von Roland Hachmann | Jan 3, 2007 | Ad News, Blog, Digital Culture, Digital Marketing, Marketing, Online Advertising, SEO / SEA
Chris Anderson, who wrote “The Long Tail†looks at the question concerning most of the small longtail bloggers: Can you make money in the Long Tail? This post is interesting in itself, as it looks at the different participants of the long tail: producers, aggregators and consumers – and how each one might benefit from the long tail.
But: He also quotes a Valleywag blogpost in which a website owner is cited to complain about Google:
I’m beginning to have my doubts about Chris Anderson’s long tail, the proposition that cultural boutiques can make a living on the Internet. One disgruntled publisher complains she’s owed less than the minimum Google can be bothered to pay her. And, as fast as she makes money, Google lifts the threshold. [She writes:] “When I started with Adsense in late 2004/ early 2005 the minimum was $25. Just when was about to hit the $25 minimum, they raised it to $50. Now that I have $45 in my account, the minimum is $100. Granted, I have a site with very low traffic, but how many website owners are getting screwed by Google? If the long-tail theory holds out, there could be millions of dollars of unpaid Google ads.â€
I can see where this website owner is coming from. I wonder, how much money Google earns with the money they centrally collect from advertisers (I assume, there is no threshold) and invest at, well, 5%-10% on any capital market. It will only be a few dollars each, but the sum of all the blogs probably results in big money.
I guess we have no way of imagining the amount of money one can make by deploying the long tail market. But someone at Google knew and implemented the threshold of payments. Very clever.
von Roland Hachmann | Dez 8, 2006 | Ad News, Blog, SEO / SEA
I don’t understand the spammers. Why would they spam me and include a URL for Google? This is what I just found (and what Akismet missed, unfortunately):
HI! I’ve have similar topic at my blog! Please check it..
Thanks.
[url=http://www.google.com][/url]
there was no other URL in the whole spam comment. I don’t assume that Google would comment spam blogs (if they need a higher pagerank, well, they’d know what to do), so who did this and why? Can anyone enlighten me?
von Roland Hachmann | Dez 6, 2006 | Ad News, Blog, Digital Marketing, Digital News, Online Advertising
Marketers Websites attract more eyeballs than other media, according to AdAge:
Believe it or not, those boring corporate websites are pulling in more eyeballs — and more influencers — than the flashy prime time TV shows, print magazines and general interest sites on which marketers advertise.
In figures, to be precise:
Yet the websites of P&G and Unilever now reach nearly 6 million and 3 million unique visitors, respectively, in the U.S. each month, according to ComScore Media Metrix.
But it’s not only about more eyeballs, these eyeballs are also quite interesting for marketers, as they are usually influencers, or at least people who actively engage with the brand in considerable numbers.
Their engagement with corporate and brand sites is well above the norm for the general population. „Visitors to [corporate and brand] websites have a much higher propensity to recommend products,“ said Pete Blackshaw, chief marketing officer of Nielsen Buzzmetrics, whose research shows more than 40% of people who give a brand e-mail feedback are likely to recommend it to others.
Much of it is derived from „regular“ online Advertising:
Much of the traffic to the big package-goods marketers‘ sites appears to be coming the way originally envisioned in the online advertising model: as a response to online display advertising. Search-heavy Google accounts for a relatively small amount of traffic to the P&G and Unilever sites compared with display-ad-heavy Yahoo
That doesn’t surprise me at all, since most of P&Gs and Unilevers products are FMCG, for which I assume users usually don’t search much. Or if people do search for these kind of things, then the FMCG companies haven’t found the right way to effectively keyword advertise.
von Roland Hachmann | Nov 28, 2006 | Blog, Digital Culture, Digital News
PSFK lists the top 10 Viral Videos, at least according to the Times Online.
They are:
1 Star Wars Kid (viewed 900 million times)
2 Numa Numa (700m)
3 One Night in Paris (400m)
4 Kylie Minogue: Agent Provocateur (360m)
5 Exploding Whale (350m)
6 John West Salmon Bear Fight (300m)
7 Trojan Games (300m)
8 Kolla2001 (200m)
9 AfroNinja (80m)
10 The Shining Redux (50m)
I must admit I hadn’t seen most of these. And I just wonder, how „The Viral Factory“ measured these figures?
Interesting is one reaction of TV companies:
Television companies, losing viewers to the net, are now launching channels to show “viral videos�.
And apparently they need to react, since:
A BBC Online survey has found that the online video craze is eating into the time that young people spend watching television, with 43 per cent of those who watch video from the internet or on a mobile device at least once a week saying they now watch less normal television as a result.
von Roland Hachmann | Nov 19, 2006 | Ad News, Blog, Digital Marketing, Digital News, Online Advertising
Jason Calacanis writes about the „real story“ of Advertising 2.0:
The real story of Web 2.0 has little to do with the bells and whistles and everything to do with the stunning growth of online advertising.
He provides a graph with online ad spent per year since 1997 and puts a straight line from ’97 until today, which is, of course, a steep, straight line. (I hope he doesn’t analyse his real money investments the same way!)
He also doesn’t think that the spike over the past year is another bubble, but instead says that the curve is just getting steeper in future, for the following reasons:
a) there are more advertisers online today.
b) it’s getting easier to spend money online
c) Google Adsense/Adwords (a huge part of part B above)
d) Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Google reaching scale, which in turn allows major advertisers to reach comparable audience sizes to TV
e) audiences shifting from TV, radio, and magazines to the Internet.
All of these seem plausible. Of course one might say: „we thought the same back then in 2000, just for different reasons“, but Jason also shows a second graph with a line ca. 15% less steep, which still is impressive. He suggests to believe the long-term hype and I agree.
Growth rates are probably going to be huge for while. Not necessarily because the medium is more attactive than others (though I think it is at least for some purposes), but purely because there still is a long way to go, until the medium is an everyday medium like the other media – both for the broad audience and for marketers.
(via)
Wo ich sonst so bin...