Don Dodge answered back my earlier post with another post. Who said blogs aren’t conversational?
He said something interesting: “Advertising is the game, and you need HUGE numbers to make that work.”
Wrong!
I know of a conference that charges $10,000 (or more) to get on stage to talk to about 700 people. Not a huge audience. But they always seem to have a full deck of sessions. That’s an advertising model.
In fact, didn’t the Search Engine Strategies conference sell for tens of millions of dollars? For a tiny audience! And some conferences, like the defunct Comdex (which had an audience smaller than we had at Channel 9) sold for hundreds of millions. Right?
In fact, didn’t 7,000 people come to Microsoft’s conference and they paid more than a grand a piece to be there? Not a huge audience and advertisers paid big bucks to get in front of that audience.
Some blogs (not me, yesterday I had 17,818 HTML views and 30,575 RSS subscribers) already are seeing millions of visitors per day (hello Boing Boing!)
Not to mention that Huffington Post, which is what got the $5 million in funding, is obviously not a single-person blog.
I remember working for a company with a magazine that had tens of millions in revenues and only around 100,000 subscribers.
Translation: get the right audience and you can make things happen.
But, political sites are seeing nice trend lines up and wait until the next Presidential Election!
Speaking of which, most plays of any kind are not bankable. Just ask Bill Gates to take you out to the product graveyard out by building 16 up in Redmond. There are hundreds of products listed there and I can only remember a handful making money. Most aren’t even around anymore.
Something is happening in media and the VCs just want to be involved.
Or, did you miss that Digg has built an audience somewhere around a million per day and it’s not even two years old? Kevin Rose, last week at the TechCrunch party, told me that just their podcast, Diggnation, gets 250,000 downloads per show.
Would you invest in Kevin Rose? I sure would.
There will be more Kevin’s. And Om’s. And Michaels.
Who’s next?
Scobleizer 
Robert said:
—–
“He said [Don Dodge] something interesting: “Advertising is the game, and you need HUGE numbers to make that work.”
Wrong!”
—–
Let me suggest that you may be mixing apples with pears. Clearly, if Om had a service model, then your comparison would work. But, I believe Don is right in stating that you need “huge numbers” for advertising to work – simply because major advertisers will want to see that. Om, et. al., just stepped into another circus with the announcement of comparatively large funding. Agencies will not want them to be in the short end of the long tail – I believe they will want a bigger audience.
Sure, in this particular juncture of web advertising, agencies are searching and experimenting for new approaches and will push the cost of these trials as a loss. So, we can’t really count this startup/experimental phase. But when it settles down, advertisers will want (or would like) to see their money well spent. More eyeballs.
Who knows, maybe Om and Huffington are looking at behavioral and contextual advertising methods and the funders $5M will be well spent.
That’s how I see it…
LikeLike
Robert said:
—–
“He said [Don Dodge] something interesting: “Advertising is the game, and you need HUGE numbers to make that work.”
Wrong!”
—–
Let me suggest that you may be mixing apples with pears. Clearly, if Om had a service model, then your comparison would work. But, I believe Don is right in stating that you need “huge numbers” for advertising to work – simply because major advertisers will want to see that. Om, et. al., just stepped into another circus with the announcement of comparatively large funding. Agencies will not want them to be in the short end of the long tail – I believe they will want a bigger audience.
Sure, in this particular juncture of web advertising, agencies are searching and experimenting for new approaches and will push the cost of these trials as a loss. So, we can’t really count this startup/experimental phase. But when it settles down, advertisers will want (or would like) to see their money well spent. More eyeballs.
Who knows, maybe Om and Huffington are looking at behavioral and contextual advertising methods and the funders $5M will be well spent.
That’s how I see it…
LikeLike
Brad: advertisers tell me they don’t want huge numbers. They want buyers and influentials who’ll bring them buyers.
For instance, when I sold my house 15,000 people showed up to our real estate agent’s page but we didn’t care. We only wanted one buyer. I would have paid $1,000 to find one buyer who would have paid our price.
LikeLike
Brad: advertisers tell me they don’t want huge numbers. They want buyers and influentials who’ll bring them buyers.
For instance, when I sold my house 15,000 people showed up to our real estate agent’s page but we didn’t care. We only wanted one buyer. I would have paid $1,000 to find one buyer who would have paid our price.
LikeLike
PodCamp!
