According to the Official Google Blog, over 100,000 people will today receive their invitations to preview Google Wave.

If you haven’t yet heard of Google Wave, it’s a mix of email, instant messaging, twitter and more. You can see it in action in Google Wave Developer Preview at Google I/O 2009.

So what is it? To be honest I don’t really know. I can see what it is and does, but I don’t understand how I can use it.

It looks as though the product will be ‘released’ in the same way that Gmail was launched. 100,000 people will receive invitations, and with time, they will be able to invite more people from within their accounts, who in turn will be able to do the same thing. And so the wave will spread.

The point of Google Wave seems to be that email hasn’t really evolved significantly in the past 40 years or so. Google believe that this many be the start of the r/evolution.

The question is whether you can and should attempt to force change upon something that is already working well.

Giraffe’s long necks evolved because of their need to eat leaves high up in the trees. Natural selection ensured that those with longer necks survived, bred, and passed on their characteristics.

Email may not have evolved because there’s no need for it to do so. On the other hand, people might have said the same thing when television was first introduced, and said that the radio was doing just fine.

Only time will tell.

The first problem that Google face is how to describe Wave. So far I don’t think they’re doing a good job:

“Google Wave is an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration. A wave can be both a conversation and a document where people can discuss and work together using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.”

But in true Google style, they’ll let other people tell you what it is and how it works. Your friends and colleagues will be able to tell you what it is and why you need it when they send you an invitation.

And as and when you receive an invitation, you’ll be able to explain it to me.

See you in the wave.

A recent chart by Silicon Alley Insider’s Chart of the Day suggests that 74% of a news web site’s users would “find another free site” if their favourite news site suddenly began charging. Only 5% of the survey’s respondents said that they would pay to continue reading.

I don’t believe that this would be the case.

Rupert Murdoch plans to charge for access to all of the News Corp online news and entertainment content. When he does so, News Corp are undoubtedly going to lose a lot of subscribers, but I’m guessing that they’re working on creating and providing additional content for their subscribers between now and then.

If Murdoch switches off free access, and asks for people to pay for what they’re already receiving for free, I’d expect more than 74% to walk away. If, however, they were to offer all visitors a free three month subscription, and during this time convince them (a) the additional new content is of interest and (b) the cost of being able to access it is reasonable, I’m guessing that their walk-away rate would drop dramatically.

And what do you think will happen when other news providers see the Murdoch plan work? Will the majority continue to provide their content for free, or will they start earning revenue for themselves?

Asking people whether they’d be happy to pay for something they already receive for free is meaningless.

Adding value, then offering access for a reasonable fee, is something else entirely.

The anti-virus companies are the unsung heroes of the modern PC. Back in the day when “normal, everyday people” were only starting to think about buying a PC for home use, the anti-virus companies were ramping up their marketing efforts. And by the time PCs for the home had become a norm, anti-virus software had been transformed from a paranoid-geek’s utility to an essential tool. As important to a PC as a lock on a building’s door.

It’s important not to underestimate the scale of this achievement. Back in 1997, when I was just starting to work in online marketing, I used Norton AntiVirus to protect my PC, as did many of my friends and colleagues. At that time, I’d never seen a virus, and it was to be many years until I even received one as an email attachment. But we all saw the importance of protecting ourselves from what was realistically a very unlikely threat. All credit to the marketing arms of the anti-virus companies.

Fast forward to today, and protecting your PC is an incredibly complicated process. As a technically-advanced PC user, I use a range of products and systems to protect my PC from viruses, unauthorised access, spyware and malware. I also keep my operating system up to date with Microsoft’s fixes to protect myself from vulnerabilities and security flaws.

It’s complicated. And if truth be told, I can’t be certain that my PC is in fact 100% secure.

A recent report on cybercrime in the UK, by UK-based garlik, suggests that cybercriminals have adapted to the social and economic changes in the UK to find new ways to exploit their victims:

“One of the most significant changes in cybercrime has been the 207% increase in account takeover fraud indicating that criminals have now shifted their efforts from opening new accounts with stolen identities to accessing existing accounts. Savvy criminals have got round the drying up of available credit in the current economic climate to maintain their illegal activities.

The report also highlights that online banking fraud has increased by a staggering 132%, with losses totalling £52.5 million, compared to £22.6 million in the previous year. This sharp rise can be mostly attributed to nearly 44,000 phishing websites specifically targeting banks and building societies in the UK.”

UK Cybercrime Report 2009.

This is a criminal’s dream come true. New opportunities. New vulnerabilities. And consumer complacency.

We’ve already seen the anti-virus companies generate demand by creating fear. So who’s going to tap into this very real and lucrative opportunity?

Software security products don’t block ports, detect intrusions or report outward communication attempts. They buy a good night’s sleep, and look after your email, photos and files.

Consumers and businesses will always pay for peace of mind and security. If they know the risk is real.

