marți, 8 iulie 2014

Why Mobile Matters - Now

Why Mobile Matters - Now


Why Mobile Matters - Now

Posted: 07 Jul 2014 05:15 PM PDT

Posted by Dr-Pete

Having built an online business during the dot-com boom and bust, I've always been a bit skeptical about the mobile revolution. Every year since the late 90s, we've heard that this would be "The Year" for mobile. In the past year, though, my skepticism has been challenged by a wide range of data, and I no longer believe that the mobile web is simply a miniature desktop. This post is an in-depth analysis of why I think online marketers need to start paying attention to mobile now.

Google's "Mobile First" Shift

It's no mystery that I follow Google's actions pretty closely. When Google launched a significant redesign back in March, Jon Wiley – Lead Designer for Google Search – posted this on Google+:

For a long time, we've assumed that mobile would naturally follow desktop, and trends like the slow death of WML (Wireless Markup Language) seemed to support that assumption. In the past two years, though, Google has repeatedly designed and launched new features on mobile first, including the most recent ad format and the latest version of Google Maps.

So, it begs the question – what does Google know that the rest of us don't?

Google's Greatest Fear

In July of 2013, Google migrated AdWords advertisers to what it calls "enhanced" campaigns. Many in the industry viewed this as a euphemism for preventing advertisers from bidding separately on mobile and tablet vs. desktop. Google had been experiencing long-term CPC losses, and most analysts blamed those losses on advertisers' unwillingness to pay the same rates for mobile/tablet clicks as they did for desktop.

Google has strongly resisted splitting out mobile vs. desktop performance, going as far as to tell the SEC that "...disclosing or quantifying the impact of only one factor, such as platform mix, could be misleading and confusing to investors." This has nothing to do with usability or confusion – Google is afraid of mobile and its impact on their $60B bottom line, the vast majority of which depends on advertising. Mobile-first design is about survival, plain and simple.

Google's Multi-Screen World

Back in 2012, Google released a fascinating study about the multi-screen world. It paints a complex picture of how we use multiple screens to navigate the web, and often perform activities across mobile, tablet, and desktop. Google ended that report with eight conclusions, and this was the final one:

What led them to this conclusion? A couple of data points give a very interesting view of the impact of mobile on search. First, Google reported (see slide #20) that a full 65% of searches begin on mobile phones. Second, they found – which seems obvious in retrospect – that we reach for the "screen" that's closest (slide #34). So, if you see something on TV, hear about it on XM Radio in the car, or read about it in the doctor's waiting room, you're going to reach for your mobile phone.

More Mobile Trends (2014)

Recently, Mary Meeker's closely-watched annual state of the internet report was released, and it contains a great deal of data about where mobile is headed. Smartphone adoption is climbing and tablet sales are skyrocketing, but I'd like to focus on one graph that sums up the trend pretty well (from slide #9):

Globally, the percentage of page views coming from mobile devices has jumped substantially in the past year, and accounts for almost one-fifth of North American page views. Critics will argue that desktop usage has not substantially decreased, and that's true, but the problem is this – as mobile gets to be a larger piece of the picture, we're seeing less and less of that picture by excluding mobile data.

Look at it this way – let's say we had a sample of 1M page views, and all of them came from desktop visitors. That would give us the pie on the left. Now, let's say desktop holds steady at 1M page views, but mobile is now 19% of total views. This is what that reality would look like:

If we only look at those 1M page views, then it seems like nothing has changed, but the reality is that the desktop piece of the pie has shrunk. If we ignore mobile in this case, we're missing out on 234,568 page views, and our picture is incomplete.

Why This Matters for Search

So what if someone starts a search on mobile – why should that matter to us as search marketers? The problem is simple: while Google desktop search design is being inspired by mobile design, the reality of a small screen means that mobile SERPs can look very different. Just as Google found with ad CTRs, this can lead to very different user behavior.

So, how different are mobile SERPs? I'd like to look at a few notable examples of desktop vs. mobile SERPs, starting from most similar to least similar. For all of these examples, the desktop SERP was captured on a Windows 7 PC using Chrome, at 1280x1024, and the mobile screen was captured on an iPhone 5S using Safari.

