Semantics Incorporated

Linked Data, a Brand with Big Problems and no Brand Management

This post builds on the discussion that started on Twitter between Paul Miller and Ian Davis and quickly expanded to a few other folks. Paul subsequently wrote a blog post Does Linked Data need RDF?, and so did Ian Davis with The Linked Data Brand.

My turn:

I like Davis's suggested approach of looking as Linked Data as a brand.

It made me realize something: this brand hasn't been properly managed.

At this point in time, it's clear that beyond its inner tech circle, Linked Data is more often perceived as a technology that has wasted a lot more R&D funding than it should have, than as a solution to a problem.

If you are a brand manager, right there you have a huge perception problem to manage. In fact, at most companies, brand managers who let such an image problem spread out of control -like it has- without doing something about it would be terminated.

But there is no brand manager to sack for Linked Data.

Indeed, from what I've seen, there has been no deliberate effort from the W3C to manage that brand. That's where the problem lies. As Idehen illustrates so well with his comments to Ian's post ("marketing types will attempt to usurp and redefine the brand"), marketing is something many at the W3C have a 19th century view of, fed by Hollywood-propagated snake-oil cliches more than anything anchored in an actual education. In that regard, complaining that your brand will be re-framed is a little hypocritical when it wasn't managed and framed properly in the first place.

It may be time for the W3C to review its credo on marketing and do a little more of it. Time to learn it's not all coupons and spam. Marketers are also trained to align product development with real market needs (herein might lie the W3C resistance to it... want a reality check anyone?) and to -yes- manage brands. Even at nonprofits! I know, it sounds crazy, doesn't it?

So, as a "marketing type", let me try to make some constructive suggestions on managing the Linked Data brand, to tie this back to the comments left on Ian's post by Eric, William, and Paul, whose views I fully agree with.

First, and most importantly, pushing "Linked Data" as a monolithic block of technology conveys the perception one needs all the pieces to make it work. 1. That's not true. 2. That's enough to scare lots of potential users away, a bad adoption hurdle in brand management.

Instead, tell people you can include URIs in any piece of data. They may not get the full benefit of "Linked Data", but they'll get some of it, enough to start. In marketer's lingo, get them hooked. That doesn't make you a hooker. Doing that will get more people to try some pieces, see their limitations and find ways to address these, leading them to experiment with other parts of the stack and possibly alternatives to them. If RDF is as superior as the Linked Data apostles proclaim, it should win this battle, shouldn't it?

But Ian says he worries that solutions that only adopt part of the stack will not work well and create a perception that Linked Data is deficient, impacting the "seal of quality" he says Linked Data represents.

C'mon... 

For most, Linked Data rhymes with clumsy, academic R&D much more than with quality, as I wrote earlier.

If you really needed the whole stack for Linked Data to work, you would have a bigger problem on your hands: now you'd have to explain to users that to try Linked Data you need to understand and use RDF, URIs, SPARQL, OWL, and the other pieces of the stack. Good luck with driving adoption that way... Oh, but wait, that's what has been done so far, with the slow results we know of.

That's even why RDFa was created and is more successful (despite the confusing name). It's simplifying Linked Data into just one solution, easy to understand, easy to implement, easy to adopt.

Truth is, a lot of the advantages of Linked Data can be derived from using URIs or RDF independently, and lots more will come from mixing them with existing technologies to address real needs. Having them work together might be better, but it's by no means a must-do. That should have the Linked Data purists feel good about the whole thing. But no. Instead, they try to bundle up those technologies like pop and chips at a movie rental store (those snake-oil salesmen, some might say :)

Second suggestion about brand management. As we all know, it's very unclear what problem Linked Data actually addresses. Ok, I'm able to link data. Big deal. Most people after that ask "But what does it really do?". What does that mean for them? Well, in fact, there are plenty of benefits to being able to link data like that, but the people supposed to explain those can't do it in simple words. They suffer from the knowledge curse. They haven't been trained to communicate to non-rocket scientists or even mainstream programmers/webmasters, for that matter. They don't make things simple, and they don't make them sexy. That alone is a sin in this new world.

