Neurological study: Bad websites causing ‘web-stress’

Bad designed websites and slow loading times are causing ‘web stress’ for internet users. This is the result of a new neurological study by CA in cooperation one of the leading customer experience and consultancy consulting firms Foviance. The study even shows that bad websites have a negative effect on the users health.

During the study, which was conducted at the Glasgow Caledonian University, volunteers (eight women and five men between the age of 25 and 42 years) were wired up to sophisticated neurological and physiological testing equipment (incl. an Electroencephalography cap) which was used to monitor brain wave activity. The volunteers carried out a series of everyday online tasks such as finding and buying a laptop PC and travel insurance. During the test the internet connection was slowed down to increase the stress factor.

With the generated data, CA and Foviance found the two most stressful points of the online sales cycle which caused a high level of ‘web-stress’: search and checkout. Although the volunteers completed the purchase, more than three quarters of customers will abandon the site in reality. And it took the volunteers up to a minute to recover from that ‘web stress’.

This result corresponds with CAs Web Stress Index study. In 2009 CA interviewed 2500 consumers. The key finding was that slow loading websites were a frustrating experience for 92% of the repondents. No wonder that volunteers in the experiment were leaving bad websites, or wanted to call the company’s hotline

“The results of this study sends out a clear message – businesses need to reduce ‘web stress’ and improve the online experience of their customers if they’re going to maximise returns from their web channel” (…) It’s not just about website design or internet connection speeds – the performance of a website is dependent on the performance of the web applications that support it. Businesses need an Application Performance Management (APM)** solution which not only provides real insight into how customers are experiencing their web applications, but will proactively manage the performance and availability of these applications. This translates into better customer service, improved brand loyalty and increased sales.”
Kobi Korsah, Director, EMEA Product Marketing, CA

And Foviance adds…

“Consumers have very high expectations of web applications and web sites – to be always available and instantly responsive. This experiment simulated the experience of underperforming web applications for our volunteers. The results show that when online expectations aren’t met, people quickly become agitated, confused and have to concentrate 50% more than normal. All these problems can be detected and prevented as long as businesses take a proactive approach to measuring the customer’s experience of web applications.”
Catriona Campbell, Director and Founder, Foviance and leading behavioural psychologist

Spot On!
In the summer of 2009, Akamai already revealed that 2 seconds is the new threshold of acceptability for eCommerce websites response times. The study showed that 40% of consumers won’t wait more than 3 seconds for a web page to load before leaving the site. This study by CA and Foviance makes this clear again: Corporations should have a close testing eye on the essential features (loading time for search and checkout) in order not to affect online shopping revenues. Especially if you bear in mind that online retail is predicted to grow to 320 billion EUR in 2011. More information can be found in this video on the CA study.

2010: Online ROI – a challenge for companies

The solution to the following question is complex: How should companies measure online ROI in future? In times of display, affiliate and search advertising the measure of success has been kept very simple. Page impressions, clicks, leads, sales – that was it. With the evolution of social media the topic of online measurement has become more complex.

In the Pre-Web 2.0 era, there was a formula that has put everything else into the shadows. It was based on the clic. Obviously still many CMOs see this as the crucial measurement factor of their online activities. The click was considered the basis of the digital marketing manifesto.

The formula of the previous online ROI went something like this…

Page impressions and clicks to convert click-through rate that generates leads and ultimately (hopefully) sales.

And this formula also corresponded to the value in the online marketing of cost-per-mile (CMP), cost-per-click (CPC), cost-per-lead (CPL), cost-per-sale (CPO). Simple, clear, pragmatic.

Marketers were satisfied, the sales man less (mostly) due to inferior leads and associated fluctuating revenues. There was a lack of transparency. The management is considered to be overstretched. 2010 everything will be different.

In 2009, the main German association for publishers and buyers, the IVW, killed the power of the page impression, the visit is the ‘Golden Surfer’ from now on. An English study by the Online Publishers Association (OPA) is following suit and strengthens the effectiveness of the ’silent click’ and the value of the context.