Here's a fairly basic SERP (a search for "plumbers") with ads and some local features. The desktop version is on the left, and the mobile version is on the right. I apologize for the reduced size, but I felt that a side-by-side version would be the most useful:

The impact of the smaller screen here is readily apparent – even though the desktop SERP shows eight full ads above the fold and the mobile SERP shows only two, the desktop screen still has room for three organic results, a map, and a couple of local pack results. Meanwhile, the one organic result that does pop up on the mobile screen has the advantage of being the only organic element on the "page".

Unfortunately, we have very little data on relative CTR for either ads or organic results, and Google is tweaking both designs all of the time. I think the core point is that these user experiences, even for a relatively straightforward SERP, are clearly different.

Let's look at another SERP ("army birthday") where the major elements are similar, but the screen space creates a different experience. In this case, we get one of the new answer boxes:

An answer box is disruptive on any screen, but on the mobile screen it occupies almost the entire SERP above the fold. Of course, scrolling is easier and more natural on mobile, so I don't want to pretend this is a true apples-to-apples comparison, but if the answer meets the user's needs, they're unlikely to keep looking.

Let's look at a standard Knowledge Graph box, in this case one for a local entity ("woodfield mall"). Here, while the styles of the Knowledge Graph boxes are similar, the SERPs are radically different:

While the desktop SERP has a rich Knowledge Graph entry, we also see a substantial amount of organic real estate. On the mobile SERP, a condensed Knowledge Graph box dominates. That box also contains mobile-specific features, like click-to-call and directions, which could easily divert the searchers and keep them from scrolling down to organic results.

Finally, let's consider a SERP where the presentation and structure are completely different between desktop and mobile. This is a search for "pizza" (from the Chicago suburbs, where I'm located), which triggers a local carousel:

Carousels – whether they're local, Knowledge Graph, or the newer song and episode lists – are a great example of mobile-first design. While the desktop carousel seems out of place in Google's design history and requires awkward horizontal scrolling, the mobile carousel is built for a finger-swipe interface. What's more, the horizontal swipe may derail vertical scrolling to some degree. So, again, a single element dominates the mobile SERP in this example.

The Mobile Feature Graph

These differences naturally lead to a follow-up question – do mobile SERPs just look different, or are they fundamentally showing different rankings and features than desktop SERPs? You may be familiar with the MozCast Feature Graph, which tracks the presence of specific SERP features (such as ads, verticals, and Knowledge Graph) across 10K searches. I decided to run the same analysis across mobile results and compare the two.

The table below shows the presence of features across both desktop and mobile SERPs. Data was recorded on June 5th. Both data sets were depersonalized and half of the queries (5K) were localized, to five different cities.

For the most part, SERP features were consistent across the two devices. While it's very difficult to compare two sets of rankings (even when they differ only by a few hours), the similar number of sitelinks suggests a similar make-up of 10-result vs. 7-result SERPs. A cursory glance at the data suggests that page-1 rankings were not dramatically different.

The big feature difference (which is entirely driven by layout considerations) was in the presence and structure of AdWords blocks. Mobile SERPs only allow top and bottom ad blocks, since there's no right-hand column. While bottom-of-page ads are the rarest block on desktop SERPs, they're fairly common on mobile SERPs. The overall presence of ads in any single position was lower on mobile than desktop (at least for this data set). All of this has CTR implications, but we as an industry don't have adequate data on that subject at present.

The local data is somewhat surprising – I would have predicted a noticeably higher presence of local pack results in mobile SERPs. Google has implied that as many as half of mobile searches have local intent, with desktop trailing substantially. Unfortunately, collecting comparable data required matching the local methodology across both sets of SERPs, so my methodology here is unreliable for determining local intent. This data only suggests that, if local intent is the same, local results will probably appear consistently across desktop and mobile.

