Preaching for pennies.

So there has been some talk about Google+ dropping in traffic by some 60% according to Chitika’s statistics. Looking at the graph and comparing it to the Google Trends info about Google+ leads to some fairly obvious and interesting conclusions.

Google+ 2011 Trends

First off, the info about those letters from Google Trends:
[A] Google launches Facebook rival ‘Google+’ – Sydney Morning Herald – Jun 29 2011
[B] Google+ social network membership tops 10 million – The Province – Jul 15 2011
[C] Google+ social network adds games – Ottawa Citizen – Aug 12 2011
[D] Google+ opens to everyone, takes fight to Facebook – Zee News – Sep 21 2011

If we use Paul Allen’s user base estimate (an interesting read), we can see that the second spike’s (point D) downward slope correlates to about a 14 million user base increase. This would be from Sept. 21st (the start of the traffic increase on Chitika’s graph) to Sept. 27th (the end of Chikita’s graph). Considering the estimate that there are about 50 million users after this spike, we can conclude that the user base shot up by 33%. Seeing as how new users will be posting several times more than established users, 33% increase of users causing a 60% traffic spike seems fairly reasonable. Of course, the result is that traffic will drop back down to normal levels afterwards. The most interesting points to then compare on Chitika’s graph are the average traffic numbers from before the opening of Google+ and the average traffic after the spike settled down. The numbers from the 18th to 19th seem to average out to 50 while the numbers from the 25th to 27th average out to about 60 on the traffic index.

So what do we know? A 33% increase in user base from 36 million to 50 million correlates to a 20% increase from 50 to 60 on the traffic index. So this new group of 14 million users ended up having a lower usage rate of Google+. How low? Well using these numbers, we can estimate that every 1 million users from the initial base results in 1.39 points on the traffic index. Meanwhile, every 1 million new users results in 0.71 points on the traffic index. That either means newer users use Google+ about half as much as established users OR only about half of those 14 million bothered to stay after seeing what Google+ had to offer. I’m leaning towards concluding that Google+ has a 50% retention rate as human behavior isn’t going to be drastically different in terms of site usage over a large sample size.

Another bit of interesting info is that if you compare the jump from release to their first peak at 10 million users (A to B) and to the spike in September prior to opening to the public (no doubt induced by rumors) on the Google Trends chart, you’ll see that the magnitude of the slopes are the about the same. Considering how the first 10 million users were invite only and the second coming of 14 million users were from open signups, I’d say Google wasted their buzz value (based on Search Volume Index). How much did they waste? If we estimate the Search Volume Index points for the slopes to be about 2, then it took about 0.2 points to get every 1 million users during invite only and about 0.14 points to get every 1 million users after opening signups. So Google squandered about 25% of their publicity buzz after their initial announcement.

Now let’s take my crappy statistical analysis a step further and say that had Google opened signups from the start (or after a 2-3 days of conservative initial testing), they would not have squandered their marketing and gotten a 25% larger user base with 100% retention/higher usage rate (1.39 traffic index points per 1 million users). That means prior to Sept. 21st, instead of 36 million users at 50 traffic index points, they’d have 45 million users at about 62 traffic index points. The following week would have simply continued the trend of signups and they would have hit the 50 million mark anyway. However, you can already see that their average site traffic would be much higher and their signup rate could have possibly accelerated after hitting critical mass instead of slowing down and needing the adrenaline boost of open signups.

The major counterpoints made by Facebook that lead me to this conclusion are the introduction of the better Group/Friend List feature, the much more clear (albeit still not perfect) privacy settings, and the more streamlined interface for managing what is shown to whom on your Facebook page. These were all pushed out in response to Google+ and seeing as how only 50% of users after open signups decided to stay, I’d say that Facebook made a very good counterattack. Stunting Google+’s effective retention rate by 50% is enormous and will guarantee that Facebook stays in the lead for quite a while (perhaps long enough to turn Google+ into a niche social network). All of this could have been avoided by Google if they opened signups immediately. The fallout of their closed beta period is resulting in the same backlash that I predicted: lack of engagement by newer users post open signup, lost momentum (though, not a total loss, just less efficient, and now they have to fight based on features. Features that, I might add, are easily copied by Facebook. Their more unique features, like Hangouts, also have to compete with established products like Skype and all manner of chat systems.

If Google+ ends up falling to the wayside, the wasted marketing due to not immediately opening up the service will be the primary contributing factor to its failure. I just hope that doesn’t come to pass as we consumers need competition in this space.

So this article by Cringely is a good read and finally prompted me to finish this article that I’ve been meaning to write after receiving a response from Senator Schumer about the PROTECT IP Act (more on this later).