Moreover Eyeblaster invents, and especially Dean Donaldson promotes this, the Dwell Time. Efficiency measurement of web activity becomes a challenge for companies. And if we take it to the top companies do need an eye-movement study to measure the time-based attention, the way we know it from the print era (similar to copy-test).

Another challenge is that there are numerous social media activities added, and here we are looking for a reliable measurement method to justify the expenses. In Germany the Association of Social Media and Social Media is quickly introducing a new currency: share of voice or share of buzz. A conceptually coherent model , but in practice is questionable in its feasibility, management and marketing relevance. A similar measure as the CTR won’t be found in the social media industry, probably still for a long time. Probably not even 2010…

Let’s illustrate the complexity of measuring social media ROI at a viral campaign, the buzz generated by social media coverage and results. Previously, the click was relevant. It was a unique short-term assessment without measurement of long-term effect. With the ended of the campaign the measurement time was over. Whether the click came from the desired target group of bookers ranked in it’s relevance secondary.

In a viral campaign, however, due to the target-transparency, the question of efficiency measurement is completely different. All these values are quite different in context and only win in their semantic and concluding statement its relevance for the advertiser.

Questions arise such as …

How much time commitment gives the user his social activities and the commitment to the company?
How do I rate detailed comments on blogs, micro-blogs or social networks?
How to evaluate an Re-Tweet in this context?
From whom are the comments and actions coming?
How does buzz spread via this person and to whom?
How relevant is the target audience about the distribution for the advertisers?
How to integrate ratings in the measurement methog on video- or evaluation platforms?
What about the statements that I can not even see, because a front door at Social Networks is obstructing my access to the results?

Without individual-subjective definion of measuring units, each company, every Social Media ROI measurement is worthless, and social media marketing measurement fortiori. The metric must be defined in the relevant context of the desired outcome best possible – in other words the individual needs of the corporate strategy or intention of each social media activity has to be adjusted from case to case. Increase in visits to the website? Generation of Fans or Followers? Couponing on a community? Knowledge on brand confessions obtained? Or actually generate online sales?

Each profile of an active social median, its social graph, in its sustainability and its recommended value of inside and outside “of his” social community has different weight. Determine where the true relevant measurement is the responsibility of the advertiser. At the Webcific I have called the new monetary views as “cost-per-commitment” to provide the relativity of the word in question and to make clear the relevance of the word, but for the future.

Commitment begins with the communication to customers and does not stop when clients order at the company’s shop. However, maintaining the commitment of campaign spending via email or traditional online activities still is essential. As customers loyalty runs outside the social media spheres, too. Defining commitment as a measure of social media may be based different on the company blog than on Facebook or Twitter.

A crucial factor in the social web is always forgotten: Traditional marketing campaigns have a beginning and an end. That’s when Social Web communication starts…

The CPI formula in times of social web might be …

Reach and engagement convert to social activities that lead to multipliers, and (probably generate) revenues from sales.

The future of online ROI measurement should be driven on the basis of how much communication output must a company deliver through a variety of social media, until the customers brand promise is gaining credibility and creates customer communications. This leads to commitment, which I have just referred to as “social activities” that need to be defined. They are the drivers of the talks for the multiplication of messages from the public relations, marketing and sales department.

Spot On!
Measuring the Social Web ROI is a long term process. Metrics from shares, posts, comments, ratings or Tweets replace the old click-metric. For the new metrics remain the web’s property, thanks to social search integration. Communication is dynamic and it may be that the pure bookmark result of yesterday, generates many social activities and conversations tomorrow.
Who dominates social communication that generates brand-vangelist peers (as I always like to call it). From anonymous platforms users become now fans, followers, blog readers and community members. They all have names that are transparent, a huge advantage of today’s web-talks. In the decisive moment, when they start participating in the discussing companies can find important multipliers of the message of a brand or a company, and therefore define important parameters. But companies should remember that communication can take place anywhere and adjust according to their web strategy. This modern weaving culture should incorporate engagement metrics or policies between sales and marketing. Otherwise, the effort of monitoring, measuring, analyzing is worth nothing, and will not meet the result of the challenge of 2010.