The Google Glass Feint

Beyond our current smartphone and tablet world is the next generation of wearable technology, which promises even more constrained displays. Right now, we tend to think of Google Glass when we hear "wearables," and it's easy to dismiss Glass as an early-adopter fad. When we dismiss Glass, though, I think we're missing a much bigger picture. Let's say our timeline looks something like this, with us in the present and Glass in the future…

In other words, I think it was fair to say that Glass, whether you love or hate it, was clearly a future-looking move and is pushing our comfort zones. It was ahead of what we were ready for, and so Google pulled us ahead…

Let's say we're not quite halfway-ready for Glass. Stay with me – there's a point to my crude line art. What about the wearables that aren't quite as futuristic, including the wide array of fitness band options and the coming storm of smartwatches? Our perception now looks something like this…

Before Glass, we were just warming up to fitness bands, and smartwatches still sounded a bit too much like science fiction. After Glass, challenged with that more radical view of the future, fitness bands almost seem passé, and smartwatches are looking viable. I'm not sure if any of this was intentional on Google's part, but I strongly believe that they've moved the market and pushed ahead our timeline for adopting wearables.

This isn't just idle speculation paired with pseudo-scientific visuals (it is that, but it's not just that) – Samsung sold half a million Galaxy Gear smartwatches in Q1 of 2014. Google has recently announced Android Wear, and the first devices built on it have hit the market. More Android-based devices are likely to explode onto the market in the second half of 2014. Rumors of an Apple smartwatch are probably only months away from becoming reality.

I expect solid smartwatch adoption over the next 3-5 years, and with it a new form of browsing and a new style of SERPs. If the smartphone is our closest device and first stop today, the smartwatch will become the next first stop. Put simply, it's easier to look at our wrists than reach for our pockets. The natural interplay of smartwatches and smartphones (Android Wear already connects smartwatches to Android-powered phones, as does Google Glass) will make the mobile scene even more rich and complex.

What It Means for You

My goal is to put the data out there as matter-of-factly as possible, but I personally believe that the long-awaited mobile disruption is upon us. Google is designing a SERP that's not only "mobile first", but can be broken into fragments (like answer boxes and Google Now "cards") that can be mixed-and-matched across any device or screen-size. Search volume across non-desktop devices will increase, and mobile in all its forms may become the first stop for the majority of consumer searches.

For now, the most important thing we can do is be aware. I've always encouraged browsing your "money" terms – what does your URL really look like on a SERP, and how does the feature set impact it? I'd strongly encourage the same for mobile – open a phone browser and really try to see what the consumer is experiencing. If your business is primarily local or an impulse buy driven by TV and other advertising, the time to consider mobile is already behind you. For the rest of us, the mobile future is unfolding now.


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Appealing to Satisficers

Appealing to Satisficers

Link to White.net

Appealing to Satisficers

Posted: 08 Jul 2014 01:00 AM PDT

Throughout my career in online marketing I have always believed that the things you can learn from other disciplines and industries tend to give the biggest advantages.

With this in mind, I have been doing some reading around behavioural economics and how knowing about why people make decisions can give us an insight into how we should market brands online.

The concept that follows is about satisficers and maximisers; people who settle for something acceptable compared with those who seek out something perfect.

Knowing about these concepts can and should improve your thinking in terms of strategy, copywriting, design, and anything else you care to practice as part of online marketing.

The examples used here show some classic thinking that can be adapted for use in the ever-expanding world of online marketing.

 

Satisficing

Conventional wisdom suggests that when humans make decisions they look for the best possible option and then decide to go with that one.

The work of the economist, Herbert Simon put forward the theory of bounded rationality that suggests this is not always the case.

By combining two words; "satisfy" and "suffice", Simon suggested that we (as humans) often play the role of 'satisficer'.

In contrast to people who look for the definitive 'best option' (maximisers), Simon suggested that humans struggle to gather all of the information required to successfully identify the best option to go with.

Not only that, but Simon suggested that even if we could gain access to all of the information required, our minds would not be good enough to process it.

The result of this? We become satisficers. Instead of wasting time and energy looking for the best option, we find an option that won't be the worst and stick with that.

 

Why brands thrive

Vice Chairman of Ogilvy Group UK, Rory Sutherland is a big proponent of behavioural economics and its importance when working in marketing.

In a video filmed for edge.org Sutherland discusses the concept of satisficing and how it can explain the effectiveness of big brands. The example Sutherland uses is that of McDonalds.

