<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Geek Giant &#187; Web 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thegeekgiant.com/tag/web-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thegeekgiant.com</link>
	<description>PR and corporate communications from above the chaos.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:15:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Monetization Does NOT Equal Revenue</title>
		<link>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/19/monetization-does-not-equal-revenue/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/19/monetization-does-not-equal-revenue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:55:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Geek Giant</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ramblings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web apps]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thegeekgiant.wordpress.com/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, you read that right. Monetization does NOT equal revenue. I&#8217;m tired of hearing about Web &#8220;applications&#8221; that are promising venture capitalists that their ad-supported business model is going to be successful and yield that 15x return their looking for.
Monetization is…
Monetization, as I define it, is using advertising to make some money off of your [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you read that right. Monetization does NOT equal revenue. I&#8217;m tired of hearing about Web &#8220;applications&#8221; that are promising venture capitalists that their ad-supported business model is going to be successful and yield that 15x return their looking for.</p>
<h2>Monetization is…</h2>
<p>Monetization, as I define it, is using advertising to make some money off of your Web site. It is not recurring revenue that results from users willingly paying for the service.</p>
<p>This is a dangerous model to put much faith in for a number of reasons. The first is the visceral reaction the general public has to advertising. When was the last time you thought to yourself, &#8220;Man, I really liked the annoying Flash ad. I must go see &#8216;Legally Blonde 7: Divorce Rules.&#8217; &#8221;</p>
<p>Advertising is effective as a brand awareness driver. If you&#8217;re letting advertising dictate your purchasing decisions, then that&#8217;s a separate issue. What advertising is not, however, is a model on which to build a business. Because the only one getting rich off of ads is Google.</p>
<h2>Revenue is…</h2>
<p>When a Web application is so valuable that people willingly pay a monthly or annual fee for the pleasure of its use, that is revenue. Revenue is profit. Revenue is a viable, sustainable model for growth and success.</p>
<p>When a Web application offers functionality that either increases my productivity or adds value to my life, I&#8217;ll gladly pay for it.</p>
<p>So, when I saw that LinkedIn recently completed a founding round of $53 million, I nearly choked. Not only does this <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2008/06/17/confirmed-linkedin-raises-funding-to-buy-smaller-companies-before-it-goes-public/" target="_blank">value the company</a> at $1 BILLION, but it also gives them plenty of ammo to fire across the bows of upstart SocNets. According to the LA Times, LinkedIn <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-linkedin18-2008jun18,1,6025877.story" target="_blank">has been profitable</a> for a couple of years. So, where does this revenue come from? I don&#8217;t pay for it. Nor will I.</p>
<h2>Online Advertising</h2>
<p><img class="alignright" style="float:right;border:1px solid black;margin:5px;" src="http://www.iab.net/media/image/pwc_q108_chart.gif" alt="" width="390" height="200" />So, in the chart I&#8217;ve embedded from the <a href="http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/339821" target="_blank">Interactive Advertising Bureau</a>, the growth rate of online advertising revenues has been astonishing. In Q1 of 2008, online advertising revenues were approximately $5.8 billion. So, why do these companies need so much venture capital? I think it&#8217;s because that &#8220;revenue&#8221; is only being realized by the ad networks and not the apps them selves.</p>
<p>It kind of pains me to link to Valleywag, but they did the dirty work for me on this. Time recently announced its <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1809858_1811192,00.html" target="_blank">50 top Web sites</a> and Valleywag made some <a href="http://valleywag.com/5017564/how-times-50-best-web-sites-make-money-if-they-do" target="_blank">quick and dirty analysis</a> (really, is there any other kind?). Of the 50:</p>
<ul>
<li>Ad-supported:36</li>
<li>Google ads: 18</li>
<li>Microsoft ads: 1</li>
<li>Yahoo ads: 2</li>
<li>In-house ad sales teams: 3</li>
<li>Sell goods: 2</li>
<li>Sell physical goods: 1</li>
</ul>
<p>So, of &#8220;Web sites,&#8221; advertising is obviously a good way to make some revenue. But for businesses, it&#8217;s all about subscription models and real users paying real money.</p>
<p>How will you make your profit?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/19/monetization-does-not-equal-revenue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Been a while…</title>
		<link>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/18/been-a-while/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/18/been-a-while/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Geek Giant</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ramblings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SocNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web 2.0]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thegeekgiant.wordpress.com/?p=10</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back into the flow of things. Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve noticed lately.
What&#8217;s changed?
Not a whole lot. Innovation appears to be on a temporary hiatus. Yahoo is trying its best to be the belle of the ball, but is ending up only as the last-call cougar. I don&#8217;t care if it&#8217;s Googlehoo, Microhoo, Yahoogle or whatever mashup [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back into the flow of things. Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve noticed lately.</p>
<h2>What&#8217;s changed?</h2>
<p>Not a whole lot. Innovation appears to be on a temporary hiatus. Yahoo is trying its best to be the belle of the ball, but is ending up only as the last-call cougar. I don&#8217;t care if it&#8217;s Googlehoo, Microhoo, <a href="http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080612/yahoogle-no-joy-in-mudville/" target="_blank">Yahoogle</a> or whatever mashup you want to call it, it&#8217;s still going to be &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_advertising" target="_blank">contextual</a>&#8221; ads in the way of my Internet search.</p>
<p>I like Google not for its results, but for the fact that to search for something, I type it into my Firefox space and it gives me what I want. So, whatever happens, keep making Mozilla rich so I can keep using the quick search.</p>
<h2>Social networking fatigue</h2>
<p>I&#8217;m not fatigued of the act of social networking, I&#8217;m fatigued of the myriad Web sites I feel it necessary to register as /geekgiant or what have you. Here&#8217;s my proposal.</p>
<p>We all love <a href="http://www.twitter.com/geekgiant" target="_blank">Twitter</a> (when it works). We&#8217;ve all settled on <a href="http://friendfeed.com/geekgiant" target="_blank">FriendFeed</a> as a way to abandon RSS sharing. And we all seem to have a LinkedIn profile. Let&#8217;s call it a day. It&#8217;s time for the Web to be used for something useful. How about a network for managing emergency responses. Or how about a CMS that has a reality check built in for poor writers. Another idea I have is for a Customer Relationship Management that is usable by, well, everybody.</p>
<p>Just an idea.</p>
<h2>Where to go</h2>
<p>I think that what the IPO bubble was to Web 1.0, consolidation will be to Web 2.0. We&#8217;re going to see makers of widgets get absorbed into the social networks they serve. I think we&#8217;ll see some of the proprietary Web app creation tools such as <a href="http://www.coghead.com" target="_blank">Coghead</a> or <a href="http://www.bungeelabs.com/platform/" target="_blank">Bungee Labs</a> dissolve and I think that some of the blogs will consolidate as well.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re in the birth of a new economy. The Web is the platform for innovation and I&#8217;m excited to see where we go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thegeekgiant.com/2008/06/18/been-a-while/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