Oh wait, we don’t charge admission.
Never mind.
http://www.PodCamp.org
LikeLike
PodCamp!
Oh wait, we don’t charge admission.
Never mind.
http://www.PodCamp.org
LikeLike
Having worked in the newspaper industry for a decade, I have heard this over and over and over again! These marketers and advertisers are trying to continue on with their flawed logic that more means more. I wrote a little about it here:
http://www.douglaskarr.com/2006/08/17/getting-your-blog-to-the-a-list/
Regards,
Doug
LikeLike
Having worked in the newspaper industry for a decade, I have heard this over and over and over again! These marketers and advertisers are trying to continue on with their flawed logic that more means more. I wrote a little about it here:
http://www.douglaskarr.com/2006/08/17/getting-your-blog-to-the-a-list/
Regards,
Doug
LikeLike
Doesn’t it really come down to the type of product/service an advertiser is hawking? Some only need one set of eyeballs, the right ones (your house), others need a lot. So I think it’s very hard to generalize but I’d bet in the scheme of things there are a lot more in the “need a lot” category than the other.
LikeLike
Doesn’t it really come down to the type of product/service an advertiser is hawking? Some only need one set of eyeballs, the right ones (your house), others need a lot. So I think it’s very hard to generalize but I’d bet in the scheme of things there are a lot more in the “need a lot” category than the other.
LikeLike
Robert, I get your point about smaller, targeted audiences of buyers and influencers. I agree. In fact, the first time I met you I said that my blog is targeted at VCs, startups, and industry analysts.
There are probably 500 VCs, 1,000 startups, and 50 analysts/influencers that really matter in my sector. So, my blog is targeted at 1,550 people. I really don’t care if 50,000 Microsoft people read my blog. They are not my target audience.
However, when it comes to building a profitable blog, numbers matter. Audience demographics matter. Building a blog empire worth $50M to $100M requires huge audience numbers and lots of big advertisers.
The examples you give are not blogs and don’t rely solely on advertising for revenue. I really get your point about small targeted audiences. But it would be more relevant if you used successful blogs as examples.
There are at least 50 million blogs in the world. Maybe the top 50 are VC backable…maybe. That means your blog has to be “one in a million” to attract VC money and the requisite audience. I am not saying it is right, it is just the way VCs work.
Don
LikeLike
Robert, I get your point about smaller, targeted audiences of buyers and influencers. I agree. In fact, the first time I met you I said that my blog is targeted at VCs, startups, and industry analysts.
There are probably 500 VCs, 1,000 startups, and 50 analysts/influencers that really matter in my sector. So, my blog is targeted at 1,550 people. I really don’t care if 50,000 Microsoft people read my blog. They are not my target audience.
However, when it comes to building a profitable blog, numbers matter. Audience demographics matter. Building a blog empire worth $50M to $100M requires huge audience numbers and lots of big advertisers.
The examples you give are not blogs and don’t rely solely on advertising for revenue. I really get your point about small targeted audiences. But it would be more relevant if you used successful blogs as examples.
There are at least 50 million blogs in the world. Maybe the top 50 are VC backable…maybe. That means your blog has to be “one in a million” to attract VC money and the requisite audience. I am not saying it is right, it is just the way VCs work.
Don
LikeLike
Investing in what Kevin Rose does after Digg is like investing in what Marc Andreessen did after Netscape.
LikeLike
Investing in what Kevin Rose does after Digg is like investing in what Marc Andreessen did after Netscape.
LikeLike
—-
Brad: advertisers tell me they don’t want huge numbers. They want buyers and influentials who’ll bring them buyers.
—-
Robert: that’s ok. That’s just more eyeballs. They hope that it will continue to grow.
—-
For instance, when I sold my house 15,000 people showed up to our real estate agent’s page but we didn’t care. We only wanted one buyer. I would have paid $1,000 to find one buyer who would have paid our price.
—–
Robert: In this scenario the one, and only, reader of GigaOM would pay $100M for the opportunity to read the blog.
I understand that the world is different on the net. And, I understand that difference – such as the viral marketing example you laid out above. But, not everything is turned on its head, thankfully, or my brain would blowup 😉
LikeLike
—-
Brad: advertisers tell me they don’t want huge numbers. They want buyers and influentials who’ll bring them buyers.
—-
Robert: that’s ok. That’s just more eyeballs. They hope that it will continue to grow.
