Why Advertising Will Fail on the Internet
Eric Clemons
I think Clemons makes some good points in his article. I believe in his points that “consumers do not trust advertising. . . consumers do not want advertising. . .and. . .consumers do not need advertising.”
However, I think the solutions he offers aren’t necessarily much better than the occasional pop-up or sidebar ad that internet users have to deal with.
The first solution he offers is for websites to charge for content. While in some cases the use of “micropayments for purchases, like iTunes,” can serve as a business model, I don’t think the idea of charging for content would work in most cases. For example, I have a feeling that most consumers would rather deal with a sidebar ad next to an online article for a newspaper, than have to pay for ad-free content.
His second solution of charging for participation in an online community, while also revolutionary, also runs into fatal flaws. Again, I feel like most users would prefer free access to a social network, allowing them to easily connect with friends and business contacts, rather than have to pay for a service which has traditionally been free. Perhaps in the case of gaming, where a developer could charge for more server space than a social networking page, in may be viable. Just listen to the outcry for a possible Twitter charge in this video.
His third solution of selling accessories is one that I think more consumers would buy in to. This kind of goes along the lines of the “freemium” service idea. While Clemons seems to be making the argument that sites should be more focused on fully charging for content or access rather than earning money through advertising, I believe a better business plan is to offer a basic service for free, and charge for special add-ons that aren’t necessary for the primary function of the service. I can imagine a massive decline in the Facebook population if they began charging for outright membership. However, if they were to just charge for, say, the ability to use applications, the outcry wouldn’t be so severe.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Blogs Will Change Your Business - Blog 5
“If there's no clear business model, why are the Internet giants so bent on getting a foothold in blogs?”
This is a question that was brought up in the “Blogs Will Change Your Business” article. It may be a case of trying to reach an audience that isn’t very tech savvy, but I don’t see how a modern business couldn’t see the value of a blog. In an age where millions of people spend multiple hours on the internet a day and get a majority of their information from online sources, I don’t see how a business could ignore the presence their blog could have in the online world.
And given that blog accounts can be created for free, and can be managed with a relatively small commitment of resources, it actually seems like the ideal way to reach customers in a digital age.This YouTube video outlines three major benefits that a blog can offer a business: they can bring in more web traffic, allow you to tailor your company's message and allow interaction with potential customers.
I think the most important of these three ideas outlined in the video is the third: allowing interaction with potential customers. A company blog not only creates interaction with potential customers that they may not have reached through any other medium, but they can create a more personal relationship with potential and dedicated customers alike.
A company blog that keeps customers up-to-date on the latest happenings within the business or offers testimonials from company officials can create a virtual relationship with the customer base. This kind of interaction with the customer base, which can be updated instantly, creates a trust factor and lets them feel as though they are part of the company, with a sort of inside access to its inner workings.
This is a question that was brought up in the “Blogs Will Change Your Business” article. It may be a case of trying to reach an audience that isn’t very tech savvy, but I don’t see how a modern business couldn’t see the value of a blog. In an age where millions of people spend multiple hours on the internet a day and get a majority of their information from online sources, I don’t see how a business could ignore the presence their blog could have in the online world.
And given that blog accounts can be created for free, and can be managed with a relatively small commitment of resources, it actually seems like the ideal way to reach customers in a digital age.This YouTube video outlines three major benefits that a blog can offer a business: they can bring in more web traffic, allow you to tailor your company's message and allow interaction with potential customers.
I think the most important of these three ideas outlined in the video is the third: allowing interaction with potential customers. A company blog not only creates interaction with potential customers that they may not have reached through any other medium, but they can create a more personal relationship with potential and dedicated customers alike.
A company blog that keeps customers up-to-date on the latest happenings within the business or offers testimonials from company officials can create a virtual relationship with the customer base. This kind of interaction with the customer base, which can be updated instantly, creates a trust factor and lets them feel as though they are part of the company, with a sort of inside access to its inner workings.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Collective User Value in a Web 2.0 Business Model
Amy Shuen
Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide
Chapter 1
A very important concept discussed in this chapter was Web 2.0 as a business model. For an example, Shuen used Flickr.com, a social photo-sharing site.
Web 2.0 as a business model is a little different than using web 2.0 tools for a business. This youtube video goes over the basics of how a business or independent businessperson could different web 2.0 tools to make their business more efficient and further reaching.
This chapter, however, goes deeper into explanation of how the concepts and ideas that define web 2.0 can be used to create an effective business model.
Possibly the most important concept of web 2.0 addressed in this chapter in regards to a business model is the idea of “collective user value” (1). Essentially, by capturing all the input, or “intelligence” of their users and consumers, a business built in a web 2.0 model will grow more efficient and user-friendly as time goes on.
Flickr harnesses the power of collective user value in its business model. Users can tag photos for easy searching, and comment on photos that they like or dislike. This kind of data, which can be gathered by Flickr, is referred to as “metadata” (2), and can help the community and the company grow.