IBM study: The end of advertising is near – as we know it…

Sometimes studies come back too late. When I was the host of the dmexco social media panel ‘Show me the money – effective ways to advertise’, I would have loved to talk about these study results.

IBM did a global study where more than 2.400 consumers and 80 advertising experts were asked about how they think the advertising world is changing. And they start their presentation of the study with the following words…

The next 5 years will hold more change for the advertising industry than the previous 50 did. Increasingly empowered consumers, more self-reliant advertisers and ever-evolving technologies are redefining how advertising is sold, created, consumed and tracked. Our research points to four evolving future scenarios – and the catalysts that will be driving them. Traditional advertising players – broadcasters, distributors and advertising agencies – may get squeezed unless they can successfully implement consumer, business model and business design innovation.

Why is this study so interesting? Well, there are different topics to talk about. Companies are shifting budgets more and more to the digital world – and not only in the States. But we also know that social media is on the rise. But what we do not know is, how to define the budgets that marketers spend with social media. Are these called advertising dollars – and will these be called the same way in the future? Will these advertising dollars be moving into PR budgets?

Why PR budgets? Because social media is all about the dialogue – the antithesis of a monologue like advertising. Social media is more, it is even a multilogue (company to customers and customers amongst customers). And this is how IBM argues the change…

Attention: The consumer are in control of the sales process. They define the way they receive, perceive and appreciate advertising.

Creativity: The value of advertising comes from the new ‘digital natives’ that create content for their peers, work with new ad revenue-sharing models (e.g., YouTube, Crackle, Current TV) – all based on new technology. The professional does not rule the process, it will be the semis.

Measurement: Mass reach gets replaced by a new wave customers demanding more individual-specific and involvement- based measurements.

Advertising space: In the ad sales process the Traditional intermediaries will be made redundant by efficient exchanges

Spot On!
A lot of interesting (and researched) thesis that might become true for the future of the advertising industry. One thing is for sure: Advertising is a one way street – not a dialogue. The company wants the customers – who decides himself if he wants to be addressed by the ad. The truth is that we do more sales by talking to each other, right? Social media will become the new form of lead generation, and lead generation is based on customer service (not on clicks!) which is the basis of building trust – formerly generated via advertising.

Nevertheless, TV did not kill the radio star. But can social media kill the advertising industry?

Hey, Twitter wants to make money…

Some month ago, Twitter founder Biz Stone told us that he sees ‘tools not ads for revenue”, planning with commercial accounts for the future. And in this Reuter article he announces to start with monetization efforts by the end of the year. Now, he seems to realign his monetization strategy…

Now, after having changed their Twitter terms and conditions last night, it seems that Twitter introduced a new system of rules as well as more options for advertisers, users and Twitter itself. It seems as if they are preparing their monetization

In his post, Stone makes three changes that will have important relevance to the new Twitter monetization strategy:

1. Advertising
Twitter has the right to book advertisements, meaning to place ads on Twitter pages – if in streams or just on the background is not quite clear yet. The terms and conditions were changed accordingly. To some respect this is quite surprising as Stone mentioned some months ago that advertising is not his prior interest for monetization. He also said that it gets on users nerves and none of his employers has a deep insight in the advertising industry.

2. Ownership
Twitter is clever and starts a smooth approach towards changing the terms and conditions on this point – not like Facebook that got flagged by their users when doing so. But in terms of advertising, there is a big point in it. Although the tweets belong to the account-holders, Twitter takes the right “to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).” This gives Twitter a good starting point for targeted advertising opportunities which might become part of their monetization strategy.

3. Spam
Spam is out and -with the introduction of the new terms and conditions- officially forbidden! This is big change for the spam account holders. We all know that there are some of these spam accounts in our follower list and if we clear it up, we might loose probably 10-20% of our follower list. but who does it once he/she is over 1000 followers? So, if your company sends advertising messages to dead spam bots, you should be more careful from now on. Sanctions against spam could become expensive and won’t be positive for the reputation of your business. And it is not allowed to sell followers (probably as of the uSocial business). All sanctions resulting in a permanent-ban.

