MappingTheWeb //

I get a lot of post requests by various companies. Rarely do I have the time to fulfill all their wishes. Nevertheless, I appreciate their thought and consideration, and often I do find time to profile a single company. In this case, I’d like to highlight a bunch of companies that have contacted me. I will include a one-line pitch and you can decide whether you want to delve deeper. Without further ado, here they are:

ScheduleOnce - Easy meeting scheduling tool.

PostMapper - Plots Wordpress blog posts on a central map.

WOT (Web of Trust) - Social-based website trust ratings.

AdRoll - Collaborative, niche ad network.

TagItOn - Centralized discussion facilitation tool.

Fixya - Community-based tech support.

There you have it… that’s the list. I’d appreciate any opinions or perspectives relating to the companies listed above. If the companies have anything to add, please do so.

Innovative ideas are what inspire me. I think that all these concepts are genuine and merit further scrutiny. Obviously not everyone can benefit from all products and services, but perhaps one may make your life a heck of a lot easier.

Yesterday’s post brought up an interesting topic. What is the definition of a “startup”? In other words, when does a startup progress to a “company”?

Is it defined by:

• Time? i.e. Less than a year old?
• Revenues? i.e. Under $10 million in revenues?
• Profitability? (Self explanatory)
• Traffic? i.e. Less than 20 million page views per month?
• Staff size? i.e. Staff size smaller than 50?

This topic is particularly interesting because many believe Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc… are still startups. I don’t believe so. Facebook, for example, has:

• Been around for 4 years
• Revenues in the hundreds of millions
• Billions of page views per month
• A staff of a couple hundred

Can you still consider it a startup? I’m not convinced…

On an ambiguous note, Wikipedia defines a startup as “a business with a limited operating history”. So basically, I’m no further ahead than when I first visited Wikipedia.

I’ve been thinking about a term to use to describe the aforementioned boundary or limit. I’m not certain whether a given term exists or not, so I’m going to coin one anyways. The startup threshold will now be known as the point when a business transitions from the startup phase to a full-blown company. The exact metric or number has yet to be established, but I’d like to get feedback from readers.

How do you think a startup should be defined? What number(s) do you think are most important? What would you consider the startup threshold?

Looking ahead to 2013, I wonder who will still be around (and thriving) in the online world. Obviously, the major players (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, eBay, Amazon) come to mind initially. Will this be the case? It is hard to say. But I can’t see any of those names dropping off the radar in an abrupt, dramatic fall. An acquisition, however, may eradicate one of those names from the list.

From a more interesting and debatable perspective, which current start-ups may become the major players of tomorrow?

Twitter? Joost? Pownce? Mahalo? Tumblr? Who are the true “game-changers”?

I could share my picks, but I’d rather hear yours… Keep in mind that we’re thinking about long-term sucess, not short-term hype.

More and more companies are replacing traditional e-newsletters with blogs. Both can be used to inform customers (and potential customers) of product updates, contests, special offers, sales, and much more. However, the benefits of a blog far outweigh the benefits of a newsletter. Don’t get wrong - I’m not saying blogs are a complete alternative to newsletters, but the possibility is worth exploring. In fact, some companies may profit from a hybrid of both. An exception to this is e-commerce companies, who can derive a lot of value from e-mail. But for the majority of companies, a blog is a much better way to go as we will see…

So, why are blogs better than newsletters?

1. Interactivity - E-mail lacks interactivity and discussion. Blogs form a powerful, 2-way conversation due to the advent of comments. 

2. Passiveness - E-mail can be invasive. Often people don’t want to be bombarded with unwanted messages. This not only creates frustration, but also wastes time.

3. Cost - Blogs are much more cost effective than newsletters. The latter requires ongoing payments to an e-mail service provider. The former simply requires man hours.

4.. Technical Knowledge - More technical knowledge is needed to publish a newsletter, including HTML and templating. Blogging barely requires word-processing skills.

5. Time - An effective newsletter takes a lot more time, effort, and planning to dispatch than a blog post.

6. Delivery - Newsletters are subject to e-mail and SPAM filters. This may prevent important information from ever reaching the intended receiver. RSS feeds are always delivered. 

7. Search Engines - Blog posts drive search traffic and bait back-links.*

8. Subscription - Ironically, people can still subscribe to blogs via e-mail! MappingTheWeb has this feature in the right sidebar.

* / Some newsletters include a link to a permanent copy online (which may include comments). I acknowledge that this contradicts my #7, but at this stage, such a tool can be classified as a blog. /

Blogs are an important form of “permission marketing” - a concept that has long been touted by Seth Godin. Newsletters follow these principles as well, but blogging take them to the next level. The benefits and advantages are clear. The ability to add a feed and access it at your leisure is a powerful thing. If this means saying goodbye to blasted e-mails and a cluttered inbox, then bring it on. Perhaps, blogs are to CDs, as newsletters are to tapes… Ya follow me?

What is your take on newsletters? Do you think blogs will replace them? Is there room in the world for both?

Most of the top technology blogs on the Internet have undergone a site redesign over the past year or so. These include Read/WriteWeb, Mashable, and GigaOM to name a few. In spite of this, arguably the most popular tech blog, TechCrunch, has yet to follow suit.

This struck me as somewhat surprisingly. Every time I return to the TechCrunch site, I expect to see a new look - but it hasn’t happened. I still think it would be a good idea to mix it up and introduce a fresh look. This would revive the look and feel of the blog.

From an opposing view, I can also see why TechCrunch would NOT want to introduce a new look. Perhaps the current design is working just fine. As they say in the old adage, ”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. A new design might bring with it a learning curve for readers. New navigation and layout changes may create confusion. Perhaps even, TechCrunch remains focused on the content itself and other initiatives such as the Crunchies, TechCrunch 40, TechCrunch Tech President Primaries, etc… This may not leave much time for a redesign.

One last thought - maybe a redesign is underway right now and I just don’t know it. It’s a long shot but hey, I’ve surprised myself a number of times this year…