Below you will find an introduction on the Hype Cycle and the Priority Matrix and where emerging technologies are in the Hype Cycle.

What is the Hype Cycle?
Gartner states:
“Gartner’s Hype Cycle characterizes the typical progression of an emerging technology, from overenthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain. Each phase is characterized by distinct indicators of market, investment and adoption activities.”

What is the Priority Matrix Graphic?
Gartner states:
“The Priority Matrix is a tool for prioritizing emerging technologies by forcing technology planners to look beyond the hype and assess technology opportunities in terms of their relative impact on the enterprise and the timing of that impact.”

What does it mean for you?
As explained by Gartner it will help you as a company to understand what the trends are, where to look at (be it for internal or business/growth opportunities) and what the “state” of these technologies are.
Jumping bandwagons without solid trend information does happen often, depending on the corporate culture (Innovator for instance) this can be good, for many others an understanding before applying technologies is a sure way to go.

For us Agora Media / AppMarket.tv it means to understand technologies like Augmented Reality, mobile technologies and convergent technologies, what the benefit and mainstream adoption timeframe is.
The latter is important for planning and business development. Too early has its advantages but also challenges, entering too late the market means losing share and a certain brand recognition/positioning.

Gartner provides many Hype Cycles, which you can find on this page.
For this article, three of the Hype Cycles that are relevant for our business are:
“Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for E-Commerce, 2010″
“Hype Cycle for Business Use of Social Technologies, 2010″

Below you’ll find the individual technologies that are mentioned in the “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2010″ and where they are situated in the Hype Cycle.

You can relate the phases below to the shown first image in this article.

On the Rise
Human Augmentation
Context Delivery Architecture
Computer-Brain Interface
Terahertz Waves
Tangible User Interfaces
Extreme Transaction Processing
Autonomous Vehicles
Video Search
Mobile Robots
Social Analytics
3D Printing
Speech-to-Speech Translation

At the Peak
Internet TV
Private Cloud Computing
Augmented Reality
Media Tablet
Wireless Power
3D Flat-Panel TVs and Displays
4G Standard
Activity Streams
Cloud Computing
Cloud/Web Platforms

Sliding Into the Trough
Gesture Recognition
Mesh Networks: Sensor
Microblogging
E-Book Readers
Video Telepresence
Broadband Over Power Lines
Virtual Assistants
Public Virtual Worlds
Consumer-Generated Media
Idea Management
Mobile Application Stores

Climbing the Slope
Biometric Authentication Methods
Internet Micropayment Systems
Interactive TV
Predictive Analytics
Electronic Paper
Location-Aware Applications
Speech Recognition

Entering the Plateau
Pen-Centric Tablet PCs

Augmented Reality is at the peak, meaning attention is reaching a all high record. Companies like Layar, T-Immersion, Junaio are pushing -with much success- the boundaries of this technology.
Microblogging on the other hand is sliding into the trough, meaning it will have hard times to prove itself within the environment and usage. In case of Microblogging I do see a bright future, but less hyped and much more relevant than in many present cases.
Interactive TV is climbing the scope, it has passed the trough and modified/enhanced offers are globally being developed, making it an interesting emerging market.

What do you think of the Hype Cycle management model?
Do you make use of it during strategic planning and growth strategies?

This week was announced that Google has waved goodbye its all-in-one collaboration tool Google Wave.

On Wednesday and Thursday, multiple sources have reported that Google has acquired Slide, a social application developer for $182 million.
In July, the news was announced that Google has invested in Zynga to form the cornerstone for Google Games.

Are these all indications that Google is leaving the arena of platforms and is focussing on the content, which is being deployed on the Web?

The rumors about a social network experiment called “Google Me” are not in lign with the aforementioned developments, but a rumor is a rumor.
Facebook and others, like Twitter and Myspace have such a large userbase, it would be very difficult for Google to compete.
Like Google Wave, other social experiments have not been succesful.

By investing in social gaming, it will get a better grasp on one of the activities employed by users online, making advantage of the large and established userbases of Facebook, Myspace and others.

