Facebook and others: fun or phenomenon?
This note was first published in the collective blog " Intelligent Web and Enterprise 2.0 ", where it was included in the number of "Smarty". Again, apparently, the unfortunate effect of the first comment . Therefore, so that it does not gather dust, I decided to transfer it to my personal blog. I will do the same with other notes, for one reason or another, not accepted by the Habrava public :).
- In the InfoWord blog, I stumbled upon an interesting article the other day. Its author compares today's teen craze for social resources with the same hobbies of the parents of these adolescents spinning hoops (Hula Hoop). The conclusion he makes is: everything, they say, comes and goes, and you don’t have to make a trend out of your passion. It has this conclusion and a purely commercial background.
Bad is the monetization of the social Internet. And in favor of this statement, the author cites figures (eMarketer.com), a comparison of which earlier few paid attention. It turns out that with the Internet advertising budget of $ 21.4 billion in 2007 and its expected growth of up to $ 27.5 billion in 2008, advertising in the social web went in 2007. only $ 920 million (i.e., only 4.3% of the total figure), and in 2008 the share of “social sphere” in the total advertising pie will grow no more than to 5.7%.
And, despite the fact that this relatively small figure is almost completely absorbed by the well-known top ten of the social Internet sites, the leaders themselves are still very far from the success that their owners expected. The author cites statements on this subject from company executives and independent market researchers.
Referring also to the opinion of many reputable marketers, the author explains this disappointing for the economy of Web 2.0 phenomenon by two factors. First, the advertiser realized that adolescents do not really pay attention to advertising, especially when it comes alongside with much more interesting “content” for them. Supporters of the “mulet strategy,” which I have already mentioned in my blog, drew attention to the second factor [ 1 , 2 ]. Serious advertisers do not want to interfere with their advertising alongside often-on the verge of foul “teenage” (and not only teenage) information.
')
Everything said by the author of the refereed note, of course, is subject to more in-depth analysis. Personally, I agree with something more, with something less. However, in any case, there are several considerations that I want to share with you (the continuation of this note is in my iTech Bridge blog ).
- In the InfoWord blog, I stumbled upon an interesting article the other day. Its author compares today's teen craze for social resources with the same hobbies of the parents of these adolescents spinning hoops (Hula Hoop). The conclusion he makes is: everything, they say, comes and goes, and you don’t have to make a trend out of your passion. It has this conclusion and a purely commercial background.
Bad is the monetization of the social Internet. And in favor of this statement, the author cites figures (eMarketer.com), a comparison of which earlier few paid attention. It turns out that with the Internet advertising budget of $ 21.4 billion in 2007 and its expected growth of up to $ 27.5 billion in 2008, advertising in the social web went in 2007. only $ 920 million (i.e., only 4.3% of the total figure), and in 2008 the share of “social sphere” in the total advertising pie will grow no more than to 5.7%.
And, despite the fact that this relatively small figure is almost completely absorbed by the well-known top ten of the social Internet sites, the leaders themselves are still very far from the success that their owners expected. The author cites statements on this subject from company executives and independent market researchers.
Referring also to the opinion of many reputable marketers, the author explains this disappointing for the economy of Web 2.0 phenomenon by two factors. First, the advertiser realized that adolescents do not really pay attention to advertising, especially when it comes alongside with much more interesting “content” for them. Supporters of the “mulet strategy,” which I have already mentioned in my blog, drew attention to the second factor [ 1 , 2 ]. Serious advertisers do not want to interfere with their advertising alongside often-on the verge of foul “teenage” (and not only teenage) information.
')
Everything said by the author of the refereed note, of course, is subject to more in-depth analysis. Personally, I agree with something more, with something less. However, in any case, there are several considerations that I want to share with you (the continuation of this note is in my iTech Bridge blog ).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/20184/
All Articles