Maybe I don't understand something but if each of these sites let's say has a couple thousand visitors so it's not really making enough money from ads, why is stringing together a bunch of these sites going to be any better? Just like two wrongs don't make a right...put together two sites that don't make money and you're still not making money...right?
I think way too many web 2.0 startups are not thinking about the bigger picture and not focusing on real business models. It's _hard_ to get advertising dollars if your site is not building an extremely demographically focused community because of the low cost per. There are many other ways to make money though (usually specific to whatever business you're in) and typically web2.0 sites are ignoring it because it's 'so easy' to go the adsense route...
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Yan,
If you only have 2,000 viewers can you walk into Procter and Gamble and get an advertising contract?
No.
But lash together 100 sites with 2,000 each, and all of a sudden you have 200,000 visitors. Not to mention that if you link all 100 together you'll get better Google rankings, so that'll pull in even more.
Procter and Gamble (or GM, or Coke, or any large advertiser) might start getting interested now.
That's why ad networks like Google, FM Media, Weblogsinc are so valuable.
seshadri
· 2 years ago
I dont think these web 2.0 goldfishes are hoping to get 'more water'. They are just hoping to be swallowed by the bigger fish.
(The link "Anyway, today he writes" don't seem to work?)
seshadri
· 2 years ago
"100 sites with 2,000 each, and all of a sudden you have 200,000 visitors"
Assuming there is no common set that visit all web 2.0 sites...
Dave Evans
· 2 years ago
P&G could change the economics of the podcast and videoblog market just like that. What makes you think they would allocate that potential ad spend on a bunch of dying websites? You're not taking factors such as brand alignment into consideration, and all they are talking about is a lack of quality sites to place inventory.
Hillel is great, thanks for the link.
Shaking head at Twitter talk. That's all people talked about at SXSW? I cannot believe you're saying the innovation funnel is pinched closed. That's ridiculous.
Search Engine Web
· 2 years ago
Deadpool or not - it is sad to see brilliant technology die - and the goold technolgy still should be utilized in some way
this concern was passionately posted on TechCrunch on several ocassions by Search Engines WEB. Could it be those pleas were what generated this idea to salvage all of that developer brilliance into one giant mashup
Christopher Coulter
· 2 years ago
"There simply wasn’t much else cool to talk about."
Art, Film, Documentaries, Music, Indy Scene, Big Industry deals (5 by my count)...yeah nothing whatsoever to talk about...
Kevin Wood
· 2 years ago
Does advertising work? It just seems ironic that all of these trendy web 2.0's sell lame ineffective advertising..."Same old Ho with a new Pimp"
Sam
· 2 years ago
Match.com actually runs on ASP.NET as well (so PlentyOfFish isn't the only dating site on .NET ).
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@9 I think we may be getting closer to understanding why Christopher left PodTech ;-)
Phil Butler
· 2 years ago
Great Article Robert, another trackack headed your way. Do you think collaboration is the next phase of Web 2.0?
buns and chou chou
· 2 years ago
It's about content baby! Think how many exchanges there were during bubble, public even. How many are left? Hello Ebay.
Christine
· 2 years ago
We decided last night at the Houston NetSquared meeting that we are moving on past Web 2.0. We're going to Web 7.2. Although maybe your Mobile 2.0 idea is a better one.
I'm still kicking myself for not being brave enough to come talk to you at SXSW last week. I know, silly but true. Ah well, there is always next year...
All Comments
I think way too many web 2.0 startups are not thinking about the bigger picture and not focusing on real business models. It's _hard_ to get advertising dollars if your site is not building an extremely demographically focused community because of the low cost per. There are many other ways to make money though (usually specific to whatever business you're in) and typically web2.0 sites are ignoring it because it's 'so easy' to go the adsense route...
If you only have 2,000 viewers can you walk into Procter and Gamble and get an advertising contract?
No.
But lash together 100 sites with 2,000 each, and all of a sudden you have 200,000 visitors. Not to mention that if you link all 100 together you'll get better Google rankings, so that'll pull in even more.
Procter and Gamble (or GM, or Coke, or any large advertiser) might start getting interested now.
That's why ad networks like Google, FM Media, Weblogsinc are so valuable.
(The link "Anyway, today he writes" don't seem to work?)
Assuming there is no common set that visit all web 2.0 sites...
Hillel is great, thanks for the link.
Shaking head at Twitter talk. That's all people talked about at SXSW? I cannot believe you're saying the innovation funnel is pinched closed. That's ridiculous.
this concern was passionately posted on TechCrunch on several ocassions by Search Engines WEB. Could it be those pleas were what generated this idea to salvage all of that developer brilliance into one giant mashup
Art, Film, Documentaries, Music, Indy Scene, Big Industry deals (5 by my count)...yeah nothing whatsoever to talk about...
I'm still kicking myself for not being brave enough to come talk to you at SXSW last week. I know, silly but true. Ah well, there is always next year...