So who’s going to seize the opportunity here?

Chances are that most of your quality traffic comes from Google, but the search landscape is starting to look a little ruffled.

Yahoo have relaunched their web portal, and are said to be spending $100m in a global advertising campaign.

And Microsoft’s Bing is starting to nibble the edges of some of Google’s long-dominated market share, with ComScore recording a 9.3% share of the US search market.

I don’t believe that this spells the beginning of the end for Google. But it may prove to be the beginning of something slightly different.

AdWords advertisers are becoming increasingly fed up with Google’s system, and some of our own clients are starting to consider other options.

With Yahoo’s relaunch and Bing’s growth, Google should start fixing their flaws. Fast.

A snapshot from this morning’s BBC News Business page:

Over to the banks.

If you’re using AdWords, you have most likely run into the dreaded ad approval queue.

Does the following sound familiar?

Weeks after creating your new AdWords ads, you phone Google to ask why it is taking so long for them to become active.

Google say, “The amount of time it takes for your ad to be reviewed may vary depending on current ad volumes. Once you create an ad or edit an existing ad, it will be submitted to the queue for approval. The AdWords Specialists review the ads in our program. Please be assured that we are working hard to provide high-quality service.”

You explain to Google that you created the ad over two weeks ago.

Google’s reply:

“Insert canned response here”, “Add some links to Google analytics or some other service” and “We apologize for any inconvenience”.

If you find yourself in this situation, when all you want is to change a landing page URL, you might want to consider setting up a server-side redirect until your ads get approved.

As we’ve mentioned before, using tracking for your destination page URL leaves you in complete control. For example a destination URL of:

www.example.com/my-landing-page.html?source=adwords&campaign=campaign-name&adgroup=ad-group-name&adnum=ad-number

This approach allows you to isolate specific types of traffic within your log analysis software. It’s also ideal for if you need to redirect AdWords traffic from one page to another.

Depending on how your server is set up, there are various methods for redirecting traffic to new pages. However it’s important that you do not redirect traffic to a new domain. All display URLs must match the destination URLs as per the AdWords ad policy.

Google have announced their new DoubleClick Ad Exchange, yet are somehow managing to drown the pertinent facts with an overwhelming quantity of waffle.

The Official Google Blog published a post entitled The DoubleClick Ad Exchange: growing the display advertising pie for everyone last Friday, yet the first nine paragraphs of the entry are little more than lengthy yabbering. A total of 388 words before they even get to the point of “…and today we’re excited to announce the new DoubleClick Ad Exchange, a step towards…”

I’m all for good introductions, and have even been known to talk more than is sometimes required. But when nine paragraphs of text are used to introduce four paragraphs of content, something isn’t right.

It might just be that it’s Monday morning, and I’m yet to make my first coffee, but what happened to brevity?

I suppose it had to happen. From the BBC News – Video screens hit paper magazines:

“The first video advert inside a print title has been published inside the American magazine Entertainment Weekly.

There are also in-built speakers, so the viewer can hear the advert too.”

In an age where we’re finally waking up to the impact we have on the our planet, doesn’t this seem a little odd?

You could argue that no publicity is bad publicity, and that most people are likely to show the ad to many other people.

But ultimately this is a lot of non-degradable technology with an incredibly short lifespan.

Pepsi Max may damage more than your teeth.

We’ve recently been seeing quite good performance with image ads, both animated and static.

The problem is the time it takes to have another ad created to your specific needs.

It only takes a few seconds to create a new text ad, yet when it comes to creating a new image ad, this can often take a lot longer.

Display ads might just be what you’re looking for.

With only a few core images of your own, you can create a variety of dynamic animated image ads in no time.

There are, however, a few issues.

Firstly, you cannot have a unique destination URL for each ad size. When you create an ad through the display ad wizard, the same destination URL is used for each ad size you choose. I personally like having a unique destination URL for each ad size so that I can analyze their specific performance in the web logs.

Secondly, display ads do not show up in AdWords Editor. Google are aware of this and hopefully will have a solution sooner rather than later.

If you have not already looked at the display ad builder, I would suggest doing so.

From Mark Zuckerberg’s blog:

“As of today, Facebook now serves 300 million people across the world. It’s a large number, but the way we think about this is that we’re just getting started on our goal of connecting everyone.

We’re also succeeding at building Facebook in a sustainable way. Earlier this year, we said we expected to be cash flow positive sometime in 2010, and I’m pleased to share that we achieved this milestone last quarter. This is important to us because it sets Facebook up to be a strong independent service for the long term.”

Serving 300 million people is no mean feat – despite being dwarfed by their ultimate goal of ‘connecting everyone’.

And actually making money ahead of schedule is little short of incredible. More so considering the state of the world economy.

But cash flow positive does not mean making a profit. And being today’s big thing doesn’t guarantee success.

Anyone remember Netscape?