Thursday, 3 August 2006

Monday, 19 June 2006

RSS Puts Identification in the Hands of Your Customers

I’m listening to the Individualized-RSS podcast over at Marketing Edge podcast. The conversation is an attempt to bring the weakness of email into the strength of RSS (or verse-vica as the case maybe) – unique reader identification.

This is what I alluded to in this post from a couple months ago. There’s nothing in the technology of RSS that prevents people from identifying themselves – just by adding some identifier (another url for example) to the end of the URL string.

Any more registration isn’t necessary or even good (yes, this is a hack.)

Plus, it’s a much friendlier way to build a relationship with people. Registration (of any sort) requires people to make a commitment before they know the relationship will be useful and valuable. Not cool.

On the other hand, there are some specific situations where a locked down, personally-identifiable RSS feed actually adds value to the customer. I’m thinking of communications that needs audit-ability, a high-level of filtering, and guaranteed delivery. We’re not talking marketing communications here – we’re talking Very Serious Business and in that case, I recommend talking to Kris at Pale Groove about CastLock.

Thursday, 1 June 2006

The Lack of Intention Economy

“Since the clicks will likely look legitimate, it comes down to intent – did the user click the ad just to click it, or did they have a genuine interest in the advertisement? It’s not so easy to tell…”

Mark Cuban dissects click fraud. The quote above is from the comments following Mark’s post. Good stuff. Reminds me of an interesting bit about Google’s AdSense program. If what they owe an ad publisher less than $10, Google sits on the money. Since the long tail is shaped like a spatula, there’s potentially millions of not quite $10s sitting safely a Google bank account somewhere.

Same goes for Netflix. More than a certain number of DVD shipments per month, and a customer starts to be a liability. Putting faith in customers to sit on a disc for a week or so at a time and it’s no problem. Subscriptions continue to roll in, independent of discs returned.

What if all the click fraud (robots clicking ads) and all the helping-a-friend clicking went away and conversion dropped below 1/10 of 1%?

Seems ad creators have a vested interest in not exposing click fraud – if only to say their ads are “working”.

Wednesday, 31 May 2006

Ad-proaching a Singularity

This weekend, stuck in the land of dial-up, I paged through a print motorcycle magazine and compared the articles against the advertisments. All the ads were for gear, motorcycle shops, or vehicles to haul your motorcycles. Essentially, indistinguishable from the articles themselves. You can do the same with any reasonably niche dead tree publication.

The closer a publication moves to the right of the sketch above (going more niche) the more ads = information. The further to the left (going more general) the more ads are a distraction.

You’re already familiar with the Long Tail, so you already know this.

Elsewhere:

“Only 0.04% of those people who got the ads on their screens bothered to click on them. [Luke Mitchell] had expected at least 1% to respond.” -Catherine Holahan, BusinessWeek

“[Facebook is] advancing narcissism — which isn’t really making advertising any better — people will enhance their profiles to get better treatment from advertisers.” – Ester Dyson

“Advertising will get more and more targeted until it disappears, because perfectly targeted advertising is just information.” – Dave Winer

Tuesday, 30 May 2006

If It Weren’t For The Customers

“I believe media companies are afraid of interacting with their audiences, because they (mistakenly) believe that their audiences are made up of people just like them — resentful, mean spirited, backbiting, hostile egomaniacs with inferiority complexes who, if given the opportunity, will spout their opinions without regard or respect for anyone but themselves.” – Terry Heaton

I’m continually surprised when I encounter the Us-v-Them attitude Terry describes. I spent so much of my day building partnerships with clients, customers, and collaborations that I forget it’s still out there.

Wednesday, 17 May 2006

Finally a Good Gillmor Gang

Addiction Gang Part IV pulls the Gillmor Gang out of a lull and really digs into the media transition we’re going through. I too am optimistic about revenue generation models developing out of this that are far more interesting and sustainable than what we have today.

We just gotta get there. Come on folks, we got work to do.

Wednesday, 26 April 2006

First Crack 78. The Trouble with Business Models

As I promised, here’s the second half of my conversation with J Wynia on geeky stuff. (The first half is at GlassTooBig.com)

Here, we talk about making money, keeping overhead low, income diversification, and making sure an idea needs a business model.

Listen to the Trouble with Business Models [39 min]

Monday, 24 April 2006

Duh. Advertisers are the Customers, not Viewers.

Listening to Tod Maffin’s latest Todbits (made my Podcast Picks as well) and pondering his bit about American Idol running 3 minutes after the hour to thwart PVR-watchers and encourage live-TV-watchers.

Honestly, I feel a little silly. All this time I was wondering why it felt like broadcast media outlets despised their customers. Switching up schedules, starting programs late, splicing them into a million pieces between commercial breaks. Follow the money. It stops long before it gets to the viewer or listener or reader.

I still don’t get why newspapers, radio, and television aren’t 100% ads. The honesty would be easier on everyone.

Friday, 21 April 2006

On a Blog, the Author is the Advertisement

It’s not a question of making money via an online publication (aka “blog”, “podcast”) directly or indirectly.

All money-making via distributing words, audio, or video is indirect. All of it.

Newspapers, magazine, radio, and television all make money indirectly – selling advertising space. Blog publishers like Doc Searls, Dave Winer, Kathy Sierra, Hugh MacLeod, Chuck Olsen, Kris Smith, and even Mark Cuban (and me) make money indirectly as well.

In their case (and mine), the blog is promotion and advertising for them and the other things they do. The things that bring in the bigger bucks.

UPDATE 28 April 2006:
This is what Jason Fried is talking about when he says, “It’s all the same.”

UPDATE 10 May 2006:
There’s something in here about standing on the wrong side of the binoculars.

Wednesday, 19 April 2006

Gillmor Gang & WSJ vs Hugh MacLeod & Dave Winer

Jason Calcanis says, “With three or four ad slots you’re gonna do a $3 to $10 RPM…So, if you can do 500,000 pages a month…you can make $1,500 to $5,000 a month.”

Gillmor Gang says Hugh MacLeod should sell his cartoons as an advertising-delivery channel.

“But journalists seem to have a problem getting their head around it. ‘Indirectly’ is too foreign to them. They’re too used to living in the “directly” universe.” – Hugh MacLeod

“A person with a blog is analogous to a source in the old publishing world. Sources don’t get paid directly, but we do get paid indirectly.” – Dave Winer

“Mark that on the calendar. I agree with Dave Winer.” – J Wynia