Commerce, You, and Search
Commerce, You, and Search
...suddenly you (and I) become responsible for how we are perceived in the online world. Everything we do and the way we do it is subject to analysis, can make or break trust with others and can help (or not) our reputation.
David Amerland on search value.
Differentiation not only makes sense, it is the lifeblood of your web presence.
#searchrecognition #webpresence
Originally shared by David Amerland
The Value of Search to the World
We know that on the whole, the world is wealthier. Despite huge inequalities that we are trying to address, over the last 15 years we have become richer. Now, suppose you take search our of the equation. Completely. What do you think would happen?
In 2009 alone, search contributed $780 billion to the global economy, the lion's share of that to GDP. Take the amount search contributed every year and maybe the wealth we see would simply disappear.
#search
http://davidamerland.com/seo-blog/1014-google-search-your-life-career-and-the-global-economy.html
...suddenly you (and I) become responsible for how we are perceived in the online world. Everything we do and the way we do it is subject to analysis, can make or break trust with others and can help (or not) our reputation.
David Amerland on search value.
Differentiation not only makes sense, it is the lifeblood of your web presence.
#searchrecognition #webpresence
Originally shared by David Amerland
The Value of Search to the World
We know that on the whole, the world is wealthier. Despite huge inequalities that we are trying to address, over the last 15 years we have become richer. Now, suppose you take search our of the equation. Completely. What do you think would happen?
In 2009 alone, search contributed $780 billion to the global economy, the lion's share of that to GDP. Take the amount search contributed every year and maybe the wealth we see would simply disappear.
#search
http://davidamerland.com/seo-blog/1014-google-search-your-life-career-and-the-global-economy.html
Zara Altair yeah and what a difference it makes to the world in terms of wealth-making capabilities.
ReplyDeleteDavid Amerland Yes. In complete agreement. I've been thinking the you concept from the very first read of your content. :)
ReplyDeleteDavid Amerland are you so sure that search makes a difference to the world? Dare I say, it appears to me, that wealth-making is still a first-world privilege.
ReplyDeleteHart GA Waiting to hear David's answer. Mobile is very connected in many third-world countries, including banking, even though larger devices and the connection systems they use are not available.
ReplyDeleteZara Altair that is true, mobile growth is hot in third-world and emerging countries. Google is only one player in the world search market, and not all the players play by the same rules. Also, search is a want, a wish if you will. Most people in the world live by needs not wants. Wants are for those who have wealth, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteHart GA Absolutely agree.
ReplyDeleteI will add, that some good trickles down to the world. I am just not sure that the outcomes are any more positive than any of the programs currently tried. A country must be just for all to prosper.
ReplyDeleteHart GA These are some good points. I perfectly agree that most people in the world live by needs not wants. Search is not a want. In first world countries we may perceive it as a need within the context of our consumer behavior but that becomes quite rarefied. In third world countries computer connectivity and access points to the web have been used in rural villages in India to help improve farming methods (the children of the village were the ones operating it), in gaining knowledge about weather patterns and irrigation techniques, all of which have a direct impact on the standard of living and play a pivotal role in answering very real needs.
ReplyDeleteWealth-making is a first world privilege only if you translate wealth-making as a means of making an individual wealthy. Search as a wealth-making mechanism is broader than that with a direct impact on social strata. It tends, in most cases, to empower the under-privileged and become an equalizer of sorts, at least as far as access to knowledge and information are concerned.
Also, I think the concept that "A country must be just for all to prosper" is absolutely correct, as a concept, but unrealistic. Justice is created through the empowerment of the individual at the expense of the system's drive to consolidate and wield power. It requires transparency and empowerment (both provided by connectivity and equal access to information) and it is driven by the fact that in order for anyone to wield power over anyone else, the consent of the collective needs to be given collectively and be seen to do so. That used to be an easy requirement to tick in a compartmentalized, largely silo-ed world. Not so easy to do when everyone is watching your every move.
David Amerland Wonderful augmentation! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteDavid Amerland I'll see your three points with: Greed, Corruption and Violence. I hope you are right... My conscience says otherwise...
ReplyDeleteThinking out loud:
In my eyes, "Search" is a want, perpetuated by the ability of society to continue financing its evolution. If "Search" were a need no advertising would be required. The evolution of "Search" growth is both an investment and a distribution of wealth supposedly without borders.
Hart GA Thank you for adding to this further. You say "conscience" that dictates against transparency and empowerment working to stop systemic greed and corruption (and violence) yet, I would have thought conscience would most probably dictate for them. (Am I understanding this correctly? Is there a meaning I have missed?).
ReplyDeleteI see how you approach search but I think you are sticking the label "want" on a technology arbitrarily because you assume needs are automatically taken care of. A need is taken care of through an action or a systemic process. No government has ever, historically, worked for a technology (with some exceptions perhaps in communist countries and they were the exceptions that proved the rule).
Mobility in society is now a need rather than a want and transport in its many guises fulfills that (and it's always a commercial concern). Communication is a need. The moment you isolate social groups they begin to crumble (there were town criers spreading the news in pre-print days in the Middle Ages). Newspapers and transport are financed developments. I am not sure how search (an arguably more expensive technology) could be developed any differently (and lets; not forget the mess Yahoo and Alta Vista made of things.
We have sporadic instances of search actually empowering local communities to raise their standard of living across the world. The ability of a borderless connection to provide something of value is testified to by Sugata Mitra's experiments: http://goo.gl/c2aBUQ and by the results we are seeing in rural villages that have actual connections: http://goo.gl/WsHR35.
I understand we have to be cautious in the use of our technology because it also impacts on the development of our ethics and morality as social constructs. We need to also see where it does good and work to amplify it.
David Amerland my hope, that you are right, is for them. My 'conscience' questions the value you place on 'Search' as a world changer in terms of wealth-making.
ReplyDeleteI concede that you have valid examples of positive outcomes, I have some of my own that would go well with those cited. However, no story tells the whole truth, there is always the 'unknown unknowns' along with the 'known unknowns'.
I stand behind my statement, "A country must be just for all to prosper". History is full of examples of how the damages from the winds of change, have been minimized by societies that protect the rights of others as they would their own. However, their are many many more examples of the atrocities that occur when those rights are discarded and unprotected.
I would also like to thank you for your discourse David, as you do raise questions for which I have opinions, shall we say, without a formulated argument '; )