When you arrive in a new town and are hungry you have a few requirements. Those requirements, for example, could be to satisfy your appetite and not get ill. In addition to these requirements you will also have a preference to eat something that you will enjoy.

Based on this, if you were able to find the absolute best restaurant in town it would do a good job of meeting your requirements.

All fine, except gathering the information to assess the best restaurant in a strange town that you have just arrived in is pretty hard, if not impossible.So, instead of gathering lots of information you just stop at the first McDonalds you see.

Sutherland suggests that there are probably better places to eat than McDonalds but McDonalds does come with one very important promise: it won't be the worst place to eat.

Most people know what McDonalds is, they know what to expect, they know they will probably not hate whatever they order, and they know that it is unlikely to make them ill.

McDonalds is probably not the best but it is definitely not the worst.

Sutherland suggests this is part of the reason brands are so successful; their ability to convince people that they definitely won't be the worst choice is an effective way to capture attention and custom.

 

Examples of appealing to satisficers

Appealing to the tendencies of satisficers has been a successful strategy for a number of brands. Here are some good examples:

 

Avis: We Try Harder

In 1962 Avis was the second largest car hire company in the market behind the market leader, Hertz.

Advertising agency, Doyle Dane Bernbach decided to embrace this underdog position by running a campaign called "we try harder".

The message behind the campaign was this:

"When you're only No.2, you try harder. Or else."

Avis We Try Harder Advertising Campaign

1962 Doyle Dane Bernbach campaign for Avis – We Try Harder

 

Ads that were part of Avis We Try Harder campaign

Two ads from 1962 Doyle Dane Bernbach campaign for Avis – We Try Harder

 

Boiled down to its core elements, the campaign is essentially explaining that Avis is a "small fish" and as such can't afford to be bad.

The customer is left with the feeling that Avis definitely won't be the worst car rental company to choose. That is usually a good enough reason to go with them.

 

Amazon

In 1994 Jeff Bezos founded Amazon.

At the time, the thought of entering your credit card details into a website and waiting for your purchase to arrive sent shudders down the spines of even the most seasoned of bargain hunters.

20 years on and the work of Amazon has made it commonplace for company websites to regularly account for more sales than the bricks-and-mortar shops.

Part of this success is down to the fact that Amazon did such a good job of convincing the public that using ecommerce websites could be safe.

The result now is that small, specialist ecommerce websites can struggle to compete with Amazon because it did such a good job.

Let's say you would like to buy a book. It can be found for the following prices:

  • £12 from Amazon
  • £10 direct from the publisher's website

Based on price, it is obvious where the best option is.

However, take security into account and Amazon comes with the big brand guarantee that customer service won't be the worst and they are unlikely to forget about your order or neglect to send the book to you.

As a result, the satisficer in you may just swing towards Amazon because you can be sure it is not the worst option.

 

iPhone vs. Android

Apple's iPhone has been a phenomenal success despite facing competition that often offers better products than Apple.

The Android operating system is used by a number of phone manufacturers and many of them have created devices that are technically better equipped than the iPhone.

Despite facing direct competition that when scrutinised by experts is better, the iPhone still sells. This is because Apple is a brand that has become synonymous with quality design.

Apple customers don't care if what they are buying is not technically the best thing they can buy for their money. They only care that what they are getting is 100% guaranteed to not be completely rubbish. It reaches a required threshold and that is all that is required.

Android on the other hand struggles with achieving this status.

 

How can you use this information?

Having an understanding of how your customers make decisions is essential to success in marketing.

In a competitive market the default aim is often to convince your customer that you are better than your competitors and therefore that you are "the best".

This approach can neglect the most important requirement; convincing your customer that you are not the worst option.

Learn about the fears your customers have and then create a service (or website) that addresses all of these fears.Offer easy ways to allow your customer to search using their own requirements and satisfy these needs.

To illustrate this point here's one final example:

 

Buying a TV

Imagine browsing for a new television, the options can be overwhelming.

Here are some of the options on the Currys website:

Options to choose on the Currys website when purchasing a TV

Unless you are an expert (maximiser) it is pretty hard to work out which options to go with.

