This link has been bookmarked by 29 people . It was first bookmarked on 22 Jan 2008, by losamorales g.
-
28 Jan 08
-
- Communication. This is perfect for viral. Think Hotmail, Twitter, Skype and Facebook. The viral property is built into the service.
- Entertainment. Think You Tube or Second Life or any online game. I tell people about a really entertaining video. The viral property is weaker as it depends on a stream of loss-leader hits.
- Research. Google got viral adoption because the alternatives were weak and it was a major problem faced by millions every day. As it was free and dead simple to use, there was no barrier to adoption; but the viral spread was only possible because it was such a big problem and it was so much better than the alternatives. This happens very rarely.
-
Research is simple to monetize. It leads to a database of intentions and that leads to any number of advertising models that have a) proven returns to advertisers b) proven use for searchers.
Entertaiment can be monetized through advertising and “freemium”. We are used to the idea of ads to get free entertainment on TV/Radio and used to paying to go to the Movies or rent DVDs.
Communication is really tough to monetize through advertising. It has to be free to be viral (and it can be free because the marginal cost is close to zero). So the only way to make money is some form of advertising. It is just really, really hard to find a good way to offer advertising around a communication service that works for both the user of the service and the advertiser
-
-
27 Jan 08
-
-
- Communication. This is perfect for viral. Think Hotmail, Twitter, Skype and Facebook. The viral property is built into the service.
- Entertainment. Think You Tube or Second Life or any online game. I tell people about a really entertaining video. The viral property is weaker as it depends on a stream of loss-leader hits.
- Research. Google got viral adoption because the alternatives were weak and it was a major problem faced by millions every day. As it was free and dead simple to use, there was no barrier to adoption; but the viral spread was only possible because it was such a big problem and it was so much better than the alternatives. This happens very rarely.
These are the three streams of the Internet - communication, entertainment and research. You go online to communicate, have fun or find some information. The viral properties of each stream are quite different:
-
when it is a genuinely new form of communication, the viral adoption is stunning in its speed
-
from a point of view of monetization, the order is reversed:
-
Research is simple to monetize. It leads to a database of intentions and that leads to any number of advertising models that have a) proven returns to advertisers b) proven use for searchers.
Entertaiment can be monetized through advertising and “freemium”. We are used to the idea of ads to get free entertainment on TV/Radio and used to paying to go to the Movies or rent DVDs.
Communication is really tough to monetize through advertising. It has to be free to be viral (and it can be free because the marginal cost is close to zero). So the only way to make money is some form of advertising. It is just really, really hard to find a good way to offer advertising around a communication service that works for both the user of the service and the advertiser.
-
that is a small prize compared to a Research service that gets mass adoption. Google is valued at over $200 billion because they got viral adoption for a Research service. They have even found a way to make email advertising effective
-
the service has to be useful on a daily basis for mass markets.
-
collaborative research, search with a communication angle, does look like the next big thing. My definition of Web 3.0 is:
“The combination of Web 2.0 mass collaboration with structured databases”.
-
-
26 Jan 08
-
23 Jan 08
-
22 Jan 08
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.