—-
For instance, when I sold my house 15,000 people showed up to our real estate agent’s page but we didn’t care. We only wanted one buyer. I would have paid $1,000 to find one buyer who would have paid our price.
—–
Robert: In this scenario the one, and only, reader of GigaOM would pay $100M for the opportunity to read the blog.
I understand that the world is different on the net. And, I understand that difference – such as the viral marketing example you laid out above. But, not everything is turned on its head, thankfully, or my brain would blowup 😉
LikeLike
Robert, it is all about media now. We have enough tech in the world. The future is all about technology-enabled media. And BTW, now, every company is a media company to some degreee, because every company tells stories, to its customers, to itself, to future hires. And those stories had better be compelling stories and the best stories are true stories, no need for spin.
LikeLike
Robert, it is all about media now. We have enough tech in the world. The future is all about technology-enabled media. And BTW, now, every company is a media company to some degreee, because every company tells stories, to its customers, to itself, to future hires. And those stories had better be compelling stories and the best stories are true stories, no need for spin.
LikeLike
Bring back that ole time Irrationally Exuberant Religion…quite the same ole hacked up stump speech there.
There will be more Pets.com’s, more Boo’s, more Webvans amd Kozmos, more Floozs and Beenzs, and more GovWorks, toss in some Kibus’, Go.com’s and MVP.com’s, round off with some, eToys and Furniture.Com’s…
Who’s next?
PS – If you have small numbers, your ROI better be darned high. Regardless of what you think will work, it’s want the advertisers WANT, and they want numbers, it’s just good insurance.
LikeLike
Bring back that ole time Irrationally Exuberant Religion…quite the same ole hacked up stump speech there.
There will be more Pets.com’s, more Boo’s, more Webvans amd Kozmos, more Floozs and Beenzs, and more GovWorks, toss in some Kibus’, Go.com’s and MVP.com’s, round off with some, eToys and Furniture.Com’s…
Who’s next?
PS – If you have small numbers, your ROI better be darned high. Regardless of what you think will work, it’s want the advertisers WANT, and they want numbers, it’s just good insurance.
LikeLike
Robert – We’re in agreement” that the “quality eyeballs” factor is critically, and it’s entirely based on how well your site’s content targets a specific audience –but if you’re going to win at a niche media play, then you really have to have your demographic info straight in order to persuade an advertiser that the small audience you’re sending them is, in fact, precisely their target. Things like gender, annual income, job title, budgetary oversight are all important –and they don’t show up in your logfiles. So I would argue that one of the keys to profiting with a niche site is effective, inobtrusive data collection.
However, on the other hand, I have to agree with Don that to make sweeping generalizations about “advertisers” is silly. Targetting is important to many media buyers, but not all. There are certainly those, like financial services or automotive, who require a specific demographic slice. There are others, like P&G, who have a mass-market strategy and “more” is not only always better, but it’s essential for them to win the type of marketshare their products require (think super bowl advertisers). Their marketing strategy dictates a certain size ad plan/media buy, and most of those large mass-marketers simply are not set up to run ads on anything less than 10’s of millions of CPMs. In those cases, aggregators and blog networks like Federated Media stand to inherit the earth.
LikeLike
Robert – We’re in agreement” that the “quality eyeballs” factor is critically, and it’s entirely based on how well your site’s content targets a specific audience –but if you’re going to win at a niche media play, then you really have to have your demographic info straight in order to persuade an advertiser that the small audience you’re sending them is, in fact, precisely their target. Things like gender, annual income, job title, budgetary oversight are all important –and they don’t show up in your logfiles. So I would argue that one of the keys to profiting with a niche site is effective, inobtrusive data collection.
However, on the other hand, I have to agree with Don that to make sweeping generalizations about “advertisers” is silly. Targetting is important to many media buyers, but not all. There are certainly those, like financial services or automotive, who require a specific demographic slice. There are others, like P&G, who have a mass-market strategy and “more” is not only always better, but it’s essential for them to win the type of marketshare their products require (think super bowl advertisers). Their marketing strategy dictates a certain size ad plan/media buy, and most of those large mass-marketers simply are not set up to run ads on anything less than 10’s of millions of CPMs. In those cases, aggregators and blog networks like Federated Media stand to inherit the earth.