Spot On!
What does all this mean? Twitter wants to make money. Hey, who is surprised? The whole bloggosphere has been wondering why they did not do this earlier. Who expected something different? Tweets will be shorter (100 words instead of 140?) as ads need some space to create a message. And a lot of people will unsubscribe and wait for the next big revolution.

What is your view? Will you kill your Twitter account just because a media business is trying to make money? Will you be advertising on Twitter once they have a business model for it?

The virtual dollar – the future of web monetization?

According to a survey by the market analyst firm Frank N. Magid, the market for virtual goods will grow in 2009 to a volume of 1,8 mio. dollars. One out of ten Americans has spent real money in return for virtual goods in 2008. And we are not talking about pennies like in the advertising industry. The people that have spend money for virtual goods said they have invested up to 100 US dollars or more. The average invest is somewhere at 30 US dollars.

No surprise: The group around ‘Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games’ (MMORPG) is the most willing target group for virtual goods. Nearly half of this group of ‘gamers’ spent money for levels or items. Another quite obvious target group is the iphone user who spends money for apps (28%) and the members of social networks (27%).

One of the biggest success stories for virtual goods is probably China and their popular social network Tencent’s which has a special focus on virtual goods and its power on monetization. And if we look at the gaming industry, we can also find Internet Gaming Entertainment that is doing well in offering virtual goods services to collect and receive new game levels and items.

If it is Facebook selling virtual presents like nice flowers, beer glasses or kisses in the format of an icon for one dollar. Or let’s say the social network Hi5 with their casual games section. Money becomes virtual coins and you can easily spend it for a game of dart or for a video wall in your own virtual room on Smeet. Or let’s think about Second Life that is selling virtual ground in a virtual world for real hard dollars and some years ago made Ailin Gräf rich. She became a real-estate tycoon on Second Life – and thus, she became rich in the offline world.

Spot On!
This all reminds me of the good old Tamagotchi days. We were taking care of and feeding virtual animals in order to keep them alive. I am asking myself if this is a possible business model for social networks. You can buy your personalized virtual Tamagotchi and place that on your Facebook account, your iphone or your HTC mobile. So, everybody in your social network can see how you care about your ‘best friend’ – and how open you are to the virtual dollar…

Hey, why don’t we have that virtual Tamagotchi already?

Let me know how you see the future of virtual goods. And may be you want to share some ideas that would be really thrilling for companies to think about. Curious what will be coming up with…

Is Twitter a sales tool?

In a lot of talks and meetings with clients I am asked if Twitter is a sales tool. Now, what would you say? The university professor might answer with a Solomonic answer: “Well, it depends how you see it…”. Being a member of the Twitterati it is one of these questions where you have to hold on to your horses in order not to be too excited. The best answer is probably: “Yes, it is… and No, it is not!”…

The why for “Yes, it is”…
Looking at the latest development in the “Twittersphere” it can be said that the micro-blogging service can be used as a push tool for sales promotions meant to generate an upside in revenue. The best examples are accounts from companies like Dell (selling re-furbished IT for 3 mio. USD), Threadless (selling shirts – no numbers released yet) or Zappos (selling shoes – no numbers released yet).

Although we don’t know see any revenue figures of Threadless or Zappos, seeing the follower numbers alone offers the option to sell through the indirect way to this new “distribution list” by keeping up the conversation with new thoughts and ideas gathering engagement – or direct via ‘extraordinary’ offers. Just take a look at my sales statistic or metric, I summarized on the Dell Outlet account and you can evaluate your sales options.

Especially, the aviation industry has used the power of pushing their offers through this new media channel – thus uplifting their revenue figures. Some airlines like JetBlue (called “JetBlueCheeps“) and United Airlines (“twares”) offer cheap seats Twitter sales promotion programs (also for unsold tickets). The companies push their announcements via Twitter and the user -hopefully- listens to their Tweets and needs exactly the route offered.

