The story of Rapportive (YC S10) - 'social CRM' plugin that replaces Gmail ads

http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2010/08/23/rapportives-social-crm-gmail-plugin-makes-e-mail-social-again/

by waderoush • 16 years ago

64 76 16 years ago

snitko• 16 years ago

The minute I saw Rapportive I started using it. The idea and the implementation are just great. Not that it does something revolutionary at the moment, but it's simple and useful and I believe there's a potential. Great job, guys!

jgershen3• 16 years ago

Is anyone else a fan of the reporting Wade has been doing on this batch of YC companies? I've really enjoyed the in-depth articles - a nice contrast to the typical ADD of the Internet echo chamber.

mbreese• 16 years ago

Is this how Rapportive works? Because the idea sounds very useful, but do you really want to build a business around altering the appearance of someone else's application? Particularly troubling is that they are removing one of the few money making parts of Gmail.

If it really starts to catch on, are they in for an arms race with Google?

Plus, with this focus, it appears that this company may be left with only one exit strategy: acquisition by Google.

Like I said, this sounds quite useful, but I'm not sure that I'd like to get in the middle of it...

mattmanser3• 16 years ago

I must admit I'm totally confused by how they think they'll monetize the business without being a simple talent acquisition without crossing the dangerous line of essentially stealing google's money.

Then again, YC signed 'em up on the spot and the guy's past experience is impressive. So we're probably not seeing the whole picture here. I can only imagine the money makers come from further as yet unreleased web apps or features that integrate.

Although the dark thought emerges that it'll be selling the client cleaned data that they're gathering. That would be truly low. But I'm encouraged by their privacy policy that this won't happen: http://rapportive.com/privacy

samstokes4• 16 years ago

We're going to monetise by building useful tools people want to pay for. We're not yet ready to publicly discuss exactly what those are, but selling data is definitely not it.

Thanks for linking to our privacy policy. From that document (under "Sharing with third parties"):

> We will never sell, rent or give away private data about you or your contacts. Our business is in making your inbox more powerful, not in selling databases.

sprout• 16 years ago

How much money does Gmail actually make? Whenever I open up Gmail, I am way too busy to be looking at ads. I'm sure there's a non-zero number of people clicking on ads, but as far as I'm concerned Google is mostly providing free IMAP service with a nice web interface and great uptime.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

I figure multiplied by a huge number of users it adds up nicely. And don't forget the spam filtering.

sandipagr2• 16 years ago

you think someone visiting Hacker News is their target market? or target market for almost 99%[1] of ads?

[1] out of blue :)

chopsueyar4• 16 years ago

Not sure how accurate this is...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/196953-youtube-much-more-imp...

"...we estimate that Gmail had revenue per 1,000 page views of 6 cents in 2005 which increased to about 30 cents in 2009."

eitally• 16 years ago

That's the whole point of Gmail's Contextual Gadgets. For example, we created a gadget that's tied to our homegrown Helpdesk system so recipients of tickets can manipulate them directly within email rather than logging into the Helpdesk app.

It wouldn't surprise me if Google nudged Rapportive in the direction of contextual gadgets for this reason, but since GAPE domains already allow disabling of ads it isn't like Rapportive is causing Google any pain & suffering. On the consumer side, like others have said, it's all client side so besides having to deal with Gmail's funkalicious obfuscated js I don't risk see much risk.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

There's something funny about the whole rapportive story, google at some point will notice, then they have to make a decision, allow this to set precedent which will open the floodgates to similar trickery or build a 'rapportive detector' in to their system which will most likely result in stopping rapportive from working. I have all kinds of questions about this strategy.

I'm sure that rapportive has thought this through, but is there any official response on this?

And the other side of the ledger, what if google does decide to go after them, how will they deal with the backlash from their users (that goes for both rapportive and for google)?

Plastering something across someone else's adspace seems somehow not the most fair thing to do, blocking ads is one thing, but replacing them with other content?

Is that ok? Is it ok to replace the ads with other ads? Do we all agree that functionality trumps ads and therefore rapportive is in the right on this?

What if the party wasn't google but a much smaller one depending on those ads for its income, would it still be ok then?

jgershen3• 16 years ago

A version of Rapportive is featured (free) in the Google marketplace. See http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/.