LikeLike
How does DaveWiner generate $2.3M in revenue? I don’t think he’s counting UserlandInc revenue, just his own.
http://www.scripting.com/2006/08/22.html#lastYearsRevenue23Million
LikeLike
How does DaveWiner generate $2.3M in revenue? I don’t think he’s counting UserlandInc revenue, just his own.
http://www.scripting.com/2006/08/22.html#lastYearsRevenue23Million
LikeLike
Listen to Megan Cunningham…or “Mrs. C”, too much childhood ‘Happy Days’ sensor-fuzed into my memory banks. 😉
Good post btw…
LikeLike
Listen to Megan Cunningham…or “Mrs. C”, too much childhood ‘Happy Days’ sensor-fuzed into my memory banks. 😉
Good post btw…
LikeLike
Bill, he sold weblogs.com
For Winer, the blog is a full media and communications strategy. It’s how he does his personal branding, hypes his projects, and most importantly makes his connections with important users and developers.
Without Scripting News Dave wouldn’t get invited to the right kinds of parties and conferences, wouldn’t have people working with OPML, or reading River of News, or his podcast directories etc. Without Scripting News how would he (or anyone else) understand that there was even an opportunity called “weblogs.com” or what form it should take?
LikeLike
Bill, he sold weblogs.com
For Winer, the blog is a full media and communications strategy. It’s how he does his personal branding, hypes his projects, and most importantly makes his connections with important users and developers.
Without Scripting News Dave wouldn’t get invited to the right kinds of parties and conferences, wouldn’t have people working with OPML, or reading River of News, or his podcast directories etc. Without Scripting News how would he (or anyone else) understand that there was even an opportunity called “weblogs.com” or what form it should take?
LikeLike
Robert said: “Just ask Bill Gates to take you out to the product graveyard out by building 16 up in Redmond. There are hundreds of products listed there and I can only remember a handful making money. Most aren’t even around anymore.”
It’s not exactly a product graveyard, although I agree that some products weren’t big winners compared with others. Those team ship it awards; I think that they were called product tiles and the area known as the product tile courtyard. Initially the products that were given tiles were major milestones like Windows, Excel, Word, Exchange, etc. It was very difficult to get one for a new product after the first few years. Space issues, and the ever increasing rate of newly shipped products were probably among the reasons that the practice ended.
LikeLike
Robert said: “Just ask Bill Gates to take you out to the product graveyard out by building 16 up in Redmond. There are hundreds of products listed there and I can only remember a handful making money. Most aren’t even around anymore.”
It’s not exactly a product graveyard, although I agree that some products weren’t big winners compared with others. Those team ship it awards; I think that they were called product tiles and the area known as the product tile courtyard. Initially the products that were given tiles were major milestones like Windows, Excel, Word, Exchange, etc. It was very difficult to get one for a new product after the first few years. Space issues, and the ever increasing rate of newly shipped products were probably among the reasons that the practice ended.
LikeLike
So how much did ScriptingNews “make” in the previous 5 years? (Not that $2.3M/5 is a bad income either.)
LikeLike
So how much did ScriptingNews “make” in the previous 5 years? (Not that $2.3M/5 is a bad income either.)
LikeLike
Actually, at the time Harpo and the like were starting out, you likely would have been more inclined to invest in Phil Donahue and Morton Downey. So, unless you’re clairvoyant, your examples makes little sense.
LikeLike
Actually, at the time Harpo and the like were starting out, you likely would have been more inclined to invest in Phil Donahue and Morton Downey. So, unless you’re clairvoyant, your examples makes little sense.
LikeLike
LayZ: no, that’s what DON DODGE would have been more likely to invest in. I would have been looking for undiscovered talent that hadn’t YET become popular. I knew Rush Limbaugh would be popular, even when I listened to him on that Sacramento radio station. He just stood out from the crowd.
LikeLike
LayZ: no, that’s what DON DODGE would have been more likely to invest in. I would have been looking for undiscovered talent that hadn’t YET become popular. I knew Rush Limbaugh would be popular, even when I listened to him on that Sacramento radio station. He just stood out from the crowd.
LikeLike
“So how much did ScriptingNews “make” in the previous 5 years?”
I guess then you’d have to figure its contribution to UserLand sales.
LikeLike
“So how much did ScriptingNews “make” in the previous 5 years?”
I guess then you’d have to figure its contribution to UserLand sales.
LikeLike