In Germany Lufthansa has also started with sales promotions via Twitter – and obviously after this test the worldwide Twitter offering is “coming soon”.

The PRO view…
Yes, Twitter is a sales tool as there is no limit in terms of target-group, industry sector, the costs of the product or the product and service itself. Use it as a sales tool if you think your customers or your desired target-group is open-minded, loves last-minute offers or is ready to be engaged via social media.

The why for “No, it is.”
Nevertheless, the way how companies use Twitter to address their target-group with their sales promotions appears like some kind of old “watering can” marketing principle. Is this really time-to-market sales? Can this be called “targeting” which is the modern form of receiving sales promotions? One thing is for sure: Forecasting on such sales push activities is nearly impossible… the proof is in the test. But: once started, there is no way out. Sales promotions on Twitter are relying on the “hope” factor by offering an additional sales channel called “SomeTwitterAccountByOurCompany”.

And sales strategies go against the means of social media anyway. Sales philosophy is “We know what you want and here is your customized offer!” – social media is “We listen, learn and share what our customers want to buy from us!”.

From the airline examples we can learn that the offer is not just positive extra media promotion. It is limited in its sales power in a way that consumers need to be flexible and last-minute offer driven. Sounds a bit like the ebay way of selling…

So, Twitter sales promotions are relying on the “hope” factor by offering an additional sales channel called Twitter account. Some follow as they are just listening to the company or product development, some as they learn from the tweets and some as they want to share common knowledge. Not all followerrs really want to buy something. You are in good company when your company does not want to aggressively buy followers in order to go down the good old spam route.

The CON view…
No, Twitter is not a sales tool but more a customer service tool with the positive side-effect that you can sell indirect by giving good service, helping your customers and solving their problems in real-time. Don’t use it when you think your customers are bound to traditional cliches, rarely take the advantage of accepting fast shopping opportunities and don’t know what social media can do for them.

Spot On!
Generally speaking… – From a followers point of view (in this case meaning customers), there is a positive argument about Twitter sales promotions: Interested customers will follow (=read) the sales push tweet – uninterested won’t, they will ignore it. And customers don’t even have to delete the message like a spam mail. It is dying with the followers timelife stream…

Advice
The Critical question to ask are… Do we have a long-time social media strategy or do we just want to “drive” a short-time sales push? What have we done in the past to push our sales revenues? What worked out well? I am sure, if you ask yourself these questions, some more questions on your web strategy in terms of sales achievements will follow…

Am I right…?

Is this a social media (mis-)interpretation by an airline?

Now, that I have joined the social media circle of people who like the general principles of the -well how can we name it- new movement, I have a questions…

Is social media still social media for businesses? And in order to be clear what social media really means in a common sense, I double-checked the “communities voice” about the term – on wikipedia…

“Social media is a shift in how people discover, read and share news, information and content; it’s a fusion of sociology and technology, transforming monologues (one to many) into dialogues (many to many) and is the democratization of information, transforming people from content readers into publishers.”

When I see the latest development and how business care about the rules and principles of social media, it is a valid post to rethink what companies are doing here. One of the latest examples made me write this post…

The new American Airlines (AA) campaign
The airline launched a social media campaign last month in order to get their Facebook fan page above the 10.000 AA fans figure for New York. The benefit for “friends” is to offer an exclusive promotion via this fan page. The campaign is pushed via their Twitter account as well.

Is this social media – a shift in how people discover, read and share news, information and content? Yes, it is because years ago, people flying American Airlines were used to receive news and information via frequent flier programs. The way information is distributed is different in terms of the media that is being used.

Well however… Is this Facebook relationship, friendship or whatever it may be between brand and customer (if it is a fusion of anything at all…) the new form of social loyalty with a brand? What’s the difference then between a paying customer and a Facebook fan, the airline could have asked itself? And what is one worth compared to the other? Does this second loyalty program idea make any sense when I have a perfect customer loyalty system in place?

