Comments on Innovation resistance at Metro, part 2: The Google bugaboo - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by James

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:29:11 EDT

@jack lecou: My questions were all ignored as well, as expected. Same as the previous months.

Comment by jack lecou

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:35:20 EDT

I also submitted a question. Not something he wants to talk about, evidently.

Comment by Andy R

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:09:59 EDT

Metro General Manager Catoe is answering questions during an online chat tomorrow at noon. You can find out how to submit questions ahead of time using the link below. This might be a good opportunity to raise this issue.

link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/09/metros_catoe_to_host_online_ch.html

Comment by jack lecou

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:32:36 EDT

Back of the envelope, it looks like if Google inspired, say, 200,000 regular WMATA riders to take just an average of two extra off-peak trips each month, that would work out to more than a 1% increase in trips. Which would something like a full order of magnitude more revenue (in fares) than even the most optimistic estimates of what the data is worth in ad revenue.

Comment by James

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:14:31 EDT

@jack lecou: I sent a comment to Metro's LunchTalk forum for tomorrow's discussion expressing this. I don't take Metro off peak nearly as often as I would simply because it's not convenient to figure out how to get where I want to go. A couple of great examples are that MetroÂ’s Trip Planer doesnÂ’t integrate with the GPS on my Blackberry and doesnÂ’t understand locations that arenÂ’t stops/stations. This means that I to know which Metro stop/station I want to use at both ends. Google Maps solves both of these problems. Trip Planer is also extremely frustrating to use when it doesnÂ’t recognize Â“ChinatownÂ” as a destination, or when it gets spaces between words wrong. For example, IÂ’ve had it suggest that I meant to enter Â“ShadygroveÂ” when I had entered Â“Shady GroveÂ”. Upon correcting my Â“mistakeÂ” it then suggested that Â“Shady GroveÂ” was the correct spelling, all the while not giving me any useful information. Google Maps just does all of these things better.

Comment by jack lecou

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:09:45 EDT

I would add a #3 to Andy's points: The value of Google's service.

I think that neglect is one thing I find particularly frustrating and illogical about this "debate". It's true that Google recoups some of their expenses with ads, maybe even comes out slightly ahead. But Google isn't just sucking up the data and magically "profiting" off of it. They're doing it by providing a genuinely convenient, valuable service to WMATA's users. I'm not seeing the justification for WMATA to extract a pound of flesh from that equation, even if they could.

Anyway, if it were all about who's profiting from the transaction, we could probably make a good argument that WMATA should be paying Google for the valuable privilege of being featured in their map directions: there's no question Google's got a lot of users, many of them tourists, business visitors, residents with Blackberries and iPhones needing to get to unfamiliar places. So I think everyone agrees Google has the potential to generate a lot of extra off-peak trips. How many? I don't know. But unless my math is badly wrong, even just a few tenths of a percent increase in trips would be worth millions in fares.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:54:28 EDT

@Jason: I've pointed this story and idea out to Kytja Weir at the examiner. I'll also note that you could forward this thread yourself to everyone on your list. I'm sure they have a media tips line.

Comment by Jason

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:44:47 EDT

Can someone please forward this thread, namely Andy R's words, to the Post, Times, Examiner, WTOP, WRC, WTTG, WJLA, and WUSA? Pretty please?

It's nearly the 2010's, is muckraking extinct?

Comment by James

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:02:59 EDT

@jack lecou: I'll second that. Heck, I'd even give them a full nickle.

Comment by jack lecou

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:43:25 EDT

We're talking about less than $1M in revenues per year here, so that's equivalent to a fare increase of a little less than two tenths of a penny per ride.

I myself would be willing to suffer a fare increase of as much as a full penny per ride just to end this nonsense and get some transit goodness on my phone already. How about it WMATA?