A lot of people see and recognize the problem [of having no new frontier] but few have a solution. Personally, I think the US is partially fucked because the frontier that we could have gone into (or rather, should be currently exploring), the internet, has been blocked off by nonsense patent laws (why do you think this We The People petition is so popular – Direct Patent Office to Stop Issuing Software Patents), insane copyright/trademark issues, and overall government corruption that caters to lobbyists pushing for stronger “IP” laws in both the US and other countries. And no, that is not hyperbole. I really do mean the US government is corrupt in the sense that they cater to lobbyists. Of course people always suspected the power of lobbyists but it wasn’t until Wikileaks came about that these sources of corruption have become so public and have been revealed in a timely (meaning the issues are still relevant) manner.

Specifically for the topic at hand (IP laws), Wikileaks has shown that the US gov’t has strong armed some countries into implementing stronger DMCA laws and other IP related changes (e.g., Wikileaks Cables Show Massive U.S. Effort to Establish Canadian DMCA). Case in point: ACTA (signed by the US very recently) and PROTECT IP – both of which are horrible for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Hence why most promising startups are moving away from the US and the trend is happening faster than I predicted because of these idiotic laws/lawsuits. But do our representatives listen to us? Do they see the downward trend in the industry and realize why it is happening (the developers, myself being one, state it quite clearly)? I’d venture to say no because this is the scripted response I got from Senator Schumer when he replied to my email several months after Protect IP went to vote (sent in at the same time I wrote my article on PROTECT IP):

Dear —–:

Thank you for your contacting me in opposition to S.968, the PROTECT IP Act. Like you, I believe that consumers should have access to a vibrant and innovative online community to discuss their ideas and opinions. At the same time, we must not let the internet become a haven for intellectual property thieves.

The threat to intellectual property owners over the internet is clear. Every year, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that copyright theft costs our nation about $58 billion in lost output, 373,375 in lost jobs, and $16 billion in lost employee earnings. These numbers present an unacceptable burden to US businesses. In addition, companies may be less likely to innovate because their products may be stolen by intellectual property pirates, creating a drag on the US economy.

The PROTECT IP Act addresses the problem of intellectual property theft online, but it also contains important due process protections to ensure that legal activity over the internet is not disrupted. As you may know, the PROTECT IP Act would allow the Department of Justice to file a claim against a website that 1) has no significant purpose other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or (2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. A judge would have to find that a website is intentionally violating intellectual property rights of an American entity before he could issue an order against that site. I believe PROTECT IP Act would provide law enforcement and intellectual property holders additional tools to protect American intellectual property from websites while still ensuring the constitutionally protected rights of free speech and due process. The PROTECT IP Act currently is awaiting action on the floor of the Senate, and I will continue to monitor this bill as it moves through the Senate.

Thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm . Thank you.

Ouch! Talk about being paid off to spew shit that he doesn’t know anything about. The original mail I wrote to him was similar to my old post on PROTECT IP except without the profanity and stripped down to the most important factual points. His response doesn’t address a single argument I put forth and relies on “statistics” that were created by lobbyists strictly to push their own agenda. If you read the actual source of those numbers (here you go for your reading pleasure), you will see that they are based on very poor premises such as (and I’m only posting a few):

• Some of their inane premises, specifically:
  

  1. Internal estimates of piracy losses compiled by each of the copyright industries.
  2. Confidential estimates of piracy losses developed by others on behalf of individual copyright industries.
  …
  4. Sales data by country and physical piracy rates for recorded music from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

  Seriously? Would you trust a study that uses non-biased data AND data whose methodology for being produced isn’t even revealed? It’s like writing your thesis without a bibliography and claiming yourself to be an unbiased expert in the field. Yeah, I think my professors would have flunked me if I tried pulling that on them.

• Every download = 1 lost sale. Yeah… sure. You wish. There isn’t a single economist that believes that to be the case. There are so many reasons that this cannot be true, it’s mind boggling to see them use this assumption (e.g., some of these people don’t even have the disposable income, some wouldn’t even bother looking at media X because the cost is greater than their desire to check it out, etc.)
• The double counting of losses using multipliers, taxes (counted in multiple ways), and the icing – employees’ lost earnings. Yeah right, like they would hire more people or give raises if piracy suddenly disappeared. Production of new works wouldn’t suddenly require more people nor would they suddenly start producing additional works – and this is giving the kind assumption that they produce things which they don’t because the RIAA, etc. are just representatives for production companies. The industries themselves, specifically the artists, see very little of the money that is collected. And that isn’t even accounting for how little money the RIAA, etc. seems to get.)