Case in point: calling it Linked Data makes it sounds like it's coming straight from the R&D lab. Bad brand name choice. Over time, you can address that, but you've got a hurdle to surmount right there.

So, should you re-brand or should you fix the existing brand? My guess is that a bit of both is happening right now.

On the one hand, we have companies making linked data theirs, putting their name on it, repackaging it. I think it's Peter Mika who said in our July semantic web gang podcast that what we called "Semantic Platforms" really were rebranded triple stores :)

It's not about making false claims and hyping it. It's about getting the word out about the real virtues of Linked Data.

For example: "With Virtual Knowledge, you will be able to quickly assemble your underlying data into custom interfaces that talk your language and meet your daily information needs. No more finding a needle in a haystack of news, no more calling the IT department to program interfaces or connect siloes, no more not doing it because it's too hard. You create your own dashboards in a few clicks and can see it all from there."

Or even "With RDFa, you easily embed information about your content. It helps both search engines and portals better understand and index what your data is about. This way, they can return results that are better structured, better presented, and thus more attractive to users."

Isn't that better than "With Linked Data, you interconnect the data through RDF, which creates qualified links. Those links can point to URIs, giving concepts unique central addresses, and add semantic granularity to your data. Add some SPARQL to run complex queries and OWL for the ability to create robust standard taxonomies, and you have your  recipe for success. Of course, you should really use all those together for the best results." Mmm, I can't wait to try that...

Now, as I said above, I think in spite of it all that the Linked Data brand itself is in the process of being fixed up. Even the toughest Linked Data fundamentalists have shown some signs of easing up on their purity claims, and understanding the importance of better marketing.  More importantly, we see more companies, like the New York Times, who want to "publish Linked Data". But what's most transformational is that use cases are getting clearer, for example with the adoption of RDFa by Yahoo and Google. Note, it's not pure W3C Linked Data, but hey, it's Linked Data nonetheless. Just like Coke Zero is still Coke.

There will always be people who argue that the original Coke is the only true Coke. Meanwhile, people drink the one that fits them best and still call it Coke.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does Linked Data need RDF ? (cloudofdata.com)
• ReadWriteWeb Interview With Tim Berners-Lee, Part 1: Linked Data (readwriteweb.com)
• Google supports RDFa - SEOs work changes forever (ithoughts.de)

Attention Web 3.0 Start-Ups: Redirect 25% of your R&D Budget to Market Understanding and Development

In my observations on the Semantic Technology conference last month, I mentioned I would be blogging separately about the dire lack of investments by Web 3.0 start-ups in market understanding and marketing.

Before I start, let me signal some conflict of interest here: in the course of my job, I lead efforts on market understanding and positioning, brand awareness and lead generation. The idea is that developing my market is in the interest of start-ups with a stake in Web 3.0 and the semantic web. I get more business when they do :) But please do discount my words for this bias, and decide for yourself, when all is said and done, whether we have a solid case here or not.

My main claim with this post is that companies in the Web 3.0 and semantic web space are downright bad at filling unmet needs, packaging their offer effectively and cutting through the market noise to secure users and revenues. It even appears this incapacity to grow revenues has a direct impact on their ability to make money (ok, it's sunny outside, after five days of clouds there is no harm in having a little fun, is there? ;)

The large and growing number of players at SemTech told me that we are already in a crowded market. And yet: few real products, and very few sales. Most of the people there live on R&D funding from public institutions and overtrusting angels, not client receivables.

Why?

As a VC said during his talk, "this is a very early-stage market".

Allow me to translate.

That's code for "I don't get it, what are you guys selling here? Better fix that quick if you want me to come back next year"

This has been an early-stage market for over 8 years, which by my estimate is 1,302 web years. And it is going to remain so, as long as players prefer to hire one more Java "guru" as opposed to investing properly in market research, a business model and some marketing.

It was obvious, just going around, attending presentations and talking to people, that the business side of those companies is generally in an advanced state of starvation.