Comment by Andy R

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:11:55 EDT

jcm-

1) Alstrom Analogy
While it may not be perfect, I think the Alstrom analogy has some validity. Alstrom makes a physical product that, ultimately, MetroÂ’s customers use. Google makes a software product that, ultimately, MetroÂ’s customers [would] use. Google is essentially offering to provide a service to Metro at little-to-no cost to Metro. Would Google get something of value from the deal, in addition to payment from Metro (which, in this case, is zero)? Sure, theyÂ’d get some small amount of ad revenue (probably less than the cost of development and hosting) and, probably more importantly, mind-share. But, Alstrom gets something of value from Metro too, besides payment for the cars. They get the ability to name WMATA as a client to potential customers, and the knowledge and designs from building Metro cars. Should Alstrom pay Metro some type of referral fee every time Alstrom gets a new customer partially based on their work with WMATA?

2) Value of Metro Data
I completely agree that Metro data has value. But, just because something has value doesnÂ’t mean the market price for it is non-zero. Several large jurisdictions offer this sort of data for free. IÂ’m sure theyÂ’d love to get money for it, but they really want third-party tools available for their customers. Ideally they want both, but they didnÂ’t think that would happen (now evidenced by Google and WMATA).

The question isnÂ’t so much about how much Metro data is Â“worthÂ”, itÂ’s about how much someone would be willing to pay for that data. I think those are slightly different, because other things factor into a companyÂ’s decision on how much to pay for something. Odds are pretty good that someone interested in making money off of WMATA data would also be interested in making money off of NYCT data. For now, people can get NYCT data for free. Really, I think the only data transferring hands is being given away, so the current market price is zero. But, if someone starts buying data from WMATA, other transit authorities are going to want money too. So the total cost of buying WMATA data is much, much higher than what would be paid to WMATA.

Could the market price change in the future? Sure it could. But, at least for now, the market price for WMATA data is zero. And currently thereÂ’s no reason to think anyone has an incentive to buy this data.

It makes sense for Metro Directors to think about what theyÂ’re potentially giving up by giving away the data, but I think what theyÂ’re doing is pretty ridiculous. TheyÂ’re spending $500k to figure out if figure out how valuable something is that other transit authorities have apparently already decided isnÂ’t particularly valuable. Even WMATAÂ’s current data suggests it isnÂ’t terribly valuable. They make about $68k in ad revenue from the web site. At this rate, itÂ’s going to take them more than 7 years of ad sales just to make that back. ThereÂ’s no way thatÂ’s a cost-effective way of making a decision on this.

Comment by jack lecou

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:22:21 EDT

Yeah. Shorter WMATA: "What's wrong with you people? My $500,000 consultant says it's a perfectly good refrigerator. And a nice compact size for an igloo, too. So I'm just going to sit down here in the snow until someone buys it!"

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:20:37 EDT

@jack lecou: That's what I'm worried about. Metro will continue with this consultant study, it will say that the data is worth "$X", and then Metro will feel like they have to hold on to the data even if every time they ask for "$X", everyone says "No, thanks".

I've corresponded with certain iPhone app developers, they have told me that if the data required a license fee, they would not bother making their app support that agency. I suspect that Google would make the same call. I have not been able to get them to state that on the record.

Comment by jack lecou

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:08:25 EDT

jcm-

1) I'm not really seeing why the Alstom/Google analogy is dis-analogous. Not saying they aren't, but I'm not getting your argument. As far as the argument here is concerned, all that matters is they both buy and sell products, at market prices.

2) I think you're not really acknowledging the market price argument here. You say "I don't believe anyone, including metro, knows the answer to that question yet." But that's not true. We do know, under any reasonable standard: Nobody is selling this data right now. Period. And WMATA is literally the last major hold out. Neither Google nor anyone else looks like they'd be willing to buy it anytime soon. (And don't shortchange the can of worms it would open if Google or Yahoo or anyone DID agree to pay one agency or another - they'd have to do it for everyone. They're not likely to do that.)

So how many years are we supposed to wait for WMATA to greedily sit on the data, inconveniencing riders, before we can finally conclude there's no price for it?

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:59:08 EDT

When thinking about the revenue impact, it's good to put it in perspective. Last year WMATA mentioned that a nickel fare increase would result in an extra $30M in revenues. We're talking about less than $1M in revenues per year here, so that's equivalent to a fare increase of a little less than two tenths of a penny per ride. If you ride a lot (1000 rides per year) that would add up to roughly $1.60, or one ride. So WMATA is willing to fight this one out in the best case to save its riders $1.60 per year in fare increases.

