December 17th, 2007

Revenue 2.0: Is it really just about advertising ?

Currently most institutional Web 2.0 investors seem to think of advertising as the key revenue driver for any type of web-project. Considering the advertising market being a rather volatile one, to me this still seems to be a quite strange move for someone basically caring for someone else’s money to multiply in foreseeable ways.
 

So what to do, if you are about to start a web business and going the vc-funded, giving-it-all-away-for-free, over-hyped, profit-through-exit way is not an option to you ?
 

Chris Shipley and Jens Kunath discussed the need of alternative approaches to generate money from the companies’ business on their blogs these days.

   But, as you can see from the comments they got on these posts, there are not too many people agreeing with them, that enough web users would be willing to pay for an online service.
 

Scenarios are, there would always either be a well-funded competitor giving it all away for free or the service would likely start cannibalizing itself by offering a great share of its value for free in order to attract more ‘future’ paying customers to the particular site.
 

As we should probably ignore the IMHO foolish aspect of the latter approach for a second – what other than giving away your product for free to all and trying to sell it to some at the same time may drive people crazy enough to consider paying for an online service ?
 

 Subscription or sponsoring have not really been powering the big success stories these days…. Revenue sharing has been huge with eBay or Google and also taken grip with German companies like my current employer Spreadshirt or (more recently) laying the foundation for the success for the physical-media sharers at Hitflip. Though it needs a huge number of customers to provide a steady flow of income for the service provider.
 

When considering various business models for SemaWorx I’ve come up with the following (admittedly quite manageably sized) list of approaches on how to get people to pay real money for an online service and especially to provide a reliably contnuous cashflow for the venture itself:
 

1. Sponsorship of Membering

Ever visited a website living (either in part or even entirely) from Sponsoring (where I will leave out common keyword or banner-link adversing) ? A well know example to this could be the XING site. A variety of more or less well known firms offers discounts on their products inside the special ‘Premium Member’ section of the site.
 

Did you ever take them on such an offer ?
 

Let’s dissect such an offering:
 

Sixt holiday cars – Vacation car hire at a carefree fixed discount price
10% off vacation car hire worldwide
3,500 outlets in 85 countries
Including all taxes, fees and insurance cover

 
This is an excellent example of an advertiser and platform operator thinking only of their own needs, rather than their customers’ outcomes.
 

Sixt holiday cars – Vacation car hire at a carefree fixed discount price

Is XING a travel portal ? Does anyone get there considering renting a holiday car; (as XING is a business networking portal like LinkedIn) ?
 

3,500 outlets in 85 countries

Is there likely to be someone on XING not being aware of Sixt’s huge rental car fleet ? What does this tell me ? Being able to go from Europe to China by car ?
 

10% off vacation car hire worldwide

Is a 10% discount a ‘gain’ if the competition is offering 30% rebate to any Automobile Club member (the vast majority of German car drivers) ?
 

Including all taxes, fees and insurance cover

Doesn’t one have to pay these anyway or the other ?
 

How can sponsoring inside on a Web 2.0 platform be successful, if everything customizes around the users, just the business model doesn’t ?
 

This is just plain WYSIWWPTSY.
 

The sponsoring needs to be directly related not only to the target group and their oucomes, but also to the company it finances and the business relationship it has with its customers.
   Companies living on sponsors’ wallet should avoid sponsors providing no value or these will soon start avoiding them because of missing success from their offerings. ‘Connected’ value provided needs to be immediately obvious to the customer.
 

Good examples for related privileges provided by sponsors may be free welcome snacks or a service upgrade for hotel chains, shorter check-in intervals for airlines and finally sponsored premium memberships for the corresponding online services.
 

2. Be Your Own (Cashflow-)Bank
 

The Fuggers did it. The Mafia did it. And, of course eBay did. And most recently they did it either: Setting up an own payment infrastructure, that is.
 

Isn’t that cool: Own the money, before you own it !
 

Do it like the big Casinos have been doing it all the time: Let yout users cash-in the money even before they have actually spent it. This very cleverly camouflaged version of pre-payment is the method to secure your cashflow. Call your virtual currency 'Game Dollars', 'Flips', whatever you like or just leave them named €uros or Dollars.
 

It’s just important, your company is trustworthy enough to make your users pay-in early and (hopefully) not wanting to be paid out again – at least not until your cashflow has grown to some reliable steadiness. And also keep an eye on the inflation of your lit(t)erally self-mad(e) richness… ;-)
 

3. Create Value-Sharing Communities
 

The porns did it first !  If you are a lonesome man, admit it: You have noticed them on your lonely, nightly roundtrips on the web. The 'Gold Card' networks promoting flat-rate access an often quite huge set of porn portals (obviously equally often run by one and the same person…) spreading across red light advert-farms everywhere – always trying to lure your credit card details into their databases for 'later' deployment, while promising a lot of instant fresh flesh in return.
 