So many companies that presented couldn't enunciate any reason to use their products in an hour, let alone an elevator pitch. Too many had inexpressive and even customer-hostile names (ask me for examples by email...) and geeky logos that don't talk to their audience; too many, to present their product, sent technology experts apparently missing the "communication" function; too many didn't have a clue about their market, how to penetrate it, and no thought as to why, when and how often would anybody use their "solution". Please, let's call it a technology.

If Web 3.0 companies are eager to become mainstream, it didn't show in San Jose.

I brought up the problem of underinvestment in market understanding and marketing up at my talk as well as with a few start-up executives. The most common response was that resources at start-ups are limited. I know they are, but I don't buy it when I see the same companies already employing a dozen folks working on the product development side and hiring extra R&D FTEs. What's the ROI of that as opposed to taking one dedicated business person on board (and it doesn't even have to be full-time to start paying off)? I can recognize a case of feature and scope creep when I see one, and this is the supersized version of it. "Just one more feature!"

The reason for that are diverse, and have a lot to do with the academic and R&D origins of this stuff. I'll expand on this in a broader post on my other blog To Revenue at some point, and explain how I think even fundamental R&D is moving towards a more market-driven approach. Suffice to say, most if not all of the investment for the semantic web went into R&D and technology development to build the tools (standards and applications), and nothing, or very little, to test and refine our initial understanding of the market problems these technologies would solve, and evaluate the best way to solve them.

Luckily, the solution is simple: as a good rule of thumb, I’d see every start-up in the web 3.0 and semantic web space redirect at least 25% of its R&D expense to consumer research, brand awareness, partnerships and marketing. All good things that will make a start-up stronger if they don't kill it (better that than a slow, painful agony).

As I see it, the development of any market solution is an exercize in bridging the gap between two things: technological possibilities and market needs. Focus on one at the expense of the other, and you'll find yourself quickly in la-la land.

I can't keep count of the numbers of start-ups I come across that have gone too far along the product development curve and find themselves with a technology they don't know how to sell and to whom. Invariably, they haven't tested the waters prior to funding  development or continued to tune that development to meet real needs.

Why risk a reality check? It was just all too exciting at the time.

So curb your enthusiasm and get yourself a suit, with that free business budget you just found.

 

PS. Business folks need to explore ways to deliver more value, too. It takes a special kind to be effective at a tech venture, and the rapid changes in marketing also make it challenging to deliver business results if you come from a traditional marketing background. I talked about the difficulties in balancing the tech and biz needs and cultures here, and I will tackle the marketing revolution in a future post.

Video of the Semantic Web Gang at Semantic Tech 2009

Here is the video of the live podcast we recorded at the Semantic Tech conference, courtesy Semantic Universe and Paul Miller who arranged to have this recording.

The sound is a little lacking so plug your earphones to hear better. An MP3 will also be posted soon by Paul is available on the gang's page.

Disclaimer: I am not responsible for putting my own pic on the video screenshot!

Lastly, my company name was misspelled "Growthrate" in the introduction, which is funny. Maybe I'll use that if I launch some economic analysis subsidiary :)

PS. you can also find an MP3 for the panel I moderated on Business Models here

The Semantic Web Gang looks back at SemTech 2009 from Semantic Universe on Vimeo.

Will We Soon See a Rally on Web 3.0 Start-Ups? My Take on Semantic Tech

About 3 weeks ago, I left a warm Canadian sun to fly south to San Jose's chilly weather, and attend the Semantic Technology conference. Or, let's be fair, 1.5 days out of the five the event lasted. The rest, mostly, I followed through Twitter, which by all accounts tends to be a little like watching the Olympics on TV, as opposed to being in the stadium: you don't get the pop corn and hot dog breeze, but in the end you know more about the games than people who were there (and not on Twitter too... it gets quickly confusing.)

