You’ve got to love this. For those who doubt the power and value of the internet, have a look at the map below, which shows the density of single women across San Francisco, together with their earnings. For example, in Pacific Heights near Alta Plaza Park, more than a third of the residents are single women, with average incomes of over $80,000. Or if you’re looking for eligible husbands, go to Property Shark where this map was taken from, and click over to find the distribution of single men and their earning capacity across the city. There are any number of other choices available on the web site to gain insights into where you want to live in any city across the US.

Source: PropertyShark.com

The first famous locational mashup was of course Chicago Crime, which in 2005 started using Google Maps to create maps showing where crime was occurring across the city. Not surprisingly, among the first users were those selecting where to live in the city. In our Future of Media Report 2006 we showed that 47% of mashups were based on mapping, indicating the power of location in bringing together disparate data sets. Google Maps unleashed the domain, and now it has spread far beyond. Almost all real estate websites now use mapping mashups – this is something of great value available online that high street real estate agents don’t offer (though they’d better get access to something quick if they want to continue to get people coming in off the street). Zillow has quickly become one of the top property sites by providing estimated valuations, Trulia has some great heat maps of recent property sales activity, RealEstateFu shows trends in Bay Area housing prices over a number of years, and many others explore different facets of how to decide where we want to live.

Last year Sebastian Chan, web services manager at the Powerhouse Museum, and I were interviewed together on ABC Radio about social media and its implications.

In the context of our Web 2.0 in Australia event, Sebastian just emailed me about what the Powerhouse Museum has been doing. He says:

Basically our collection database plays on the notion of serendipity and allows users to tag objects to help others find them more easily. Under the hood we also do a lot of search tracking which allows the collection database to make recommendations based on the search choices and search language used by others. For example, a search for ‘cricket’ now recommends other related ‘sport’ searches . . . something that is the result of user interactions with our site, not a centrally stored thesaurus. The new collection search has tripled web traffic to the museum in 10 months and now represents nearly 65% of our monthly site visitation.

We have been getting a *lot* of coverage in the cultural sector both locally and internationally and are being looked to as an example of a new approach to making museum and gallery content discoverable online. A lot of libraries are very interested as well. It continues to be built in house.

The only other museum tagging projects are STEVE.museum and that has not gone live with a ‘all of collection’ implementation and the Smithsonian’s photo collection which is in a very early stage. The value of it all, of course, is better public access to collections – using the langauge the general public uses (rather than specialist museum speak) etc.

Very nice stuff. It’s well worth checking out what the Powerhouse is doing here, as well as Sebastian’s blog. It’s important to remember that Web 2.0 isn’t only about start-ups. These technologies also can be valuable tools to help us engage as a community with our cultural heritage.

I’ve been interviewed a number of times recently about the future of mobile devices, both for media and also in financial services. I always emphasize the importance of the new generation of displays that are going to make viewing and interacting with mobile devices a great experience. People go on about how no-one wants to watch video on the screen on a mobile phone. In general, that’s true. But as soon as you can get larger screen experiences, everything changes. I’ve written before about the transformative power of video glasses, which I believe will become big over the next five years, and the role of e-paper. However the most likely candidates for broad mobile use are rollable and foldable screens, once they are in affordable commercial forms. Up until now most of these types of screens have been prototypes. One of the most exciting releases at the massive 3GSM conference in Barcelona was a rollable display from Readius, a spin-off from Philips. It gives a 127mm diagonal display that rolls out from a pocket-sized case. It has a high-quality screen and 10-day battery life. It won’t be commercially available until later this year, but we can expect competitors to come to market at a similar time, finally beginning to open up the doors to a rich mobile experience for all. As I’ve written before, one of the implications is an extraordinary surge in demand for content. This really will be transformative.

Source: Crave CNET.co.uk

An article in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph says that a consortium of major mobile phone companies – Vodafone, France Telecom, Telefonica, Deutsche Telekom, Hutchison Whampoa, Telecom Italia, and Cingular – are planning to meet in secret to discuss creating a mobile phone search engine. The last five years have shown that one of the most powerful places in the online space is search – that is many people’s primary interface to the wonderful world of the web. And you can make very good money from it (Google’s most recent quarterly operating income was $1.06 billion on revenues of $3.21 billion). So as attention shifts to the mobile world, there should be no shortage of players keen to challenge Google’s intentions of transferring its dominance in the internet into the mobile space.

A framework that I described in my book Living Networks, and have applied in numerous strategy consulting engagements, is highly relevant here. In short, there are six key elements to the “flow economy” based on the flow of information and ideas. Any customer offering needs all elements. These elements are usually provided by different companies, though some companies may provide several of them, or work in alliances to provide them seamlessly to customers. The heart of strategy in the flow economy is leveraging your existing positioning to move into other elements of the flow economy. A great example is how Apple, through the success of the iPod, controlled people’s Interface to music. This enabled them to shift to delivering Content through iTunes, and thus to build Relationships with consumers (which is usually not possible through the sale of devices).

In this case, the mobile phone companies provide Connectivity, and have been striving to leverage that into Relationships, Content, and Services, with highly varied success. If they can use their existing positioning across the landscape to control the Interface, they can get far greater revenues. Standards are the foundation of the flow economy, and Relationships are where most of the value can be extracted. Yet Interfaces (and also Content) have proven to be the most powerful leverage points to create Relationships. So the mobile phone consortium, Google, and other players are all trying to get to the same place, but starting from different positions on the strategic landscape. It will be a very interesting battle. This paragraph is of course an extremely simplistic analysis, but the framework can be used to go into far more depth in developing effective strategies. I’ll post some more detailed examples of using the flow economy framework at a later date.

In other commentary, PaidContent calls the Telegraph’s story “very speculative,” bringing up the highly relevant issue of EU anti-competition laws, while SMS Text News doesn’t believe the mobile companies can create a search engine good enough to rival Google. This post’s title is “European Mobile Companies don’t understand they’re just data pipes.” That’s exactly my point above, however there exists a strategic possibility to shift beyond being just pipes to doing more, and they’d be very foolish if they didn’t make a good attempt to do so.