Short of sitting down and trying out all of the different options, there is no way to tell which one is definitely the best. Even if you could do this, your memory probably wouldn't be good enough to allow a comparison of this type.

The result of this is that we choose new TVs when we are satisfied that our choice will be acceptable and will meet our core requirements.

It will be big enough, the picture will be sharp enough and colourful enough, and the price will be affordable.

 

Appeal to the satisficers

Creating a website to sell TVs? Maybe you should try appealing to this approach. Rather than listing all the options, describe what they will be good for.

Let customers search by requirements:

  • Room size
  • Person's age
  • Type of programmes you watch
  • Hours of use per day
  • How technology savvy you are

These categories allow people to satisfy their own core requirements.

Don't always sell at 56" 4K TV with a 10 year warranty; sell a TV that will definitely fill a large room, impress your friends, and last a long time!

Satisficers love TVs that do that.

The post Appealing to Satisficers appeared first on White.net.

Seth's Blog : Beware the zeitgeister

 

Beware the zeitgeister

He only cares about what's trending now. The only worthy examples are this week's examples, or even better, tomorrow's examples.

The zeitgeister will interrupt a long-term strategy discussion to talk urgently about today's micro-trend instead. The zeitgeister has little or no knowledge of the foundations of his industry, merely an out-of-context understanding of today's state of the art. He's encouraged by the media, of course, because the media are in the zeitgeist business. It's easier.

The challenge, of course, is that the momentary zeitgeist always changes. That's why it's so appealing to those that surf it, because by the time it's clear that you were wrong, it's changed and now you can talk about the new thing instead.

       

 

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.




Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.

 

luni, 7 iulie 2014

This tool helps you to recover from Google penalties

Entireweb Mailing. Unsubscribe from this list.


header-tag
A complete suite of tools helps your competitors to get high rankings.

Your competitors use SEOprofiler to get better rankings.
See what you've been missing out on:



icon search

Everything you need to get top rankings on Google
SEOprofiler is the proven solution that helps you to get your website on top of Google's search results. It offers everything from link building over keyword research to website analytics ( + a lot more).

icon report

As easy as 1-2-3: track your results
Find the keywords that deliver the best results. See how your website is ranked for your keywords on Google, Bing and Yahoo in 68 countries. Integrates with Google Analytics.

icon design

Impress your boss and your clients
Create beautiful reports in your company design for your boss and your clients. Fully customizable with your own logo, colors, etc.

icon eye

Spy on your competitors
Our powerful competitive intelligence tools enable you to spy on the backlinks, Google AdWords ads and Google rankings of your competitors. Find harmful links that point to your website and eliminate these bad links.

blue checkmark

Trusted by 50,000 companies
More than 50,000 businesses use SEOprofiler to get high rankings on Google. If you haven't tested SEOprofiler yet, create a free trial account or order buy SEOprofiler risk-free.


Sent to e0nstar1.blog@gmail.comwhy did I get this?

unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

SubmitStart · Trade Center · Kristian IV:s väg 3 · Halmstad 302 50 · Sweden

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Big Brother's Right to Censorship and Erase History; Misplaced Hope For a "Limited Big Brother"

Posted: 07 Jul 2014 02:06 PM PDT

Let's take a look at disturbing aspects of censorship, in which thousands of references to people have virtually disappeared from the internet following an EU ruling on the "Right to Be Forgotten" in which individuals have the right to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them.

Wikipedia provides the background for discussion.
The right to be forgotten 'reflects the claim of an individual to have certain data deleted so that third persons can no longer trace them.' It has been defined as 'the right to silence on past events in life that are no longer occurring.' The right to be forgotten manifests itself in allowing individuals to delete information, videos or photographs about themselves from internet records, and thus prevent them from showing up on search engines.