If that doesn't settle the fairness aspect for you, take a look at http://code.google.com/apis/gmail/gadgets/contextual/ - improving Gmail is something Google is interested in.

Edit: Rapportive's listing specifically can be found at http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/viewListing?pro...

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

So has this strategy of ad replacement been officially blessed by Google?

mattmanser3• 16 years ago

Wrong, the apps version looks totally different. Check the screenies:

http://rapportive.com/google/home

Rapportive is at the bottom of the screen, not at the side replacing ads.

So no blessing by Google.

bensummers3• 16 years ago

Given that Rapportive runs client side and has full access to browser internals, I'm sure Google would lose the Rapportive-detector war.

mattmanser3• 16 years ago

How does that help? I can change my server every second. The only way rapportive can change their parser is to get the user to download a new version.

In fact it's quite the opposite of what you're claiming.

And anyway, sod the browser internals. Google has lots more lawyers than rapportive. That's who'd win that fight.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

> I'm sure Google would lose the Rapportive-detector war.

I wouldn't bet on that. Chrome is at 10% and rising by the way, so there is another angle to be wary of.

Betting against 800 # Gorillas is usually not a winning strategy anyway, especially not if you just took off with their banana.

ww5202• 16 years ago

There are a lot of ways Google can play ball: change the TOS of GMail to exclude certain plug-ins, change the ad div's signature, randomly generate different ad's display logic, digitally sign the GMail's content/code to prevent alternation, have their own plug-in to verify the content, bring out the big gun lawyers.

pierrefar4• 16 years ago

Honestly, how likely is it that the demographic using Rapportive is one that clicks on ads? I would imagine there is essentially zero money lost for Google.

Besides, how is this different than ad blocking? I install in my browser plugins that improve my browsing experience. That includes flashblock, adblock plus, pop-up blockers (a feature historically so popular that it is now built-in the major browsers), and other addons that alter the content I see on the web page.

Another example: People share hosts files that block different annoying services like intellitxt and Snap Shots. This is no different in this regard.

Rapportive is actually better because the space previously used by ads that I would never click is now actually useful. It's a step forward from simple ad blocking.

Edit: various grammar/clarity fixes.

points4• 16 years ago

Some ads are CPM you know... eg aim is to get exposure / mindshare rather than traffic.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

Changing the content of someone else's page in flight is already murky enough when translation services do it, but when you actively start messing with someone else's revenue stream I feel some line has been crossed.

That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.

NEPatriot• 16 years ago

I agree with what you're saying in terms of the ads. But if I'm Google I let the social CRM players duke it out as well as play with alternative ad models - pick a winner and acquire them. Then I can do what I want with the competition.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

So a new strategy for acquisition is to mess directly with someone else's revenue stream? Instead of building a competing product with the feature added?

mseebach• 16 years ago

If both Rapportive and Google are grown ups chances are that Google will make a "plug-in" column if Rapportive starts getting big. Rapportives objective isn't blocking ads but enhancing the GMail experience, and Google should be all for that.

pclark5• 16 years ago

They have done this, I believe the official name is gadgets. They are available now.

pclark5• 16 years ago

I really don't get this point, no idea why people are so hung up on x company hiding content/adverts on the web.

WebMynd (also YC, incidentally) replaced Google.com adverts with content and Google never minded - WebMynd has lots more users and funding than Rapportive, and has been around for many many more years.

Also, when Google released their GMail gadgets marketplace, Rapportive was officially recommended on their blog, and I think it was one of the first on the scene.

Also, didn't that Paul guy who created GMail invest in them? I think he would have prodded the GMail team in his due diligence.

Given that GMail has millions of users, it's highly unlikely Rapportive will ever cause damage to whatever revenue GMail creates from adverts (its highly unlikely - sadly - that Rapportive will ever get, say, 5% of gmail users using Rapportive - the number is simply too big) - I imagine most of GMails revenue is from users paying for larger inboxes. Because they spend all their time in their mail client. Making them the dream Rapportive customer.

"Google shuts down service hundreds of thousands of GMail users love so they can make more money" doesn't sound like a very nice PR campaign. I suspect GMail is all about keeping users loving the Google, rather than monetizing.