May their concept occasionally be lewd — the promoted business model isn’t so at all.
 

On the web it’s currently a bit like back in the early days of loyalty cards; you needed to keep a separate one for every shop or store causing your wallets and, yes, occasionally even your pockets ;-) wear out faster then they were used to before.
 

But it needed some both wise and influential store-managers to recognize the dilemma and come up with one card to pay them all: Welcome to the first credit card.
 

Even though the need for standardization nowadays is a wide-spread word on the net, talk lacks a lot of action as mostly all existing approaches have either security leaks or require at least a minor degree in information technology to be used.
   Greed at upstart young ventures (originally out to provide reasonable solutions to the issue) and big corporation trying to prevent establishing an open system in favour of their proprietary solutions have each had their share that we are to re-sign all payment and delivery details with every damned vendor we are going to do business with over the web.
 

So if anyone of you has a proper solution towards this issue, please drop me a hint and I will be proud to be one of the first to join.
 

4. Franchising ?
 

"That’s for the big guys only…", is what reportedly Fred DeLuca throught either, back in the early days of one of what has become one of the worlds biggest franchise food-chains: Subway.
 

Especially being a young company one cannot be everywhere in the world out there and much less finance rapid growth from a just freshly inflamed cashflow.
 

Why not let this be financed by other people businesses who are laready in the market, providing an entire bunch of customers waiting to be served by your product and, in return, leaving the franchisees their share of the earnings while keeping to what you can do best: Care about, develop and improve your product.
 

This may be one of the few ways for truly rapid expansion without taking money from investors or being a millionaire in advance yourself.
 

5. Product Placement
 

And finally, for those who really dare to jump onto the advertising bandwagon, what about the still rarely deployed flavour of product placement ?
 

Selling computer games ?  Shoot the advertisers’ product to dust. That guy is selling food ?  Throw it at your mates ! Selling trips to Florida ? Create them a bagage-packing game. Let them name it !
 

Hopefully my guesses could spark your own thoughts on how to make reliable money from your own Web 2.0 app. Any ideas, critics or suggestion I missed ?  Leave me a note in this article’s comments and I will be happy to start exploring any new approach.
 


Tags:  , , , , ,

Posted by Bardo N. Nelgen at 21:40 CET
Permalink | TrackBack URL | Comment on this Entry

October 26th, 2007

Want To Generate Buzz ?Try Loïc’s social video !!!

Celebrity Blogeur and renowned serial entrepreneur from France
Loïc Le Meur is just beginning to podcast every day of setting up his new social web video startup Seesmic. After months of rumours and "secret" hints on his blog, he is now allowing a first sneak peak into his new company’s rooms.

Now, that’s an ambience, probably all founders have ever dreamed of (inluding my self, jealously admitted… ;-) ): On a hill, located directly inside San Francisco and with a view onto the bay — all quite spacy and with a lot of windows inviting the late summer sun to come in. The venture itself seems to be a professsionalized form of his long-yeard blogging vidcasting ambitions with a very interesting flavour of networking.



 
Want to follow-up and see how he is doing ?
Subscribe to the feed !  RSS


Posted by Bardo N. Nelgen at 17:42 CET
Permalink | TrackBack URL | Comment on this Entry

September 27th, 2007

MashMaker — Intel entering Semantic Web"through the back door" ?

   That’s at least the way they put it. As I unfortunately have not yet been able to make it among the lucky ones, who get the first bunches of early-adopter tickets for Intel’s MashMaker, I have to stick with the documentation when it comes to figuring out the details:
Intel MashMaker Homepage: Bar Cocktail MixerIn order to bring mash-up creation to "the rest of us", the service provides you a toolbar for Firefox 2+ (with other versions still to come) which brings pre-programmed access to service APIs like Google Maps or Yahoo! Search with it. Whenever you then visit a webpage and choose a mash-up kind from the toolbar’s menu or simply push one of the buttons for the more popular services, the program trys to relate and mash-up the (optionally selected) webpage content with popular web services of choice.

   And while the toolbar software seems to make use of semantic web content extraction more in the sense search engines do it, obviously users are enabled to share with others if they are being happy with the automated processing results and especially if they could successful use the mashup they created. So you can annotate and refine the results lateron and in return the MashMaker server will lern about web pages’ content and start soon proposing suitable mash-ups by itself.

   While it currently still looks a bit like messing up DabbleDB and de.icio.us, it may indeed have a real semanti RDF based backend, making sure, it won’t mess with its databases either (which has not yet been confirmed) ;-) . Nevertheless MashMaker finally seems to be a really powerful new tool for collaborative webpage annotation.