In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled against Google in Costeja, a case brought by a Spanish man who requested the removal of a link to a digitized 1998 article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed home, for a debt that he had subsequently paid. He initially attempted to have the article removed by complaining to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, which rejected the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate, but accepted a complaint against Google and asked Google to remove the results. Google sued in the Spanish Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) which referred a series of questions to the European Court of Justice. The court ruled in Costeja that search engines are responsible for the content they point to and thus, Google was required to comply with EU data privacy laws.
Guardian Articles Hidden From Search Engines

With that background understanding, please consider EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google.
[Following] a European court ruling that individuals had the right to remove material about themselves from search engine results, arrived in the Guardian's inbox this morning, in the form of an automated notification that six Guardian articles have been scrubbed from search results.

Three of the articles, dating from 2010, relate to a now-retired Scottish Premier League referee, Dougie McDonald, who was found to have lied about his reasons for granting a penalty in a Celtic v Dundee United match, the backlash to which prompted his resignation.

Anyone entering the fairly obvious search term "Dougie McDonald Guardian" into google.com – the US version of Google – will see three Guardian articles about the incident as their first results. Type the exact same phrase into Google.co.uk, however, and the articles have vanished entirely. McDonald's record is swept clean.

The Guardian has no form of appeal against parts of its journalism being made all but impossible for most of Europe's 368 million to find. The strange aspect of the ruling is all the content is still there: if you click the links in this article, you can read all the "disappeared" stories on this site. No one has suggested the stories weren't true, fair or accurate. But still they are made hard for anyone to find.

There might be a case for saying some stories should vanish from the archives: what about, say, someone who committed a petty crime at 18, who long since reformed and cleaned up their act? If at the age of 30 they're finding that their search history is still preventing them getting a job, couldn't they make the case that it's time for their record to be forgotten? Perhaps – it's a matter of debate. But such editorial calls surely belong with publishers, not Google.

The Guardian, like the rest of the media, regularly writes about things people have done which might not be illegal but raise serious political, moral or ethical questions – tax avoidance, for example. These should not be allowed to disappear: to do so is a huge, if indirect, challenge to press freedom. The ruling has created a stopwatch on free expression – our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it to be hidden.

Publishers can and should do more to fight back. One route may be legal action. Others may be looking for search tools and engines outside the EU. Quicker than that is a direct innovation: how about any time a news outlet gets a notification, it tweets a link to the article that's just been disappeared. Would you follow @GdnVanished?
Cast Into Oblivion

It's not just the Guardian. Robert Peston on the BBC asks Why Has Google Cast Me Into Oblivion?
This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google:

Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google: Merrill's Mess

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 [about the mess at Merrill Lynch] will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism? 

Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O'Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch.

My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.

Is the data in it "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant"?

Hmmm.

Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record - especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).
Big Brother

Michael Krieger on the Liberty Blitzkrieg blog quotes George Orwell "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

Krieger picks up on the Guardian Tweet idea...
Every time an article gets censored it should be highlighted. If we could get one Twitter account to aggregate all the deleted stories (or perhaps just the high profile ones) it could make the whole censorship campaign backfire as the stories would get even more press than they would have through regular searches. Ah…the possibilities.

Interestingly, due to all the controversy, a European Commission spokesman has come forth to criticize Google for removing the BBC article. You can't make this stuff up. From the BBC:

Google's decision to remove a BBC article from some of its search results was "not a good judgement", a European Commission spokesman has said.
40,000 Censorship Requests in First Hour

Paul Bernal, writing for CNN asks Is Google Undermining the 'Right to be Forgotten'?
In the commentary I wrote for CNN the day after the ruling in the Google Spain case, I suggested the result created a headache -- and potentially huge costs -- for Google, and that it could open the door to a flood of cases, each of which would need a resolution.

I wrote that how Google responded to the ruling would be critical -- and the initial signs are that the company's response has already caused problems.

As predicted, Google received a huge volume of requests to have links removed -- more than 40,000 in the first four days after the ruling. The company has now begun the process of responding to them.

In both Ball's [Guardian's] and Peston's cases, many of the stories that they had been notified about did not seem to fall into categories covered by the Google Spain ruling: old, irrelevant stories about people who were not public figures. Ball's stories included pieces from 2010 and 2011 -- scarcely old -- while Peston's covered critical events in the banking world in 2007 -- the ousting of banker Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch -- something that cannot be described as irrelevant or not in the public interest.