Not only for Google but also for other companies trying to get a share in social networking, it is becoming hard. People have established networks, time and attention are fragmented.
The advantages need to be really compelling in order to persuade users to be active on yet another network or leave a present one. If an extra network is added to the users’ portfolio, less attention and time is available per network, which is a disadvantage for both user and the social networks.

Secondly, Google kills two birds with one stone, Google Games and social gaming distributed via Facebook and others.

This development fits to overall approach of Google, the Web as a platform where all sorts of activities are deployed.
Think of entertainment/video via YouTube.
Think of communication via Gmail.
Think of information via its core, Search.
Gaming fits this list of activities very well.

What’s your opinion on the developments concerning Google and (social) gaming?

Below you find a summary of how each type is defined and what their roles are:

As mentioned on the Forrester blog, it’s best when creating an integral marketing strategy based on these three types of media. Easier said than done, but by creating a clear overview and categorizing current media efforts you will be able to approach and define your strategy more structured.

Besides the roles, benefits and challenges, there are implications and applications of this model from a (meta-) marketing point of view.

Here a list of points to think about and perspectives:

General point of perspective
Approaching strategy by the type of media instead of channel or ROI/Branding tactics, offers new insights which can be used to enhance the marketing efforts.
For instance, ROI objectives can be reached through various media types. Taking this point of perspective is more alligned to your goals and strategy, where these media types are the strategic How part.

B2C2C
Understanding the three media types and how they (inter)relate is important to understand on the transparent and reciprocal Web. The amount B2C expressions are relatively low, but serve as a catalyst for further C2C distribution.
Make use of each the channel’s uniquenesses, in order to be as effective as possible and more importantly, to reach the customer in a way which matches their online behavior.

The Buying Cycle
This brings us to probably the most important implication of this model, the reflection on the Buying Cycle / Funnel.
First of all, Social Media is promoted as a solution for everything, which isn’t. Secondly, it’s not always as cost-effective as companies think it is. Of course, direct channel costs lack, but indirect costs can be high. Think of the time consuming character of social media.

Owned media and Paid media can much more focus on the conversion part of the cycle/funnel, let the earned media be for visibility and the retention/loyalty phases.
Besides the unique advantages of each channel, keep in mind  that they’re symbiotic, Search is a catalyst for further exploration and the networks trigger more searches due to peer recommendations.

Brand
The brand is what the customers think it is. Nowadays it is even more than just that, because customers also want to be a part of the brand, think of co-creation and prosumerism.
Find a balance on media efforts that portrays the companies’ view with those from the customers.
The companies’ views are often centralized on the corporate website, whereas the opinions of customers are scattered throughout the Web.

A difference to keep into account when categorizing currently executed media types.

Devices
Society is becoming more digital ubiquitous, are the Owned media adapted to them if it’s neccesary? Think of the mobile device and tablets.
How are the target groups making use of the mobile device, depending on purpose and need, employ the right media type (right depends on goals as well).

Relevancy
Certain channels are less customizable than others, social channels are a good example how to reach customers very relevant, on the other hand, Owned and Paid media are less flexible and relevant (from the customer point of view).
New technologies in the Search Engine Marketing arena have increased relevancy (remarketing, behavioral targeting etc) which in time will decrease the advertising blindness (16% decrease in clicks Y0Y ’09 & ’10).
Social Media advertising can be more relevant in the eyes of the users but are less conversion focused, because of the lacking buying modus whilst visiting social networks.

Strategy
It comes down to the How and Where in strategy. Keep in mind that in the execution of the strategy, the translation of the How in terms of marketing communications/PR/advertising need to match the Where, where is the target audience present, what is their behavior and cycle?

Each media type adds its unique value to the How and Where.
Be mindful in the tactics, don’t follow your competitors blindly and smaller is better.
Hypersegmentation and targeting will deliver more precise and thus more relevant and qualitative results.

Last but not least, goals have impact in the choice of media type, long-term versus short-term, ROI versus branding and so on.
Effectivity is key in the choice because of the unique advantages of each type in each channel related to the target audience and the products/services.

