IOS.  There is a company in Redmond that was better equipped to take on Apple, but failed.  However, Google, who is a perennial second comer actually turned out to be the better competition for Apple.  Now, I have used both the IOS and Android equally, and think that Apple is actually better because of the closed development environment and tighter controls.  The deployment of a release on Apple is clearly better, but you can’t deny the prevalence of the Android devices in the marketplace, and reports from the mobile networks about the growth and the usage of Android Devices and its number one position.

Here is one such report from a mobile ad network:

First Myspace, then Facebook and now G+

The social media story doesn’t begin with Myspace as most people would like to write.  They were not the first and clearly not the last.  We should also mention Friendster and Bebo, which failed miserably.
The things that led to Myspace’s demise were its inability to really engage the user, the countless number of fake profiles and data, that it was so proud of, and it’s cluttered look and feel, which attracted only people under 13.  Facebook actually addressed all of the things that were wrong with Myspace with a simple design, real engagement through the applications and games, etc.  A couple of things they failed to do was to keep the scummy, trick to click advertisers off its platform and protect the usage of data from 3rd parties  Google’s advantage lies in its existing suite of products like their search engine, Chrome, Android OS, Gmail, Docs, and now the social platform.  They have a solid suite of products for users G+ the ability to communicate to its network of friends, co-workers, circles through the same login.  Also, Google will and should protect G+ from Scamville purveyors like Tattoo Media and the like to truly differentiate itself from Facebook.

In the end, Google will show up late to the party, but will end up walking up to the bar to approach the best looking guy or girl, and take them home.  I am making an early prediction that Google will be a strong second to Facebook and will eventually take the lead.

Categories: Ad Networks, Display, Mobile, Social

My proposed future for the Android and Chrome OS

June 30, 2011 2 comments

It seems that Google has a dilemma on their hands with the two operating systems, one with a bright future in the Android and the other with a lot uncertainty around it in the Chrome.

This perceived problem doesn’t necessarily mean that one OS is better than the other; it’s just that the Android has far more adoption because of the Smartphone and Tablet phenomenon.

Let’s look at the difference between the two OS’s at a Macro level, as I am not equipped to go any deeper because of my non technical background.

Chrome – A browser based OS designed for netbooks to enable users to access applications without installing them on the actual device.  All of your programs are available via the marketplace are installed on a needed basis.  You have access to business applications like email, google docs, etc.

Andoid – A mobile device based OS designed to support Smartphones and tablets, where users can access a marketplace to install applications for business and entertainment.  The OS has a browser, but it’s not the chrome browser.

So, clearly the netbooks business is impacted by the accelerated growth of the tablet devices with Apple in the lead with the Ipad.  However, the Android OS is poised to be a strong number two as the market matures.  The Chrome OS powering the netbooks clearly will lose against a growing tablet market.

What should Google do with Chrome?

Here is my opinion on how Google can gain market share Vs Apple in the tablet market by doing the right thing with Chrome.

Google sits in a good position to impact a change in the connected anywhere experience.  The combination of the Chrome OS plus Android could be a powerfull alternative to IOS and icloud.

Here is how see the two OS’s coming together.

The new combined OS would enable users to leverage reach of Android OS and flexibility of Chrome on any device anywhere whether it’s connected or not.

Here is one example:

A user owns a Tablet, Smartphone and set-top box power by the new OS (Chrome+Android), which allows this person to install apps either on the device or browser (Chrome) or both, and access it across all three at anytime on the cloud.  They have the ability to install their applications online in their account, which they access from a desktop device, a Smartphone, set-top box, etc.

Google should move in this direction now and delay because Apple’s announcement of the icloud  and how it will further fuel the divide between its suite of products minus the PC to store music, pictures or act as a backup device Vs any connected device powered by the Android.

The combined OS will allow Google to go into this fight with Apple with a gun, and not a shovel.  If they wait much longer and drag out the desktop/laptop/netbook war with Microsoft, they will let their real competition develop a insurmountable lead as they have they done with search.

Categories: Display, Mobile, Uncategorized