Or is this just another nice domino promotion idea? Another push method to generate new frequent fliers, or interest in the airline, or just another uplift in sales figures to make share holders happy?

From a marketing perspective, it is just a modern way of gathering distribution lists without the use of the good old email marketing method. Clever managers and companies use Facebook today to get access to different new users via Facebook. Or via Twitter like Dell, making it a well-organized sales funnel with the appearance of a customer service desk. And some simply get in touch with an Australian company and buy Twitter followers.

In some way, the meaning of social media communities is misinterpreted and transformed to sales channels. Is this really democratization of information and communication? Or just using new communication media channels for old sales and marketing techniques?

Installing a “many to many” communication from a business perspective is a challenge. The American Airline campaign is following the good old “one to many” way of corporate communication. Isn’t the term “campaign” already denying social media? And if a company sends out a press release to promote this “campaign”, it is even more the traditional way of corporate communication in my eyes.

The good examples of using social media according to the social media definition can be seen at Dell’s Ideastorm, Adidas Facebook fan page or the My Starbucks idea community … . People talk, create products, brand and customer listens and learns from each other, and they all share information and content.

It is the hand-in-hand dialogue between brand and customer – not the old-fashioned way of R&D economics “We create, you buy!”.

And not the idea of democratizing an open customer service hotline for unhappy customers…

Spot On!
Are these (mis-)interpretations happening because there exist so many “highly-rated” social media experts? Or do companies not know how to work with social media the “proper” way? Or do business just take care of their revenues and figures for share holders value – and make mistakes with the use of social media tools? Or social media is just a dream that has not been facing the real business world? I don’t know is the answer…

Maybe you have an answer?

Burda & Google – Revolution der Web-Monetarisierung?

Die Revolution bei der Monetarisierung des Web ist in vollem Gange…

Begonnen hat die Revolution schon letzte Woche. Die IVW enthauptet das Vermarktungsmanifest des Internets, die Page Impression, als wegweisende Grundlage zur Monetarisierung der Reichweite und als traditionelles Messkriterium der Medien.

Die zweite Revolutionswelle kommt nun diese Woche. Der Großverleger Hubert Burda legt sich mit dem Webgiganten Google an. Er beklagt die schleichende Enteignung der Verleger durch den Suchmaschinenriesen sowie überproportionale Profitgier an den Inhalten der Verlage. Oder ist das alles nur die bange Voraussicht, die aus der ersten Revolutionswelle entsteht?

Es geht mal wieder um den Lieblingsspruch aller Verleger Content is key!. ‘Googlet’ man diesen, ist das Ergebnis ist erschreckend: Das Suchfenster liefert mir als bestes Suchergebnis einen Link aus 2005 (!). Irgendwie frage ich mich, wieso man da Google an die Geldbörse will…

Also macht man sich seine eigenen Gedanken als ‘Verleger’…

Wie kommt Herr Professor Burda auf diesen Gedanken?
Vor rund 10 Jahren stehen alle Zeichen des Wachstums für Verleger auf Online Advertising (basierend auf Page Impressions). Print ist Online, wie eine Anzeige ein Banner. Dann kommen Affiliate-Programme. Für Verlage willkommene Add-Ons, die man gerne der Umsatzzeile hinzu addiert. Das Ärgernis: Mit ihnen hält Performance Einzug in die Online-Werbewelt.

Auf dem damaligen wie heutigen Affiliate-System basiert vermutlich die Burdasche Philosophie: Plattformen (=Verleger) nehmen Preissuchmaschinen, Meinungsportale oder Serviceanbieter (=Partner, die Werbende für Werbende sind) an Board und versuchen möglichst viele User dazu zu bewegen, über diese integrierten Inhalte Erlöse für den Partner zu erzielen, an denen man selbst als Plattformanbieter dann mitverdient. So wie Google das eben mit Adsense macht. Nur lässt man die Plattformanbieter nicht mitverdienen.

Und dann explodierte Search als die Wunderwaffe – und schnell wird Search mit Google gleich gesetzt, die heute den Online-Werbemarkt anführen.