Of course, the big objective at "Sem Tech" is networking. Thanks to the nice folks of Semantic Universe (thank you Eric and Steve), I managed to make it, last minute, onto the exclusive list of VC Connect, a cocktail reception which gathered both fundraising CEOs and investors (of whom more attended than I thought there would be. I guess the free hors d'oeuvres did the trick). I stroke most great conversations there (apologies to those I met outside of VC Connect!)

So, my impressions of the event. I know those are late but I'm not competing with news organizations, just with analysts, so that's ok!

Overall, it was sort of "hot and cold": there were lots of very positive signs and, by all admissions, there is still a lot to do before Web 3.0 and the Semantic Web truly happen.

Key mental notes I made to myself:

• Fully endorsed: all the godfathers are now at the table. This event marked the first participation of Google, confirming the company's mood reversal after the tough words Eric Schmidt had for the field a while back. Anyway, what matters is that the 800-pound gorilla now sits next to Yahoo's SearchMonkey and King Kong Microsoft, putting their seal of approval on the effort, and all the credibility that comes with it.
   
• Market traction (which some call hype): attendance was up by 16%, which, in these macro-economic conditions, is no small feat. Lots more companies are asking what they should do to get ready for web 3.0 and the semantic web, and visiting the conference to understand. I don't know whether they got the answers they hoped for, but they were there and that's one first step!
   
• Real products in B2B: there were some real, commercialized semantic products, especially in the B2B space, such as those of Cambridge Semantics, and products in that space are starting to use Linked Data and integrate information into the Semantic Web.
   
• B2C disappointment : on the consumer side, of course there was Wolfram Alpha, which is certainly interesting but ultimately not earth-shattering. But at the exception of search engines, I found that little was new in B2C. SIRI was presented as a "game-changer", but with all due respect to Tom Gruber, I believe it is way too early for "Virtual Personal Assistants" to take off. Technology is not ready to support such a value proposition, all the hype will only help create expectations that can't be fulfilled, and because of this it is likely to fall flat in the market.
   
  I saw nothing that took advantage of Linked Data (URIs) and the stack (RDF etc), beside those few apps we already know about, i.e. Zemanta, Glue... Even then support is limited (yet to come for Glue, I believe). Clearly the consumer space is still quite a bit in R&D mode (yawn...), and what I came across felt somewhat unfocused and confusing too. Hopefully more will happen on that side in the coming months, with the technologies maturing.
   

Sem Tech also showed me there were still challenges, at 4 levels:

• Incomplete technology : linked data now seems mature enough to create commercial apps, but as I described in previous posts there is a huge risk of GIGO (garbage in garbage out), as text analysis is lagging behind. Also, the general focus on aggregation is diverting resources from creating smarter application from a user standpoint. Nothing I saw at SemTech made me feel much better about those issues, although I believe there are efforts taking place in text analysis that may yield good results going forward.
   
• Usability deficit: way too many apps are still trying too hard to have machines do all the work. A majority of CTOs have a hard time internalizing that machines are still stupid. They are. AI won’t be here for another few decades. In the meantime, companies should focus on higher usability.
  
  I was delighted to see this theme emerge strongly at SemTech, when the search engine panel advocated turning the search experience into a "conversation" with the user. By that they meant asking the user for clarification when there is ambiguity, for instance, or too many answers to be practical. Beside improving the user's experience, dialoguing with her and collecting the results intelligently would really enable the creation of rich semantic engines over time.
   
• Underinvestment in market understanding and marketing : this is worth its own post... Stay tune, I'll publish it in two days. Let's just say this is a huge issue in the space, and while I witnessed a certain progress at Sem Tech this year, we are faaaar from the levels required to make this R&D haven a business.
   
• Forget VCs, unless...: I was also hoping to see significant growth in the number of VCs and strategic investors at Sem Tech this year, and yet there seemed to be very few of them around. I could count maybe a dozen on the participant list, and met only about five of them. Interestingly, all said they would not invest in anything “semantic web”, but in solutions to problems, and they kept repeating that they saw the main problem with companies at Sem Tech as being a lack of focus on a consumer or company problem (see, I'm not the only one!)
   