I doubt Google will ever blog "hey guys, replace our adverts" because i think shareholders might raise eye brows, but turning a blind eye towards revenue in favour of delighted users sounds like a fair trade off.

Also if Google did make a move, it would cause so much press to flood towards Rapportive they'd be rather happy. (jinx)

I'd like to see people remarking how much users love Rapportive (search twitter) or how brilliant their customer service is, rather than what might cause Rapportive to fail.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

What stopped rapportive from simply inserting their box in the dom in a way that they did not have to remove a revenue driver from the thing they are building their base on?

> "Google shuts down service hundreds of thousands of GMail users love so they can make more money" doesn't sound like a very nice PR campaign.

There's an element reminiscent of blackmail in there that I really don't like. Just because you can does not make it right.

Somehow this doesn't pass the smell test, I can't quite put my finger on it but if this wasn't sanctioned by google (which it very well may have been) then I find it an odd thing to do.

Launching an add-on service, fine, launching one to the detriment of the bottom line of the service you're launching it on, not cool.

If google would do something like this to a YC company we'd be nailing them to the highest tree.

points4• 16 years ago

"WebMynd (also YC, incidentally) replaced Google.com adverts with content and Google never minded"

I expect Google never minded, since WebMynd never got enough installs to bother with. I expect Rapportive to be similar.

neurotech1• 16 years ago

This whole story sounds sensationalist IMO. They are forgetting two things. 1) Rapportive serves a purpose - showing social information 2) Perhaps Google will introduce GMail "widgets" or blocks so Rapportive and similar services could use it.

That said, I agree with you on the depriving income ethical concerns.

samstokes4• 16 years ago

We're trying to make something people want. The traction we've achieved suggests that a lot of people do want more context and social information in their inbox. It also suggests that a lot of people don't want the ads Gmail serves.

If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them. Some people might even use it: we've had a couple of requests from people who want to monitor the Gmail ads they've purchased, or who use the ads as a way of keeping an eye on their competitors' marketing activities.

We are making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google.

The revenue from the ads is certainly not the only benefit Google derives from Gmail: others include paid inbox upgrades, driving adoption of Google Apps, and the world's biggest corpus for spam filtering. We're not depriving them of any of those benefits; if we can increase adoption or engagement with Gmail, then we actually reinforce them. We've even heard of people switching to Gmail because they want the Rapportive sidebar.

The ethics of hiding the Gmail ads rather depend on the facts of Google's business strategy, and those facts are probably not available to anyone commenting here. You assert that "the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported" - that's not a fact, it's just one of the possible strategies Google might be taking. Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock [1], which hides the Gmail ads. Google could trivially ban it from the gallery, but it's still there.

We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing, but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong, and if so you shouldn't install Rapportive until we solve that. In the meantime, don't forget to keep clicking on those ads ;)

[1] https://chrome.google.com/extensions/list/popular?hl=en

Update: added link to list of most popular Chrome extensions

Update 2: fix typo, add emphasis.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

> We're trying to make something people want

That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though.

> If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them.

Shouldn't that have been the default?

> Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads.

Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.

I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site.

I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives.

> We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing,

Apparently :)

> but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong

I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this.

Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way.

If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.

mikeryan3• 16 years ago

We making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google.

Making Gmail more useful by removing it's revenue stream doesn't seem like a tradeoff most people would be interested in.

ww5202• 16 years ago

Does anyone remember the nasty spyware war on Windows 10 years back? There were a number of spyware companies back then whose browser plug-in (IE BHO) would replace the ads on the pages showing on IE with their own. They often stepped on each other and tried to uninstall each other. They escalated the war by hooking into the kernel to make themselves very difficult to be removed. It declined when the anti-spyware and anti-virus software started removing the spywares.

dtran• 16 years ago

Congrats on the writeup Rahul, Sam, Martin, and team! My favorite part: "They invested over Skype, which was kind of cool, and we all got drunk that evening.”

points4• 16 years ago

"These days, most Gmail users never even glance at the ads filling the right-hand column."

What sort of idiot writes that. I mean seriously. Do people really believe that Google just serves up those millions of impressions for the hell of it with no payback?