Wer hilft hier jetzt wem?
Google ist aktiv – für den Verleger. Man stellt eine gute Plattform, von der die Verleger profitieren. Sie dient als Zugangsmultiplikator für den Content der Verlage. Immer vorausgesetzt, Verlage haben ihre Hausaufgaben gemacht. Will heißen, qualitativen Content produziert, weil in gute Content-Produzenten investiert. Nur Abschreiben fällt auf, ist ineffizient, wird in Google schlecht bewertet und ‘gerankt’.

Der Verleger hat es also selbst aktiv in der Hand, wo und wie häufig sein Content in den Suchergebnissen so erscheint, daß sich auch möglichst viele User zahlreich auf Verleger-Webseiten einfinden.

Und der Verleger hat einen klaren Vorsprung: Als langjähriger, professioneller “Content-Creator” weiß er, wie man Inhalte hochwertig macht, wo die Zielgruppen sind und was die Werbenden wollen. Zumindest hat die Werbeindustrie das über Jahrzehnte angenommen. Ein Irrglaube?

Wenn Google eine solche Macht hat, ist die Frage, wie hochwertig der Content der führenden Verlagshäuser denn nun wirklich ist. Oder ist der Wissensvorsprung inzwischen geschmolzen, seit es die Blogger den Verlagshäusern gleich machen und teilweise mehr investigativen Journalismus leben als die traditionellen Publisher.

Zumal frägt man sich, ob man bei Burda, ebenso wie so mancher andere Großverlag, nicht in SEM und SEO Massnahmen (u.a. vor allem bei Google) investiert hat? Hat man damit Google nicht erst seine Wichtigkeit für den Online-Werbemarkt vor Augen geführt?

Google selbst verhält sich passiv hinsichtlich seiner Monetarisierungsoptionen. Denn nur wenn ein Kunde sich neben einem für ihn relevanten Suchwort platziert, ein User nach diesem sucht und bei den Suchergebnissen dieses anklickt, gibt es für Google Geld. Das sind viele Schritte zur bezahlten Performance, bis sich Monetarisierung einstellt. Verlage haben sich vor Jahren auf das Spiel eingelassen und mit ähnlichen Modellen nachgezogen.

Und jetzt will Google auch noch Performance-basierte Produktanzeigen Modelle aufsetzen. Google findet viele Wege zur Monetarisierung und macht es sich selbst schwer Geld zu verdienen. Soll aber dafür jetzt auch noch zahlen…

Bei allen Monetarisierungsmodellen steht fest: Ohne Content kommt mal gar kein Geld in die Kassen – auch bei Google nicht.

Nun beklagt sich Burda, daß ihm der “Monopolist der Traffic- und User-Lieferanten” einen sehr dankbaren Dienst erweist. Schließlich verweist Google seine User ja nur auf -mal mehr, mal weniger- hochwertigen Content, mit dem die Verleger über Display- und Affiliate-Werbung Umsätze generieren.

Und Google spart dabei auch größtenteils die Bloggosphäre mit einer eigenen Blog-Suchmaschine aus. Somit positioniert Google die Großverleger, wie z.B. Burda, noch vor die Konkurrenz der ‘kleinen’ Content-Produzenten. Sprich: Google klassifiziert die potentielle Treffergenauigkeit vor, segmentiert Suchergebnisse nach Wertigkeit und honoriert den qualitativen Verlagsjournalismus. Google hält also auf diese Weise viele Bloginhalte dem Werbemarkt fern und macht die Ergebnisse von Großverlagen schneller auffindbar. Monetarisierung findet von Google in der Googlesuche nicht einmal statt…

Spot On!
Irgendwie erinnert einen das Szenario zwischen Google und Hubert Burda an einen uns allen bekannten Spruch aus dem Zauberlehrling: “Die ich rief, die Geister, / Werd’ ich nun nicht los.” Denn eine ganze Zeit lang hat man die Umsätze durch AdSense gerne verbucht. Eine Lösung heute gibt es nicht…

Es sei denn die Verleger setzen sich zusammen und machen ihren Content nur noch bedingt zugänglich: Nicht mittels Nichtauffinbarkeit des Content durch Löschung der robot.txt Dateien von Google, sondern durch die einheitliche Einführung von Paid Content.