And that's IF this is worth a million a year, AND you ride a lot.

Comment by jcm

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:56:48 EDT

I agree, Alex B, that WMATA's job is to move people as efficiently and pleasantly as possible. I'm just not convinced that the best way to accomplish that goal is to give the data away. If it is, so be it, but I think it's important they examine all the alternatives.

I think we can both agree that the best solution would be one which generates revenue *and* gives robust tools to riders. If that's a possibility, then it's worth exploring.

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:40:18 EDT

jcm,

The fundamental error I think you're making is thinking about WMATA's best interest.

What WMATA's focus should be is the rider's best interest. And I fail to see how keeping this data sequestered and harder to access is good for riders.

Comment by jack lecou

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:27:38 EDT

Lucre-

The data is available for download, but only under license from WMATA - that is, it's NOT public domain in any sense. It's still very much copyrighted and legally you are only allowed to use it under the terms WMATA specifies.

Google could already technically go and download the data under the currently offered license agreement just as anyone else could. The problem is that, IIRC, one of the terms in that agreement reserves to WMATA the right to charge you for it whenever it gets the whim. That term seems specifically aimed at Google. (And of course that's a PITA threat for independent developers to have hanging over them too.)

Comment by jcm

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:20:11 EDT

You're right, David, I should be more specific, and I apologize.

1) The Alstom analogy
This is in no way applicable. Alstom's business model is to build and sell rail cars. Google's is to sell ads. The analogy would be more apt if, say, Metro were attempting to hire a Google to write a new trip planner on Metro's site for them. Instead, we have a situation where Google wants Metro's data in order to drive more traffic to Google's site.

2) The market price for Metro's data
You assert the market price for Metro's data is free. This is wrong for a number of reasons. Google is not the only company that may be interested in this data. MS and Yahoo both have mapping sites, as well, and there's a quite a few other types of sites that may have interest in this data.

There's also the possibility that metro could do best by improving their own trip planner, and generate revenue of their own site. They've already done the hard part(the routing engine). Any decent developer could improve the interface. Hell, you could do it with google's api and get a portion of the map's ad revenue.

Just because other transit agencies have given their data to google free does not mean that metro need follow suit.

We both know that the data has value. No one else can supply the data. I think it would be foolish to give a valuable asset away without fully understanding its worth.

3) Maps, and particularly transit's value to google.
Neither one of use knows specifically how much value google gains from maps and transit. You assert, though, that it's negligible, and imply that the project is mostly altruistic. I say that's wrong.

Firstly, Google display ads on the page, which are likely generating some revenue. Secondly, google gains mindshare, which, as far as I can tell, drives lots of their products. Google wants to be the one stop shop for finding information on the internet. Thy want to be the first place people go when looking for maps/directions Lastly, and possibly most importantly, google wants to serve us better ads. There's a reason they give away analytics. The more data they have about our interests on the internet, the better. Knowing that I was searching for a transit route to safeway is valuable to google.

Google has devoted a ton of money to maps. They and MS are spending a fortune taking satellite photos, licensing navteq data, taking street view photos, etc. They can't think they are throwing that money away.

4) Your comment that Google or an App developer can say "no thanks, there are other transit agencies out there".

Well, sure they can. However, it's in google's best interest to have metro's data available, and metro is the only source for that data. Will google pay? I have no idea. I know they'd prefer not to. They've written the interface, the routing engine, and the data format specification. More data streams are free money for them. But google's best interest and metro's best interest aren't necessarily the same. If google won't pay, will ms? Will Yahoo? And if they do, will google follow suit?

I don't pretend to know what the best solution for metro is. It may in fact be that the benefits of just publishing the data to all outweigh the lost revenue. But I don't believe anyone, including metro, knows the answer to that question yet. I think it would be foolish to for metro to make a decision on this without better understanding the market.