People look at them. People click them. Google makes a ton of money. Advertisers get a shedload of traffic.

It's an absolute douchebag move to mess with other peoples content. Reminds me of the free wifi services that inject their own adverts at the top of every page on the internet, or rewrite affiliate links etc. I don't care if this plugin is useful or not, I don't want it to mess with the DOM.

waderoush• 16 years ago

Author of the original article here. I guess I should have said that I never glance at the Gmail ads and I have a hard time imagining why anyone would, as they are consistently irrelevant to me. As soon as I learned about a plugin that could replace the ads with something useful, I installed it.

On the other point that seems to be getting commenters riled up -- "messing with other people's content" -- I think I am on Rapportive's side. I admit that I would be seriously annoyed if someone wrote a plugin that replaced my stories on Xconomy with, say, TechCrunch stories. But that's the risk of publishing on the Web, where the viewing platform is not ultimately under your control. And if people started using such plugin widely, it would be useful feedback for me -- it would mean that I should do something to make my own stories more interesting. Google should see Rapportive as a signal that something is missing in Gmail. Either they should provide more relevant ads, or they should copy (or buy) Rapportive.

jacquesm16• 16 years ago

> I would be seriously annoyed if someone wrote a plugin that replaced my stories on Xconomy with, say, TechCrunch stories. But that's the risk of publishing on the Web

How would you feel about someone writing a plug-in that left your content in one piece, removed the ads and used your site with all the associated expenses as a way to launch their product?

And if google did decide to provide 'more relevant ads' how do you propose those will reach their viewer after rapportive has 'claimed' the space?

Wouldn't it have been better to add the rapportive feature to the page somehow instead of removing a feature (ads) they deemed superfluous?

points4• 16 years ago

"Google should see Rapportive as a signal that something is missing in Gmail. Either they should provide more relevant ads, or they should copy (or buy) Rapportive."

That's ridiculous. How many people are using Rapportive? 0.00000001% of GMail users maybe?

Do you know how much cash those ads generate for Google? Nope. Didn't think so.

tonystubblebine• 16 years ago

I use etacts.com, which seems like the exact same thing. Is there a difference? I think the major benefit to me is mainly just to see the person's face. It helps humanize the person on the other end of the email, and often prompts my memory if we've met before.

dillydally• 16 years ago

eTacts us also YC. I believe the timeline went like this:

1. eTacts launched as an email reminder service 2. eTacts gets into YC 3. Rapportive launched as a personal CRM 4. Rapportive gets major traction, eTacts launches their own personal CRM 5. Rapportive gets into YC

So...yes, they're virtually identical right now.

eTacts also does email reminders, but Rapportive has Raplets.

pclark5• 16 years ago

I think eTacts (god that uppercase T looks hideous) always had some CRM stuff. Etacts also has tons of analytics and such, which Rapportive does not. I'm biased towards the Rapportive guys cus I know them, but I don't think its fair to say Etacts copied Rapportive much (if thats what you were saying)

abraham• 16 years ago

Rapportive content itself could be a type of ad. For example when reading an email from someone who has a LinkedIn account Google/Rapportive will display the connection for a small fee per impression from LinkedIn.

amirmc4• 16 years ago

I've read through the comments here and I'm really surprised by those that bring up Gmail's 'revenue' streams.

Unless someone from Gmail cares to comment on: (a) How Gmail handles their P&L (b) What the main drivers really are ... then anything you read here is speculation. If I've missed something, please do point me to it.

I agree that there may be a separate argument about 'messing with people's sites' on the client side, but that really isn't new.

chopsueyar4• 16 years ago

Actually, I am curious as to how many commentors are GOOG shareholders, and consider this an affront.

amirmc4• 16 years ago

If I were a shareholder I'd feel better that someone is making GOOG properties more valuable to end-users.

InfinityX0• 16 years ago

The problem with Rapportive as a business model is that it relies entirely on Google acquiring them. They have one customer. If Google doesn't want it, it's a bomb. Despite the usefulness of the service, that's a pretty risky proposition.

The story of Rapportive (YC S10) - 'social CRM' plugin that replaces Gmail ads

Related Stories