Die finale Frage ist doch: Was passiert, wenn der hochwertige Verleger-Content aus den Google Suchergebnissen verschwindet, weil nur noch Content angeteasert wird, oder ganz verschwindet? Wenn die großen Verleger gleichzeitig Google den Content-Hahn abdrehen und ihre Inhalte nur noch gegen Bezahlung lesbar machen?

Dann entscheidet sich ob…
… Google die Verleger braucht, oder die Verleger Google
… der Verleger-Content wirklich qualitativ hochwertig ist
… die Bloggosphäre vom Verleger-Content ‘profitiert’
… Abo-Modelle für Verleger im Internet funktionieren
… und welches Business von welchem anderen profitiert.

Gehen die Verlage diesen -zugegeben mutigen Schritt- nicht, bleibt Burdas Illusion bestehen, daß Google die Verleger am Erlösmodell partizipieren lassen muß.

News Update – Best of the Day

Google’s is working on a new ad model to expand their revenue stream to performance-based advertising – not pay-pay-click is billed anymore. The new model is pay-per-sale, meaning, only when the person purchases the item through the ad activity Google takes the money from the advertisers.

Facebook affors a new life stream tool. In their Facebook blog the concept of the new Facebook ‘Live Stream Box’ is featured as…

“…any website owner or developer can use to enable Facebook users to connect, share, and post updates in real-time as they witness an event online. You can run the Live Stream Box next to live streaming videos of concerts, speeches, sporting events, webcasts, TV shows, presentations, or webinars.”

Social media offers non-profits a great opportunity. It is no secret anymore that WWF is using social media in a big way (see also my partner box, right hand side). Josh Catone wrote a summary on their activity and shows some interesting examples how ‘WWF is using social media for good’. The sake of our world lies in the hands of the people who live on it. Social media is used by WWF to emotionalize critical topics with a smile on the face. But it is engaging, sharing valuable and necessary background about our environmental and it addresses people to become supporters of their engagement.

10 general questions on web monetization 2.0

Brainstorming… ! This is a project which needs your help in order to start saving the future of the web in all its facets…

A post for you, me and all of us platform owners, web maniacs, companies, advertisers, affiliates, social medians and web workers to do some brainstorming and share some thoughts on the future of monetization.

In a lot of discussions, talks and chats with partners, clients and friends, we came across these questions. It is time to find some answers…

Please, tackle this project with me and give as much feedback as possible. We all want to participate in the future of the web. So, let’s do some work…

10 Questions on web monetization 2.0

What if…
1. … all companies respect that platform owners (social networks, media publications, portals, etc.) start their web activities in order to monetize their business like they do?
2. … web platform owners never had started using the measurement argumentation versus the former print world?
3. … companies accept that web platform owners start their business model to earn money – not just to be a service provider?
4. … web platform owners never had started the price competition in order to ‘drag away’ clients from each other – resulting in cpm values of cent amounts?
5. … companies had not overrated the measurement options and tried to buy ROI value (leads, orders & revenue) only – than simply the ‘best price’?
6. … web platform owners never had started cpx payment, let’s call this ‘performance payment’, but were using the old advertising model: ‘pay for play’?
7. … companies suddenly stop advertising the ‘pay for play’ way and just strive for performance payment?
8. … web platform owners need to go for ‘free-mium’ or premium service payment for users, as they cannot afford to run their business any longer without the support of the ad industry from the last 5 years?
9. … companies could finance, sponsor or take over the costs for those ‘free-mium’ or premium service payment for certain target groups?
10. … finally, we users all understand that without web platforms owners generating any revenue, the internet is nothing more than a shell without pearls?

Pick a question, share your views and posts and give us some answers.

Looking forward to your comments…

Nächste Seite »