Nice post from Nicholas Carr on the eBay confession that they made a bad investment decision in Skype. I hope they stick with it as it has saved me a fortune over the years and is a key part of my daily life. It does however raise some interesting questions for those of us who remember the dotcom bubble burst. One question I keep asking is this: What will happen when advertisers realise that no one reads adverts on web sites?
« KM Forum event blog: Mike Zack on strategy and KM | Main | Myers Briggs »
Comments (8)
(sotto voice) Shhhhhhh, Dave.... not so loud. I don't want all my add supported services taken away.
Posted by Andrew Mitchell | October 3, 2007 12:42 AM
Posted on October 3, 2007 00:42
I wonder that you're showing your age here Dave. You might not click on online ads, but many people seem to. Google's financial figures are staggering, 63% revenue growth year on year, $3.6 billion in revenue in Q1 2007, ratio of international advertising vs US growing, traffic acquisition costs as a % of revenues declining, profit of $1.4 billion in Q1 2007...
I have a colleague who runs a very successful business where all they do is usability analysis and enhancements on ecommerce sites. Essentially they increase the conversion rate on ecommerce sites from advertising click throughs (i.e. Google ads) to actual sales. They get paid entirely on the percentage increase they make in their clients sales.
I don't understand it either, but it certainly points to the fact that people do read adverts on web sites, they do click on them, and they do buy things as a result.
Posted by Julian Carver | October 3, 2007 2:00 AM
Posted on October 3, 2007 02:00
Hurrah! At last someone else is acknowledging that the Google Emperor has no clothes. The answer to your question is: "The same thing that will happen when TV advertisers realize no one watches their advertisements either". But in the meantime, inexplicably, ad rates keep increasing every year while viewership is dropping, and evidence is that viewership of ads is dropping even faster.
If anyone can come up with a better answer to your question, perhaps they'll take a stab at mine: Why is it that, when oil prices are up 40% since May, gasoline prices across North America are down 10% since then?
Posted by Dave Pollard | October 3, 2007 3:42 AM
Posted on October 3, 2007 03:42
I have yet to find anyone, including my children's friends who will admit to a click through other than by accident. I'd be interested to see research otherwise. I have seen some data about the use of U-Tube as an alternative, and one comparison which argued that highway billboard got more attention than internet ....
Posted by Dave Snowden | October 3, 2007 9:27 AM
Posted on October 3, 2007 09:27
I agree with Julian - Google's bank balance surely proves that there's a lot of people clicking through. Also, unlike TV ads they only get paid when an actual ad-related action is performed, ie, someone clicks on the ad.
I liken online ads (and possibly 'spam emails' but Ive not thought that through enough ;-) to masturbation - no-one ever admits to doing it but there's a lot of people making a lot of money out of it (pornographers and/or Google)
Posted by Mike Riversdale | October 4, 2007 9:47 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 09:47
Sorry guys I don't buy it. Click throughs I can believe happen (just as some idiots open .exe files send through the mail), but its like measuring the success of a web site based on the number of hits. It means nothing unless I do something when I get there. The fact that Google and Pornographers are making money by an measure which lacks credibility remains incredible from my perspective. The fact they they are making money does not prove a think in the long term - its another south sea bubble.
Click through to sales, well that is more credible but I would want a lot more data and to know if the click through is distinguished from a search before I revised my view
Posted by Dave Snowden | October 4, 2007 11:50 AM
Posted on October 4, 2007 11:50
I work for an entertainment company and a debate is raging about what business model might potentially make us money from online content. People are notoriously reluctant to pay for downloads and online advertising is either ignored or so obstructively irritating that it is counterproductive. Some of us have reached the conclusion that the only reason for making our content available on the net is to prove to the content rights holders that we have the capability to exploit this new "market" so they will let us continue to sell their DVDs.
Posted by Robert Edyvane | October 5, 2007 9:41 AM
Posted on October 5, 2007 09:41
I'm thinking differently about this. I think eBay needs to use Skype as a mechanism for customer intimacy by integrating it with their offerings. So, for example, if I want to talk to an expert about say, Limoges, then I go on eBay and instead of emailing a vendor (who may or may not be an expert) and waiting to hear back, I'm able to Skype people who the "eBay crowd" perceives as experts (based on ratings). eBay vendor/experts would be dispensing wisdom as well as (when appropriate) steering people to buy. Also, a list of daily Skype conference calls would be available on selected topics (with the eBay vendors as experts conducting the calls).
Posted by Mary Boone | October 5, 2007 11:14 PM
Posted on October 5, 2007 23:14