Posted by Bardo N. Nelgen at 7:56 CET
Permalink | TrackBack URL | Comment on this Entry

September 22nd, 2007

Buzz: Semantic Web in The Economist and on Tim’s Radar

It’s been Tim O’Reilly who wrote on his "Radar"about the perception of the Semantic Web as it has been reported by The Economist in a mistaken context recently, as a sort of name for any Web 2.0 application which seems to think — supposed to be many of them.
   Though, Tim uses the opportunity for an explanaition where he thinks the differences are and where the two may come together. The day after, he quotes different approaches and hurdles towards making semantic content reality.
 
Here is, what I commented on the articles:

Being a Semantic Web project leader myself, one major difference between the Semantic Web (narrower sense) and Web 2.0 to me seems that the latter for most people (including myself) is describing an outcome or at least a resulting type of application, while the first one obviously is just one of many available vehicles to achieve this outcome.
 
Using the Semantic Web as a way to build a Web 2.0 application has obvious disadvantages:

  1. You need much longer to get your pants on: There are about 1,400 pages of standards and methods between you and your first app and even more documentation assumed to be missing for the tools you are about to use in order to get it programmed…
  2. Your learning curve is pretty steep, even until you and your crew just got the most basic concepts. We ended up, splitting the tasks of programming (JAVA recommended) and data-modelling/markup-writing between different people, as it turned out that both tasks required a quite different mindset.

On the other hand it turned out, that with all of the additional work come some quite unexpected results:

  1. If you do it properly, you really only got to do it once. We actually found ourselves reusing our first creations quite early, as well as deploying those provided by other people with ease. The Semantic Web’s consequent standardization approach really allows you repurposing your stuff quite early — just like many others claimed it before and you never got there.
  2. Semantic Web data clearly takes away the pain from sharing data accross company- or other technical boundaries, because you already got your processing in place for whatever is going to come in from out there or vice versa.

Our result: If you are really about to create a single-domain application with only a limited need to exchange data with the outside (such as users ubloading files or developers submitting a bunch of parameters), most likely the Semantic Web approach will be a waste of production time and therefore money (at least until better developer tools become available).
 
Nevertheless, the more different and independent (!) from each other the various parties are (for instance when you may be building an exchange or trading platform) who are supposed to use the resulting applications, the more it’s probably worth considering to go through the accompanying hassle and get your feet wet with Semantic Web technologies.

Some currently argue that the Semantic Web (which I am admittedly very passionate about…) will never become real or at least useful, because it would need to many people to translate everything on the web and in the world into semantic expressions.
   But who talked about everything ? Prominent non-semantic applications like Wikipedia or even search engines’ ’suggest’ features have shown us, that enough to be useful can be reached within several thousands, rather than millions or billions of entries.
   Which is (with regard to the web’s global scale) not very much actually… — especially as the Semantic Web technology has already been adopted for real applications (often just for internal use) by companies such as Adobe, Vodafone, Audi (the carmaker) and a bunch of well-known others.
 
This seems to me being quite similar to the early XML adoption at the end of last century: No-one really knew if this was going to be useful or just an IT fad as they had already seen so many.

So let’s handle Semantic Web technology just like we did it back then with XML: Wait, and see what people are going to figure out which purposes this is usable for… :-) :-)

 
What do YOU think ?  Is this the way to go ?  Any other elaborate concepts ?  I’d really appreciate to hear your input on this !!!


Tags:  , , ,

Posted by Bardo N. Nelgen at 9:34 CET
Permalink | TrackBack URL | Comment on this Entry

July 26th, 2007

The Macintization of Windows’ Mice

Being a powerful interface widget for Mac users for quite some time now, Exposé has now come to Windows either.
 
Screenshot of an Exposed WindowsWell, sort of. When I first experienced this, I actually thought it was the recently installed beta version of Safari for Windows, who had secretly smuggled this onto my computer.
   Though, alleging this being from Apple, it would have been a working but poor piece of design. Later on I remembered I had also upgraded the drivers for my Microsoft Intellipoint Mouse. Bingo ! The latest Intellipoint Driver installer switches the auto-scroll "click" function of your mouse wheel to this all-open-app-view without asking, so you have to discover this by incident or (like me) accident at some time.
 
With so many Windows under ones hood, you’re now officially a pimp (and all of this completely advertently, of course…). ;-)


Tags:  , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Bardo N. Nelgen at 10:46 CET
Permalink | TrackBack URL | Comment on this Entry

 Jungle with Bird and Waterfall

SemaWorker

Where the Semantic Web’s Pulse starts beating…