Would you use this model for your planning?
Which media type is most challenging for you?
Do you make use of the C2C extension in terms of branding?

The company will create severeal games based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters.

Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, Judy McGrath, says:

“Social gaming is one of the biggest drivers of the explosive growth in social media – it’s fun, it’s engaging, and it’s shareable,” said Judy McGrath, Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks.  ”Social Express brings us strong experience and know-how in this burgeoning space, which we’ll supercharge with the IP and scale of Nickelodeon and other MTV Networks brands to create great new social gaming experiences for our fans and cool tools for independent developers as well.”

On a conceptual level, it will be interesting to learn if MTV Networks will head towards transmedia entertainment concepts, incorporating television programs, websites and social games to create a full-fledged integral storytelling.
Each medium will serve another purpose and like McGrath already states, Social gaming is fun and engaging, two ingredients which could add a new experience and layer to existing or new concepts.

Transmedia concepts do exists and there are great examples, for instance the Happiness Factory by Coca Cola.
The Happiness Factory is a virtual world of characters living inside a vending machine. The series lives across multiple channels, including commercials, interactive video games, and a musical soundtrack that features a variety of artists. The series provides Coca-Cola with additional revenue streams, and customers with a fun brand experience.

MTV Networks could do similar concepts based on Nickelodeon and MTV shows and characters, taking it a step further, taking the engagement of the viewers of MTV a step further.

What do you think of the potential MTV Networks has with Social Gaming?
Is the Entertainment industry perfect for transmedia concepts?

Again news for the travel industry, last week it was the rumor on a potential Google & ITA deal, now it’s Apple (increasing rivalry between them and Google) which comes with iTravel, Apple’s way of revolutionizing the travel industry.

What iTravel basically does is converging the complete travel process for the iPhone.
A complementary – thus competitive and unique – combination of iPhone hardware and software will enable travelers to search, plan and book flights, hotels, rentals and much more.
At the airport you’ll be able to handle luggage and boarding passes.

At this time, iTravel is in the patent stage, for more information on iTravel, have a look at PatentlyApple.

Two questions arise:
* What does this mean for travel marketers?
A new distribution channel might come available, because it’s Apple, will this mean a next step in disintermediation?

* Is Apple able to disrupt the travel industry, exactly because of the centralized position their device (iPhone) will have?
If Apple is able to penetrate key industries, the usage of one mighty device is in their advantage and reach.

How are these two enhancing Strategic decision making on a business level?
First of all, a short introduction to Game Theory:

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology (most notably evolutionary biology and ecology), engineering, political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy. Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according to several criteria. Today, “game theory is a sort of umbrella or ‘unified field’ theory for the rational side of social science, where ‘social’ is interpreted broadly, to include human as well as non-human players (computers, animals, plants)” (Aumann 1987).

When we talk about Social Media, Transparency and Centralisation are key to new social (digital) behavior which influences buying cycles and decision making and where Social Network Analysis gives insights in relationships between (groups of) people.

On the Internet, where quantification on a much more granular level is made possible, and where Assymetric Information supply is being diminished, we can understand that Game Theory is an intersection of all these disciplines which will benefit the business and its strategic decision making. Where the new Local = Global, where competition increases, mathematics like Game Theory will give (large) corporations the advantages to extract important information from its customers and markets.

Why?
Because like the definition says, “Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others.”
An individual can be understood on different levels, be it a business, a target segment or indeed individual people.

The Internet’s real-time aspect which is challenging -again- businesses will add a new dimension to the already exisiting complexity.
(Not-)Reacting on events can be a matter of days and substantiated decision making -on quantified data- becomes a must.

How do you think mathematical approaches like Game Theory and Social Network Analysis will influence businesses and decision making?
How will competition evolve amongst companies?

Please add your company in our directory if you are in the business. It’s free… Or even if you have relevant experience and ‘want’ to offer your portfolio of skills to the industry. If you want to write with us, contact us via the site. Share the knowledge. Brand yourself or your company.

