DISQUS

Jeff Jarvis · 3 years ago

Of course, it's less profitable: There is no scarcity, there are no monopolies. So there are not the gigantic margins for the few monopolies. And without scarcity, competition will lower rates. But with targeting, I argue, rates for just the right buys can increase while efficiency and performance for advertisers also increase. It's a more efficient business. Is it bigger in gross? We'll see.

chartreuse · 3 years ago

You're (finally :) ) right about something.I've been saying for a while that advertising will be completely different. Who needs ads?

Bob Aman · 3 years ago

Frankly, I'd take it at least a step further and say that Everything 2.0 is less profitable than Anything 1.0. Probably significantly less. Does that mean it's not worth bothering? Eh, no, not really. The 2.0 stuff is way more fun, and that counts for something.

Stuart MacDonald · 3 years ago

Scott, my take on the whole MySpace challenge is this. Not only do they have a huge challenge in monetizing the traffic because they can't make money off of people "going" somewhere (they want to stay put, thank you very much) but also the talent available to deliver a monetizable message to them where they are is not widely available. The finesse and light touch necessary to make creative that will work is not likely to emerge from the traditional ad world. It's a microcosm of the broader challenge the ad and broadcast world is having with all of these changes.

Looking forward to seeing you at mesh.

Ed Kohler · 3 years ago

I don't think I've ever seen an ad on MySpace that's geotargeted or personalized in any way to me, so they could surely increase their CPM by using some of the information they know about me to display ads I may actually find relevant.

Creative Slice · 3 years ago

I like your take on web2.0 marketing and do believe it runs true. At Creative Slice we are constantly finding new ways to promote small businesses we work with and with the whole web two point zero trend it's becoming easier and easier to level the playing field.

Personally I believe this trend will help small businesses rather than large corporations. Advertising will be less about quantity (e.g. TV ads) and more about quality, experience and personal touch.

Eyal Hertzog · 3 years ago

Am I wrong here or $0.06 CPM is a mistake?

Annual income: $200,000,000
Annual page-views: 366,000,000,000
Annual Mega Page-views: 366,000,000 (thousands of page-views)

CPM: $0.55 (that's 200/366)

That's the CPM I would expect from this type of website. No surprises here.

Scott Karp · 3 years ago

Eyal, indeed, you are correct -- I was off by a decimal place. Unfortunately, it's going to take several more decimal places to make MySpace the hot property everyone assumes it will be.

grumpysecretary · 3 years ago

Regarding this:

2. An Economist article on new media cites Lauren Rich Fine, a financial analyst for newspapers, who estimates that “for every advertising dollar that a newspaper gets for a print reader, it receives only 20-30 cents for his online equivalent.”

This of course is true...for now. But that will change.This is a temporary problem caused by the unwillingness of the "print sales" infrastucture to embrace the internet. Most newspaper's sales staff's are full of old school sales folks who in many cases refuse to admit that the "online edition" is relevant to them. Most papers have seperate staffs for the "online edition" and small market papers may not have any online sales strategy at all! And the publishers are weak and feckless in the face of sales ineptitude.

Don't you see? It is the "newspaper" that undervalues the online reader, not the advertiser.

Emmanuel · 3 years ago

About CPM : I m afraid Comscore and Nielsen always underestimate the number of pages views. Mostly because they exclude traffic from outside US (and others reasons relative to the panel). So the real CPM is lower ...

helmut · 3 years ago

Yes, Scott. The newspaper industry wasn't profitable at all.