By allowing users/consumers to input data into the business freely, there becomes an unbiased and limitless wealth of information of ideas which are exclusive to the Flickr community. Users may be pressed to produce more quality products on the website, wishing to receive good comments.
Also, since photos can be tagged, Flickr can collect data on which tags are hit or searched most.
This kind of data would be very valuable to potential advertisers. Instead of having to spend money on marketing plans, the marketing money comes to Flickr, as advertisers can readily see which demographics are tagging different subject areas of interest
The idea of collective user value is just one way that Flickr employs a Web 2.0 business model.
Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide
Chapter 1
A very important concept discussed in this chapter was Web 2.0 as a business model. For an example, Shuen used Flickr.com, a social photo-sharing site.
Web 2.0 as a business model is a little different than using web 2.0 tools for a business. This youtube video goes over the basics of how a business or independent businessperson could different web 2.0 tools to make their business more efficient and further reaching.
This chapter, however, goes deeper into explanation of how the concepts and ideas that define web 2.0 can be used to create an effective business model.
Possibly the most important concept of web 2.0 addressed in this chapter in regards to a business model is the idea of “collective user value” (1). Essentially, by capturing all the input, or “intelligence” of their users and consumers, a business built in a web 2.0 model will grow more efficient and user-friendly as time goes on.
Flickr harnesses the power of collective user value in its business model. Users can tag photos for easy searching, and comment on photos that they like or dislike. This kind of data, which can be gathered by Flickr, is referred to as “metadata” (2), and can help the community and the company grow.
By allowing users/consumers to input data into the business freely, there becomes an unbiased and limitless wealth of information of ideas which are exclusive to the Flickr community. Users may be pressed to produce more quality products on the website, wishing to receive good comments.
Also, since photos can be tagged, Flickr can collect data on which tags are hit or searched most.
This kind of data would be very valuable to potential advertisers. Instead of having to spend money on marketing plans, the marketing money comes to Flickr, as advertisers can readily see which demographics are tagging different subject areas of interest
The idea of collective user value is just one way that Flickr employs a Web 2.0 business model.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Blog 1 - What is Web 2.0?
The main objective of this article was to try and bring a solid definition to the term “Web 2.0.” As O’Reilly says, “The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means.”
So, how did this article define Web 2.0? And what applications apply the definition of Web 2.0 the best? Those are two important questions I sought to answer in reading this article.
According to the Wikipedia definition, Web 2.0 refers to web development and web design that facilitates interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design and collaboration on the World Wide Web.
Two of the main factors I saw which defined an application as Web 2.0 in this article were a focus on the user and being web-based. In making three different comparisons between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications, we can see those two factors shine through in this article.
One of these comparisons was made between Netscape, which was classified as Web 1.0, and Google, which was classified as Web 2.0. O’ Reilly notes that, “Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application,” as opposed Google, which, “began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service…” As we can see, O’Reilly suggests that being a web based application, rather than desktop-based software, is a trait unique to Web 2.0.
Another comparison O’Reilly makes is between DoubleClick and Google AdSense. This comparison highlights the user-centered focus of Web 2.0 applications. O’ Reilly feels that DoubleClick, an advertising agency, has become limited because of its Web 1.0 design. He says, “[DoubleClick] bought into the '90s notion that the web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Google AdSense, a Web 2.0 application, is an advertising agency that is more focused around the user. Rather than a user having to search a traditional Web 1.0 advertising agency for advertisers to pitch your site to, Google AdSense finds advertisers for you, based on the content of your site.
So, how did this article define Web 2.0? And what applications apply the definition of Web 2.0 the best? Those are two important questions I sought to answer in reading this article.
According to the Wikipedia definition, Web 2.0 refers to web development and web design that facilitates interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design and collaboration on the World Wide Web.
Two of the main factors I saw which defined an application as Web 2.0 in this article were a focus on the user and being web-based. In making three different comparisons between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications, we can see those two factors shine through in this article.
One of these comparisons was made between Netscape, which was classified as Web 1.0, and Google, which was classified as Web 2.0. O’ Reilly notes that, “Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application,” as opposed Google, which, “began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service…” As we can see, O’Reilly suggests that being a web based application, rather than desktop-based software, is a trait unique to Web 2.0.
Another comparison O’Reilly makes is between DoubleClick and Google AdSense. This comparison highlights the user-centered focus of Web 2.0 applications. O’ Reilly feels that DoubleClick, an advertising agency, has become limited because of its Web 1.0 design. He says, “[DoubleClick] bought into the '90s notion that the web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Google AdSense, a Web 2.0 application, is an advertising agency that is more focused around the user. Rather than a user having to search a traditional Web 1.0 advertising agency for advertisers to pitch your site to, Google AdSense finds advertisers for you, based on the content of your site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)