AppMarket.tv Manifesto

We composed a Manifesto (click to read complete Manifesto), explaining our vision on the evolution of the industry.

Manifesto
Appmarket.tv is the Internet’s first portal dedicated to application and middleware development communities in the Social TV and Connected TV landscape.

We support open API’s, SDK’s, WDK’s and our own roots lie in Open Source communities. It’s our opinion that completely closed, proprietary development in this emerging space will fail and models that are built on more systems similar to the Iphone App and Facebook Application worlds will do well. Truly open source software like Google’s Android will likely be the winners.

Revenue sharing between corporate entities and small businesses around and a prevalence of freemium models will appear and flourish. And a new word will enter tech lexicon. tCommerce.

Future advertising models on TV will be dependent on interaction and creative ways to bring brands to viewers as future audiences will no longer accept ‘broken’ TV… or TV with a slew of interruptions. Video On Demand (VOD) and TV in the Cloud, ubiquitous and everywhere, will change that. I expect my daughters, in the future, to think it was novel how they used to have to watch certain programs at certain times when they were young.

The TV industry, like many other’s affected by disruptive and game changing technologies, is a mess. There are so many players and so many technologies right now which is both good and bad. Darwinists say the best will survive, but in the meantime… directional decisions we make now can really affect our futures. There are a lot of choices for developers, investors and consumers. And we want to help sort it out by providing a solid directory, consolidating events worldwide to help us all plan better, and even meet!

Collective Intelligence
We can’t build AppMarket.tv up without the collective intelligence on this industry which is out there, fragmented amongst many industry leaders, technologists, evangelists etc.

We like to write about the industry – and we welcome others who want to reach players in this targeted niche by contributing to Appmarket.tv with ideas, reviews and new analysis.

We can’t pay, but we can plug you.

This is, essentially, a labour of love. We love new, creative technology and innovation that empowers people and creates a better, more fruitful, active-rather-than-passive TV experience.

Contact us if you’re interested in contributing your expertise and knowledge, brand yourself or your company!

We invite you as well to submit your company in the AppMarket.tv Directory.

The Directory is divided in Connected TV, iPad/Mobile, Social TV, tCommerce Specialists, TV Widget & App Developers sections, select the best category which fits your company and add your listing.

Being Open Source advocates at heart, learning and sharing together will only improve the new industry and make it easier for all of us aiming to participate in it!

At the world’s first and largest commercial Augmented Reality event last 21st of April, the Augmented Reality Conference, Christine was a speaker where she elaborated on Mobile Augmented Reality revenue streams.

Find below her presentation that she gave.

Generating revenues with mobile Augmented Reality

As mentioned on Bloomberg:

“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information, and ITA does that for travel,” said Henry Harteveldt, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc. in San Francisco.

With this mission comes their advertising model, adding ITA’s will enhance the travel information they can provide users.
Increased relevance for the users means higher earnings for Google due to the higher costs which are paid by advertisers.
Google has five times more search volume than Bing has in the US, with the addition of ITA’s software, quality can increase due to the enhanced search and buying experience.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports:

With tools that help users find flight information online, ITA Software may help Google compete with travel-search features offered by Microsoft. The companies are tussling for share in the U.S. market for online travel, which generated $88.4 billion in sales last year, according to Sherman, Connecticut travel consulting firm PhoCusWright Inc.

One of the most sophisticated travel-search features offered by Microsoft is the Farecast technology which is the basis of Bing Travel.

From the customer point of perspective it all sounds pretty logical and fine, who wouldn’t want a shorter buying journey?
Though from the B2B point of view, it’s a different story, hence my initial question.
Google would not only intermingle with the offline agents, but as well with their online equivalents, the OTAs. The ultimate “direct” supplier has signed in.
As mentioned by this analyst:

Since the GDS power both of those channels, there would most certainly be a major impact to their transaction volume for air ticket sales, which is what drives their business model.

If Google is able to kill two birds with one stone, namely further disintermediation of the travel supply chain and a higher search share from Microsoft (and others), it has a potential winner.
This will go accompanied by power shifts in both the industries (Search and Travel), how do you think they will respond?
What’s your general opinion on this possible acquisition?

