> And to keep making money in these markets — already a ridiculous $27 in ARPU for the last three months of 2017 — they need us to give more time and attention to them.
And that there is the Achilles' heel of both Google and Facebook: disrupting the attention market.
I've been having a debate with someone on this subject, and it prompted me to run a consumer survey asking people: "Thinking about free services (e.g., print, radio, TV, websites), do you like it when they sell your attention to advertisers?" Yes, No, Undecided.
Of 511 responses, only 6% liked having their attention sold. 68% dislike it, and 26% were on the fence.
Personally, I think there is a huge opportunity to re-invent the attention market. Until then, companies like Google and Facebook will keep stealing our attention and selling it to the highest bidder.
> How was Google making a living before advertising?
It wasn't. Every search engine at the time had struggled to make money. It wasn't until Google "borrowed" pay-per-click auction bidding from Overture that advertising became their focus.
I suspect they'd planned to roll out enterprise products. (You know - "the box" - like they did in Silicon Valley). That business started later (circa 2002):
BUT the ideas are easy. The problem is market testing each idea to see what works.
ProductHunt is going in the right direction - but unfortunately the products are already built with little or no market testing so I predict a high failure rate.
KickStarter is a nice way to see if there is some market demand, but also a high failure rate (55%) by people who lack the experience to execute.
It sounds like Andy Hunt has finally discovered ISO 9000. Plan. Implement. Measure. Review. Improve.
The pattern I keep seeing is the IT community's need to re-invent the wheel and give it names like 'agile', 'scrum', etc. Why can't people call a wheel a wheel?
I usually start by writing comments first in plain English based on a variation of psuedocode. That way I'm focused on process first without distraction. Comments are the plan. Clearly articulated steps like any good cookbook. Easy to translate into any language.
// 1. Write plain English psuedocode.
// 2. Translate into scary looking code blocks.
// 3. If maintaining, remember to update comments first (goto Step 1, then Step 2).
The irony is another developer once claimed that my code was generated by a machine. Apparently it was too methodical to be human. Like that was some excuse for him to write crappy code. Urgh! To be great at anything, you need to have excellent communication skills!
I rather view the internet as a party where everyone is invited. The social networks are the loud attention seekers yelling "look at how cool we are". People are wow'd and sucked in. The problem is, it's a keg party and the only way they've been able to monetize is to sell ads at their party. Once the ads go up, the venue is no longer cool and the party moves to a new venue.
Of course, there are other types of parties and my prediction is that quality is going to trump quantity in future networks. Who wants a keg party that sells advertising when the quality of the people I meet at a cocktail party could lead to new opportunities without advertising?
The next wave will build on social and actually generate real value. Therefore, it'll have a new name and it won't be Social 2.0 It'll be something entirely new that addresses that value.
And that there is the Achilles' heel of both Google and Facebook: disrupting the attention market.
I've been having a debate with someone on this subject, and it prompted me to run a consumer survey asking people: "Thinking about free services (e.g., print, radio, TV, websites), do you like it when they sell your attention to advertisers?" Yes, No, Undecided.
Of 511 responses, only 6% liked having their attention sold. 68% dislike it, and 26% were on the fence.
Personally, I think there is a huge opportunity to re-invent the attention market. Until then, companies like Google and Facebook will keep stealing our attention and selling it to the highest bidder.