Comment by Lucre

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:35:41 EDT

Also, Michael, what I, and I think jfruh are wondering is, given that the data is out there, available, and more or less ubiquitous except perhaps for the specific format, which Metro won't license to Google, to what extent can that data be considered public domain, or a kid in a basement reformatting it be fair use? Essentially, what's preventing what jfruh said from happening is a fear of getting [successfully] sued, right? What I want to know is how justified is that fear? I don't mean to blindly assume you're an IP lawyer, but maybe someone who reads this would have an informed opinion.

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:33:13 EDT

Didn't WMATA make the latter argument with the beta version of NextBus?

As Lucre notes, neither argument is particularly compelling, but I swear I remember discussing the accuracy of NextBus's beta site here...

Comment by David Alpert

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:28:33 EDT

Lucre: They haven't made the latter argument. They have made the former one, among others. See the Zimmerman-Linton exchanges in the related posts.

jcm: I welcome disagreement, but it might be more persuasive if you explained why you don't find this convincing, as opposed to just asserting that it's not.

Comment by Lucre

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:24:30 EDT

So what is Metro justifying their reluctance on here? Is it:
1) Data is valuable because it just is - it's our IP, and we're not letting it go without remuneration.
2) Licensing our data to other entities on which riders might rely takes directing those riders out of our hands; should bad directions discourage ridership, it should be _our_ bad directions.
?

My guess is that Metro's argument is closer to the latter, but this post seems to assume more of the former. Neither actually makes much sense to me (the latter slightly more), but this post could come off as a strawman argument.

Comment by Paul

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:06:46 EDT

Furthermore, WMATA ought to start charging for attending its press conferences, and for access to its press releases. After all, the Post, WJLA, etc., etc. might might be able to charge a little more ads based on Metro's intellectual property. That seems to be the argument, that "their" data puts additional eyeballs on Google's ads.

Comment by SDJ

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:52:41 EDT

Does Rand McNally pay EZPass for listing which roads are toll roads on its maps?

Does AAA pay the managers of tourist attractions, rest stops, or hotels before including hours and locations in their TripTiks?

This whole debate is ridiculous. Shame on WMATA. Save a buck now. Make two later.

Comment by jcm

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:46:27 EDT

Wow, I double posted, typoed, and wrote Alcom instead of Alstom. I guess you really got me fired up! Sorry about that.

Comment by jcm

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:45:16 EDT

This article is just plain wrong. The analogy to Alcom sucks, the proposed value of the data is a big hand wave, and claiming Maps ad views and, more importantly, search history, aren't important to Google is just plain silly.

I love your site, an I think you're generally insightful, but this article isn't at all perceptive.

Comment by jcm

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:45:03 EDT

I love your site, an I think you're generally insightful, but this article isn't at al perceptive.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:40:52 EDT

@Jason: When did peace in the middle east break out? I missed that headline.

Comment by Jason

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:36:26 EDT

@Michael: If it's merely an agreement, why haven't we seen someone try to broker such an agreement (by someone I mean someone not you :)? If we can broker mideast peace, we can try to have someone broker such a deal with Google Transit.

RTA NOW!!

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:07:22 EDT

@jfruh: It's already in the correct format. The only thing stopping Google Transit is Google and Metro not signing an agreement.

Comment by jfruh

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:03:39 EDT

Is there honestly anything stopping some interested transit nerd from taking the publically available Metro transit data and putting it into the format needed for Google Transit?

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:57:51 EDT

Penny wise, rider foolish.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:53:01 EDT

The overall problem is that if WMATA asks for the money they'll likely get nothing because it's easy for Google or an App developer to say "no thanks, there are other transit agencies out there".

Just because revenue exists doesn't mean you're entitled to some.

Comment by matt

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:44:01 EDT

There is some credit to metroÂ’s debate. Google is getting revenue off the ads that run in the background on GoogleÂ’s server when I search Google maps for mass transit. Also if apple sells a app that includes the dc metro maps and schedules then I believe dc in entitled to some % of that money.

Comment by anonymous

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:21:38 EDT

Google, however, tries very hard to maintain a startup culture where people can just whip out projects because they feel like it.

"Excuse me while I whip this out..."