  I am not exactly sure what to think of that, though, coming from VCs. On the one hand, I obviously agree with them about the prevalent lack of a market-centric approach in the semantic web space. Yet, on the other, there is a number of companies with great semantic technologies just waiting to be properly positioned and packaged by a clever business team. What do VCs do if not helping with that?
   
  After all, if you ask them, VCs don't invest in "Web 2.0" either. Yet in the meantime, they are still funding the next social network...
   
  As was pointed out to me by a Gold sponsor of Sem Tech, even the best of VCs, such as my friends (before this post, that is!) at Intel Capital, end up sending confused signals to entrepreneurs: case in point, while professing on the Sem Tech podium to be only investing rationally in companies benefiting Intel, Intel Capital put money in companies with very fuzzy problem-solving potential and a very, very diffuse contribution to Intel sales. Such as Bragster, that I can't call anything else than a stupid social network, very unlikely to return any money to its investors. If Bragster is helping sell chips, what isn't?!
   
  So, when VCs don't follow their own advice, how do you blame entrepreneurs for not doing it either?
   
  But there is "hope".
   
  Since VCs pretty much invented irrational exuberance and benefit from it (believe it or not, I am fond of the VC model - I just wish there was a little more self-discipline in the field), we could very well see a rally on the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 this year or the next, that would of course temporarily put aside question marks around "market problems" etc... VCs need focal points like that, and since cleantech investing seems to be taking a breather, the web 3.0 is the next best candidate.
   
  Having said that, I am not encouraging any company to forget about tackling a real market need that they can get paid for. In any case, the best path for many of the start-ups at semantic technology companies is not to bet on a VC rally on Web 3.0 and rather to assume there is little investment money in the field. In other words, forget fundraising, and focus on revenue and profitability from day 1. If you do that properly, VCs may soon come knocking at your door (assuming they recover from their financial crisis wounds), and you will be ready for any rally.
   

Such minor considerations apart, it looks like things are moving in the right direction, although still a little too slowly on the business side. At Sem Tech, I was a bit let down by the limited range of new, innovative solutions solving a widespread or even a narrow problem, but I think that the stars are slowly aligning and we may see an acceleration wave. Especially if rapid improvements are made in technologies to structure unstructured data, if an increased focus is placed on revenue model, usability, and market awareness, and if you follow all the advice in this post and refer it to 10 other people...

During the live Semantic Web Gang podcast we recorded at Sem Tech, which will be available here when it is published, I said that business people should come in droves to Sem Tech next year and take things over from tech folks. While this was deliberately provocative, I think there is a huge imbalance in the field at the moment and it incumbs upon CTOs and other tech CEOs to rebalance their efforts, open the gates and welcome more business types in. Opening up the semantic web is, in my mind, the key to success. Rendez-vous next year to see how well start-ups have fared.

Related articles by Zemanta

• SemTech2009 impressions (ivan-herman.name)
• Siri: A Powerful Virtual Assistant For The iPhone (techcrunch.com)
• Google and Future of the Semantic Web (mehmetalierturk.com)
• Google embraces exercise in Semantics (news.cnet.com)
• Understanding the New Web Era: Web 3.0, Linked Data, Semantic Web (readwriteweb.com)

Tech vs. Biz Type Divide: Tackling the Number One Product Failure Driver Headfirst

I am back after quite some time, my ability to blog being constrained by business requirements. I am indeed happy to report that Growthroute's activity is growing rapidly, with clients in the web 3.0 space in particular. I know, I know, I have not even published my thoughts about semtech yet. I was there for less than 2 days, but there were some interesting things I took away that I have not seen expressed anywhere yet, so I will blog briefly about that very soon.

In the meantime, I have just published the slides of a beta presentation I gave at Communitech, the innovation and entrepreneurship hub in the IT mecca that is Waterloo, Canada -- and I believe it should be of particular interest to ventures in the semantic web and web 3.0, since it tackles the gap between techies and business people, discusses how that affects commercial success, and explores potential solutions. The post and slides can be found here. I welcome all constructive feedback, with few limitations on what constructive means.