It looked as though this was exactly what the opponents of the right to be forgotten were worried about: censorship and the rewriting of history.

Was it, in fact, that Google were overreacting -- either that they were, as Peston put it, "clumsy" or that, perhaps, they were deliberately attempting to undermine the ruling by making it seem either unworkable or a dangerous form of censorship.

That Google might be deliberately undermining the ruling seems possible; all three parts of their response could contribute to this view.

Firstly, they seem to be erring on the side of the people wishing for things to be blocked -- and hence they do create more censorship.

Secondly, by alerting about far more search results than are actually affected by the rulings, they create an atmosphere in which people feel more censored.

Thirdly, by the form which their notification to journalists takes, they make journalists feel censored -- and might make strong, important and expert journalists into allies in their attempts to undermine the ruling.

The combination of these three is a potent one.

On the other hand, it is possible that it is simply clumsy, and that these are teething troubles.

The individual cases that have made the headlines have begun to unravel a little: Google has reversed its decisions on James Ball's pieces, recognising there is a public interest. Peston's piece is more interesting.

The assumption Peston made, reasonably enough, was that the link would be blocked when people search for Sean O'Neal, since his was the only name that appeared in the article in question.

But in fact, it turns out that the request to block the story related to a member of the public whose name appeared in the comments on the piece -- the link removed relates to searches for that person. Searching for Sean O'Neal still brings up the article.
Hope For a "Limited Big Brother"

Krieger notes that Google has now received 250,000 removal requests. Should Google really have to filter through every one of them, but only for Europe?

Bernal is sympathetic to a limited form of "Big Brother" writing "The most important thing that Google can do in response to the court ruling is to engage positively and actively with the ongoing reform process of the Data Protection Regime. A well-executed reform, with a better written, more limited and more appropriate version of the right to be forgotten could be the ultimate solution here."

Is a "limited big brother" really possible?

I side with Pater Tenebrarum at the Acting Man blog who pinged me with this though: "The Right to Be Forgotten is their first significant step through the backdoor to enable internet censorship."

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Premature Retail Spending Hope for France and Italy, Lofty Expectations for Germany

Posted: 07 Jul 2014 10:07 AM PDT

Markit's Eurozone Retail PMI shows Eurozone retail sales flat as declines falls in France and Italy offset German gains.
The Markit Eurozone Retail PMI which tracks month-on-month changes in like-for-like retail sales read 50.0 in June, little-changed from May's 49.9 and indicative of a flat trend in sales. Compared to the situation one year earlier, trade was down moderately during June, according to firms.

Commenting on the data, Phil Smith, economist at Markit which compiles the Eurozone Retail PMI survey, said: "The latest retail PMI data show a flat trend in eurozone retail sales forming, a relative positive in the context of the recent prolonged downturn. The stagnation hides a growing divergence in country - level performance, however. The gap between Germany's headline retail PMI and the average of those for France an d Italy has increased throughout the second quarter to the widest for almost a year. Any hopes that consumer spending in France and Italy had turned the corner are looking a little premature."

Eurozone retail sales were supported by continued growth in Germany, where trade rose sharply on the month and to the greatest extent for almost three-and-a-half years. In stark contrast, France's retail sector showed renewed weakness as sales there fell solidly, offsetting back-to-back marginal increases in the first two months of the quarter. Moreover, June's decrease was the sharpest so far in 2014. A deepening downturn was meanwhile seen in Italy, where the rate of decline in sales accelerated for the second straight month to the fastest since February. At the aggregate level, retailers' purchasing activity followed the trend in sales and was unchanged in June after a fractional decrease mid-quarter. Stocks of items for resale meanwhile rose for the seventh straight month, and at the fastest rate since April 2011. This was largely due to sales being markedly lower than targets on average.





Synopsis

  • Inventories rising at fastest rate since April 2011
  • Margins down, contracting at a faster pace
  • France back in contraction
  • Eurozone year-over-year sales contracting 
  • It took a 41-month high reading of 56.2 in German sales just to hold the index flat

The notion that Germany can keep bucking the trend is fallacious. There is no "relative positive" to be found. Rather, when Germany slows, things will go to hell in a hurry.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com