Being an optimist, I thought that my well thought out letter would have elicited a better response. It saddens me to see the direction my nation is going and worse yet, the time I take to read and understand these issues is probably 100 times more than the amount of time Senator Schumer puts into understanding these issues. This is disappointing on two levels:

1. Senator Schumer is our representative and it is his duty to do what is best for America. I have yet to see a good argument as to how this would benefit anyone other than the richest people in the US.
2. As someone who is fairly well read in this field (I’m primarily a web developer so this is a crucial part of my industry), I would assume Senator Schumer would need to put in a lot more effort to understand the nuances of these issues to fully comprehend the effects that will result from pushing for things like PROTECT IP.

I know our Representatives can’t possible dedicate time to all issues, but they shouldn’t allow themselves to be spoon fed complete bullshit from lobbyists. Our Representatives can always abstain from voting on an issue that they are not knowledgeable in. It would show better judgement (patience is a virtue after all, so take your time to do your due diligence), result in fewer knee jerk decisions, and perhaps (yes, remember I’m an optimist) allow for more sensible laws. So Senator Schumer, I put in my time, how about you put in some of yours?

While I was walking down the street, I was suddenly stopped by some dude in a suit.  He had his arms out and wouldn’t let me pass.  Unsure of his intentions,  I tried to go around him.  Except he wouldn’t let me and kept telling me "One moment please".  Confused, so I stood there wondering why I was stopped.  Suddenly, someone passed us with a group of men in suits.  I thought, that white hair man looks awfully familiar.  but it can’t be?!  can it?! 

Then Some guy waiting next to me asked the the dude in suit, "is that Mr. Clinton?"  "Yes it is."  The men in suit replied. 

Guess I just saw Clinton in person…..! 

TFB: I got into a car accident.

You okay?  What happened?

TFB: I was tired and the car drifted.

What did you hit?

TFB: A tree and a pole.

Did you go to the hospital?

TFB: Went to jail.

Jail?

TFB: Cops said I was drunk.

TFB: You drank and drove?

I wasn’t drunk, just tired.

Disclaimer: I’m writing this with only the knowledge I obtained by the Wikipedia article so perhaps I am making an incorrect conclusion from lack of evidence.

I read through the experiment after someone mentioned it as a proof that people follow the orders of an authority figure even if they thought it would cause harm or would lead to them killing someone. I’m calling complete bullshit on that right now. For some reason, the scientists administering the tests seems to have completely ignored the intelligence level of the subjects in the experiment. Specifically, the ability of a person to draw conclusions about safety based on prior experience. You can see a hint of it in the quote under the Ethics section for those that went through with the experiment.

My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…

Which then confirmed by what one of the early withdrawers did:

In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a “teacher,” suspicious “that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period.”

Both of these accounts suggest that humans that are participating in a scientific experiment would make some of the following assumptions:

• The scientist is a benevolent dictator. What I mean by this is that the scientific community has a standard of ethics when doing human experiments and should not conduct an experiment that causes irreparable harm to the subjects. Logically, subjects would assume that even if the experiment does something harmful, like administer shocks, that the damage is within reason and acceptable. Why? Because that is what we expect from our authority figures. This is even proven true by the variation which changes the governing body to a less prestigious one:

Experiment 10 took place in a modest office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, purporting to be the commercial entity “Research Associates of Bridgeport” without apparent connection to Yale University, to eliminate the university’s prestige as a possible factor influencing the participants’ behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5 percent, though the difference was not statistically significant.

• Fellow participants have agreed to take part in the experiment. This is important as the “teacher” automatically assumes that their counterpart subject, the “learner”, is willfully participating in the experiment. If not, the “learner” would have just left after being told of his role in the experiment. Thus, despite the “heart condition” that is mentioned or all the cries of pain, the “teacher” has no reason to believe that the “learner” feels that this experiment is unsafe for the “learner’s” health.
• The voltages are safe to administer. As seen by this example:

Milgram himself provides some anecdotal evidence to support this position. In his book, he quotes an exchange between a subject (Mr. Rensaleer) and the experimenter. The subject had just stopped at 255 V, and the experimenter tried to prod him on by saying: “There is no permanent tissue damage.” Mr. Rensaleer answers:

“Yes, but I know what shocks do to you. I’m an electrical engineer, and I have had shocks … and you get real shook up by them — especially if you know the next one is coming. I’m sorry.”

In a 2006 experiment using a computer simulation in place of the learner receiving electrical shocks, the participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, but still showed the same results.