Greg Verdino has thrown a thought-piece that addresses the issue of what happens when dynamic and exciting – but most importantly free – Web platforms (Facebook, Twitter, del.cio.us, etc.) start needing cold, hard, cash.
Verdino offers up two options that seem fairly accurate. One is that the “users pay with their money,” and the other is that “the users pay with their attention.”
The intention of his post is to engage a discussion through the comments section of this blog entry. So, we scanned the comments and found that, in general, the commenters:
- Would not mind ads at all on most of these sites, as most said they would ignore them/not click on them anynow;
- Or ask the users for money, perhaps on a sliding scale (one commenter called this move “ballsy”)
From an editorial perspective, it’s interesting to see the move towards an ad-supported world of Web publishing (as opposed to subscription-based, which it was in the past with print publications, which then moved into a combination subscription/advertiser-supported model.) The advertisers may continue to strengthen their position the more people rely on them – thus making it harder and harder to report on said advertisers.
But even Google seems to be having trouble making money off of all that free social media, with Wired reporting that it got “burned” by its MySpace deal:
“I don’t think we have the killer, best way to advertise and monetize the social networks yet,” said Google co-founder Sergey Brin, on a conference call in January. “Some of the things we worked on in fourth-quarter didn’t really pan out and there were some disappointments there.”
The alternative to “monetizing social networks” is, according to Andy Monfried, founder of Lotame:
“You can’t put up contextual ads against user-generated content,” Monfried says. “It’s irrelevant, and advertisers don’t want to risk their brands on user-generated content.”
In some ways, this speaks exactly to the point I was making yesterday in the far-ranging discussion with Giff of the Electric Sheep Company: in a world in which there is increasing self-expression, how do brands become a part of the expressive domain rather than unwanted interlopers? Tightening controls and making clients lighter, curating experiences, and integrating campaigns across platforms addresses the anxiety of advertisers about pull rates and brand equity, but it doesn’t necessarily address the deeper need to understand how companies might need to play and think different in a world in which there are fewer controls and more user-generated expression.
To answer your question: Beacons. Or as Seth Godin calls them, the purple cows. Reverse the idea of finding your market by advertising, make them find you by being remarkable (worth making a remark about).
If you haven’t read ‘Purple Cow’ (all though I suspect you have) I really really suggest you go out and buy this book.
Social Networks just map demand and demographics to effectively launch your beacons, and engage in the conversation with ’sneezers’ – People who will tell people about your brand.
The bottom line is create good, remarkable products that don’t need advertising, but can withstand the test of conversation, and are actually worth talking about. How many Google or Apple ads did you see or hear?
Digado – sure, I read Purple Cow. And the book in the box and the prize inside. And there’s something to it. On the other hand, let’s face it, some brands don’t MAKE remarkable products, and never will, and there will still be people who buy those products. Is a piece of crap plastic in Wal*Mart not worth something, to someone? Is the price point the thing you remark about? Or maybe its Wal*Mart itself that’s the beacon?
(I just don’t buy some of Seth’s marketing punditry. It’s way too cute, and just because he’s bald it doesn’t make him adorable or someone I want on the cover of my night stand reading.
)
But I sort of buy the beacon thing – but my take on it is that in addition to trying to create something remarkable, like an event, meme, piece of media, or experience, (even, say, around some iPhone imitator that’s less cool, less functional, but maybe cheaper) brand managers are still faced with the sad frustration that they can’t always deliver on the promise.
OR, they don’t have the budget.
In Seth’s world, there are no crap plastic products from Korea that were the dream of some VP of product development who absolutely needed to fill a hole in their product portfolio because the competition beat them to it.
What’s even harder, are products that are incremental improvements only.
It’s hard to argue that if you create great stuff, even great experiences AROUND a brand that it’s a better way of thinking about and getting out your brand message. But it’s also hard to argue that we still need something pragmatic and serviceable for all the mediocre companies that are the actual drivers of the economy.
Sure, I have 4-5 products in my life that I lusted after. But I also have 100 products that I barely remember I own. And THOSE brands, in the long run, are the fuel of the metaverse and otherwise…and they’re also the products that have advertising agencies sweating bullets. Because even a mediocre product can spend a little more on Google Adwords and suddenly have sales. And even a niche product can find its home in the Long Tail.
With all the focus on “best platforms” (Web-based, 2D, 3D, immersion) to help drive brand growth, we can’t forget that our marketing models shouldn’t just be built for BMW or Apple. Our solutions need to bridge to the poor product manager whose selling some new bar of soap whose main feature maybe is that it’s orange and 10 cents cheaper.
Purple Cows are great, but maybe the orange soap belongs out there in the Long Tail somewhere? Are they the same thing? Different?
Gosh.
I think I’ve just managed to confuse myself even more than usual. Better think about this some more and get back to ya!
Haha.