February 12, 2008 at 19:09Facebook and others: fun or phenomenon?
This article was first published on the Intelligent Web and Enterprise 2.0 collective blog , where it was ranked “The Hackneyed.” Apparently, the ill-fated effect of the first comment worked again . Therefore, so that it does not gather dust there, I decided to transfer it to my personal blog. I will do the same with other notes for one reason or another not accepted by the Habrava public :).
- On the InfoWord blog, I came across an interesting note the other day. Her author compares today's teenage craze for social resources with the same old craze for parents of these teens with spinning hoops (Hula Hoop). The conclusion that he makes: everything, they say, comes and goes, and you do not need to make a trend out of hobby. This conclusion has a purely commercial background.
So far, the monetization of the social Internet has been going badly. And in favor of this statement, the author cites figures (eMarketer.com), the comparison of which few people previously paid attention to. It turns out that with an Internet advertising budget of $ 21.4 billion in 2007 and an estimated growth of up to $ 27.5 billion in 2008, advertising on the social web went in 2007. only $ 920 million (that is, only 4.3% of the total), and in 2008 the share of “social” in the total advertising pie will grow no more than to 5.7%.
And, despite the fact that this relatively small figure is almost completely absorbed by the well-known top ten sites of the social Internet, the leaders themselves are still very far from the success that their owners expected. The author cites the statements of both company executives and independent market researchers on this subject.
Referring also to the opinion of many reputable marketers, the author explains this disappointing phenomenon for the Web 2.0 economy by two factors. First, the advertiser realized that adolescents generally do not really pay attention to advertising, especially when it comes next to much more interesting “content” for them. Supporters of the “mulette strategy”, which I already talked about in my blog , also drew attention to the second factor [ 1 , 2]. Serious advertisers do not want to interfere with their ads next to often on the verge of foul “teenage” (and not only teenage) information.
Everything said by the author of the abstracted article, of course, is subject to deeper analysis. Personally, I agree with something more, with something less. However, in any case, there are several considerations that I want to share with you (the continuation of this note is in my iTech Bridge blog ).
- On the InfoWord blog, I came across an interesting note the other day. Her author compares today's teenage craze for social resources with the same old craze for parents of these teens with spinning hoops (Hula Hoop). The conclusion that he makes: everything, they say, comes and goes, and you do not need to make a trend out of hobby. This conclusion has a purely commercial background.
So far, the monetization of the social Internet has been going badly. And in favor of this statement, the author cites figures (eMarketer.com), the comparison of which few people previously paid attention to. It turns out that with an Internet advertising budget of $ 21.4 billion in 2007 and an estimated growth of up to $ 27.5 billion in 2008, advertising on the social web went in 2007. only $ 920 million (that is, only 4.3% of the total), and in 2008 the share of “social” in the total advertising pie will grow no more than to 5.7%.
And, despite the fact that this relatively small figure is almost completely absorbed by the well-known top ten sites of the social Internet, the leaders themselves are still very far from the success that their owners expected. The author cites the statements of both company executives and independent market researchers on this subject.
Referring also to the opinion of many reputable marketers, the author explains this disappointing phenomenon for the Web 2.0 economy by two factors. First, the advertiser realized that adolescents generally do not really pay attention to advertising, especially when it comes next to much more interesting “content” for them. Supporters of the “mulette strategy”, which I already talked about in my blog , also drew attention to the second factor [ 1 , 2]. Serious advertisers do not want to interfere with their ads next to often on the verge of foul “teenage” (and not only teenage) information.
Everything said by the author of the abstracted article, of course, is subject to deeper analysis. Personally, I agree with something more, with something less. However, in any case, there are several considerations that I want to share with you (the continuation of this note is in my iTech Bridge blog ).