Thursday, April 27, 2006
Nintendo down?
Looks like Nintendo is having server problems. Big update coming? E3?
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Does Ajax mean less revenue for Google?
There is an interesting discussion going on around the web about how Google’s (and other Web 2.0 companies') streamlined approach to design and use of Ajax tools to decrease number of page views may actually be hurting their revenue growth. The basic idea being that having more page views means showing more ads which means making more money. Ajax means less page views (and quicker sessions) and so therefore is a bad thing (even if it helps you get bigger market share).
Here is an excerpt:
I must say I disagree. Having fewer page reloads doesn't mean lost earnings.
As I see it, only advertising breaks down into two categories:
The reason Yahoo, MSN, and Google continue to dump fistfuls of cash into search marketing and advertising networks is because the work. They convert and a very traceable price and the growth is almost unanticipatable. This won’t end the demand by advertisers to have billboards along the side of the road or banners hovering over profiles on MySpace, but value ads are a heck of a lot more valuable. Think about it, would you rather buy a visitor who thought the girl on your banner was sexy? Or wouldn’t you prefer to buy someone who just looked up your product in a search engine?
The only problem is that there are a limited number of people who are looking for what you have to sell at any given time. But there are a seemingly endless number of people chatting or trying to make friends on social networks who glance at the banner at from time to time.
Here is an excerpt:
We've looked at ten different ideas for AJAX and we've decided to keep all the AJAX on the publisher side of the business and 'force' the users to deal with page reloads so we can make (or not lose) money.
I must say I disagree. Having fewer page reloads doesn't mean lost earnings.
As I see it, only advertising breaks down into two categories:
| Value | Exposure | |
| Model | Show paid ads to a user who area already interested by virtue of their search | Show ads to a network of users in order to increase interest in product or service |
| Featured Networks | MySpace | |
| Featured Advertisers | E-Commerce, Lead Generation | Movie Launches, Brand-conciece |
| Featured Advertisers | E-Commerce, Lead Generation | Movie Launches, Brand-conscience |
| Real World Equivalent | Walmart | Clear Channel |
The reason Yahoo, MSN, and Google continue to dump fistfuls of cash into search marketing and advertising networks is because the work. They convert and a very traceable price and the growth is almost unanticipatable. This won’t end the demand by advertisers to have billboards along the side of the road or banners hovering over profiles on MySpace, but value ads are a heck of a lot more valuable. Think about it, would you rather buy a visitor who thought the girl on your banner was sexy? Or wouldn’t you prefer to buy someone who just looked up your product in a search engine?
The only problem is that there are a limited number of people who are looking for what you have to sell at any given time. But there are a seemingly endless number of people chatting or trying to make friends on social networks who glance at the banner at from time to time.