Yes, what it will do at least, is shake up the TV industry and get them out of their “Walled Gardens”, and actively look for business model innovations.  Google has the potential, reach and money to penetrate the market with more than just a shake up. It will likely be cataclysmic… and they will truly launch the concept of Social and Connected TV into the Zeitgeist by 2011.

The rumour mill has once again ground out another flutter of gossip about Google going into the TV market – but still – nobody will go on record. This time it’s about when they will release their official foray into this space.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that:

Google Inc. is planning to introduce Android-based television software to developers at an event in May, according to people familiar with the matter.

Google is headhunting for developers in this space, which validates the buzz.

Android and Chrome both have substantial development communities, but it will likely take some time before investments are made from software developers – and it will come when Google can show a critical mass adaption. Until now, Yahoo Connected TV has been leading in this space, but interest in their Widget Development Kit (WDK) is rather tepid. Google TV’s future development kit (likely based on Android and Chrome),  won’t likely be wide open, but will surely be more flexible and malleable than Yahoo’s.

But other news on Google TV recently came with a report from the  Korean Herald,  who published an article about a possible marriage between the world’s leading TV manufacturer, Samsung, and Google TV. In other words, Samsung, who is already tied to Yahoo Connected TV is considering cutting another deal with Google and building CE devices with Android architecture.

Yahoo won’t be happy if this pans out – but they don’t seem to be able to develop much traction in attracting developers to this space, nor creating enough buzz about Social TV, TV Apps, Widgets etc.

Will hardware manufacturers lose their control? They might, if they don’t play ball, Google just might start producing TV’s themselves.

According to a quote from the same Korean Herald article

Chun Seung-hoon, an analyst at Eugene Investment & Securities, said Samsung’s Google TV is plausible, given that Google’s Android is an open platform. “There is no problem for Samsung to produce Google TVs,” he said. However, he said the hardware manufacturer faces the risk of losing its control over the TV market to Google, a software firm, should it make Google TVs. “This is not a good picture. I think it would be better for Samsung to expand its own platform Bada,“ he said.

Google’s perspective is from the software side, manufacturers is from the hardware perspective, and a complementary growth strategy for both sides is more plausible.

Expansion of its own mobile development platform Bada – Samsung could perhaps itself  head towards their own Social TV development and make a play for both a two screen and one screen experience.  People’s demand in the end is what will make or break a Walled Garden, in this case Bada, which already has an ample app store.

Already mentioned in one of my earlier analysis Television 2.0’s foremost challenge is… , consumer control and attention are essential in understanding the coming paradigm TV shift.

In the end, all that people want is any content at their time, on their screen when they’re in the mood. Creating a battle between open systems, from any kind of manufacturer, is a risk for growth strategies and revenue streams.

Going from the platform to the actual content consumption which will be enabled by Google Android TV, it will be interesting to see how this will develop and evolve.
On NewTeeVee, researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics, says that Social TV doesn’t mean a cluttering of content and widgets on the TV screen.

Google has the resources to analyse this in-depth, create understanding how the new television experience could be enhanced in appropriate ways, not a simple centralisation of different content on a screen.

There’s more than enough landscape on the next generation of TV’s to allow for optional widgets to be popped in and out, and if sized correctly,  a single screen experience can work. The widgets, from a design perspective, can and should be optional and can and should be designed to be part of the overall TV experience, if planned well. If they can get the Interactive Design down pat – getting ‘social’ on one screen can work. There are many examples of websites that have this kind of alternative.  Our blog has an optional widget for Twitter that can be pulled out and retracted quite nicely 0n the bottom right.

Here again the ultimate quest is to provide users control to gain their attention which will lead to -new- revenue models.

Apps/Widgets have been said to be the new Cash Cow generators for the digitized ubiquity, the syndication of content and the consumption of it. If Google and the industry will be able to go forth in the evolution of television and the experience, conventional revenue models could be proven not to be the only valid ones.

What do you think, will Google be able to get movement in this cumbersome sector?