Comments on: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?

By: Is Content Still A Business? » Publishing 2.0

Is Content Still A Business? » Publishing 2.0 — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:11:37 +0000

[...] it possible that the future of the content business is worse than being less profitable and worse even than not scaling anymore — is it possible that content creation will cease to [...]

By: Publishing 2.0 article on Media 2.0 at kid’s allright

Publishing 2.0 article on Media 2.0 at kid’s allright — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:55:37 +0000

[...] This article appeared on my del.icio.us homepage in the "Popular" section this morning. It is a really interesting overview of what may be happening in the world of brand media. Some larger advertisers are starting to realize that they can use guerrilla marketing tactics via MySpace at really low cost (note: for more on guerrilla marketing tactics, see my recent post on Ecko’s recent brilliant campaign). I’ve cited this example before (see article here) — here’s the MySpace page for the Honda Element (and even more bizarre, here’s the MySpace page for a local Honda dealership from Cedar Rapids, Iowa!). [...]

By: StumbleUpon

StumbleUpon — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:46:43 +0000

[...] Your page is now on StumbleUpon! For each appearance in your referral logs, one of our members has ’stumbled upon’ your site after clicking “Stumble!” on our toolbar to discover a new great site. Enter Your URL → [...]

By: THE BEAT » Blog Archive » Mad Max for media congloms?

THE BEAT » Blog Archive » Mad Max for media congloms? — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:06:43 +0000

[...] Webcomics Nation’s Joey Manley points us to Publishing 2.0 media pundit Scott Karp’s musings on how the media giants of the future won’t be as big as the media giants of the past: There is now macroeconomic data to support the theory that Media 2.0 wonâ€™t be as profitable as Media 1.0 (from MediaPost): In a break from historical patterns, the equities research team at Merrill Lynch says the rate of advertising price inflation now trails the overall rate of economic inflation. â€œInterestingly, advertising growth seems to be tracking real [gross domestic product] growth instead of nominal GDP growth, as it did in the past plus some,â€ writes Merrill Lynch ad industry analyst Lauren Rich Fine in a report released early this morning. â€œThis supports our belief that media no longer enjoys the benefit of above average rate inflation, rather the opposite where increased competition & measurement is putting pressure on rates.â€ [...]

By: Digitador :: quicklinks 20.10.06 :: October :: 2006

Digitador :: quicklinks 20.10.06 :: October :: 2006 — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:17:01 +0000

[...] – What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? As consumers spend more and more of their media time online, ad dollars have been pouring into online media â€” the assumption has been that the billions of dollars that large companies spend on mass media advertising and marketing (i.e. TV ads) will ultimately follow the small company dollars online. [...]

By: Quelles perspectives ‘business’ pour le web 2.0 ? « Proxilog

Quelles perspectives ‘business’ pour le web 2.0 ? « Proxilog — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:42:37 +0000

[...] J’ai ensuite rebondi sur l’article ‘What if media 2.0 is less profitable thans Media 1.0 ?’, sur Publishing 2.0, et sur ‘Web 2.0 feels good, but where is the business model ?’, qui rejoint des interrogations de Marc Simoncini dans le Journal du Net. [...]

By: Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation and the Web » Blog Archive » Media 2.0 Profitability

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:12:55 +0000

[...] Scott Karp asks this question: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? [...]

By: El blog de Abel Gonzalez » La publicidad en las redes sociales

El blog de Abel Gonzalez » La publicidad en las redes sociales — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:11:31 +0000

[...] QuiÃ©n haya gestionado negocios online basados en publicidad sabe que no es un buen CPM. MySpace no se basa en contenido, que es lo que da fuerza al CPM. Por eso MySpace estÃ¡ tratando de hacer de los anunciantes un factor mÃ¡s de su activo principal: la red social. Se comenta que MySpace estÃ¡ ofreciendo a los anunciantes por unos 35000$ la creaciÃ³n a medida de un espacio propio en la red, como el de los usuarios comunes, para que estos se relacionen con los anunciantes al igual que con su comunidad de amigos y enlacen a las marcas. Es decir que la gente puede hacerse “amiga” de los nuevos modelos de coches, de los programas de televisiÃ³n y de las cremas depilatorias. Lo que ofrece MySpace al anunciante es viralidad integrada en su propia red, publicidad que no es percibida como publicidad sino como relaciÃ³n social. Este movimiento se alinea con las tendencias actuales de la publicidad online donde se busca crear viralidad y buzz antes que poner anuncios. El problema de esta estrategia de MySpace es que la viralidad la puede conseguir el anunciante sin ayuda de MySpace, sencillamente colocando en su propio web contenido vÃrico y facilitando la interacciÃ³n directa con la audiencia – sin los media tradicionales ni los nuevos media 2.0. [...]

By: digital deliverance: July 2006 Archives

digital deliverance: July 2006 Archives — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:06:26 +0000

[...] Earlier this year at a conference in Paris, I pointed out to the newspaper industry that it is earning between one-twentieth and one-hundredth as much per website user as print reader. In April, Scott Karp independently analyzed further why media companies shouldn’t make as much online as in their legacy modes. [...]

By: Publishing 2.0 » MySpace’s Business Model Conundrum

Publishing 2.0 » MySpace’s Business Model Conundrum — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:02:25 +0000

[...] I’ve been predicting for a while that companies would find ways to leverage the community marketing power of social networking sites like MySpace without the network seeing any financial benefit. Here’s a perfect example (via The Economist): MySpace seems to offer a chance for companies to take their marketing into new, potentially more lucrative territory, by becoming, in effect, members of their customers’ network of Ã¢â‚¬Å“friendsÃ¢â‚¬Â. A growing number of firms have established their own pages on MySpace, to which users can link. In the process, some are getting into bed with some unlikely partners. Earlier this year, for example, Unilever, a consumer-goods giant, hooked up with Christine Dolce to promote Axe, a deodorant. Ms Dolce, who goes by the alias ForBiddeN, boasts around 900,000 Ã¢â‚¬Å“friendsÃ¢â‚¬Â who link to her MySpace page. Bleached, buxom and with impressive marketing savvy, she is arguably the most successful brand to emerge from MySpace, and has already launched a line of clothing. [...]

By: Mashable* » Branding 2.0 - Ask A Ninja

Mashable* » Branding 2.0 - Ask A Ninja — Mon, 29 May 2006 18:24:34 +0000

[...] I make no claim to being either the first or only to have said this: http://publishing2.com/2006/04/23/what-if-media-20-is-less-profitable-than-media-10/ [...]

By: helmut

helmut — Thu, 25 May 2006 05:56:00 +0000

Yes, Scott. The newspaper industry wasn't profitable at all.

By: chartreuse (BETA) » Blog Archive » “It’s Not You, It’s Me.” (Or How Advertising Agencies Are Destroying Web 2.0)

Tue, 23 May 2006 14:38:45 +0000

[...] My favorite doomsday advocate Scott Karp thinks we are all just going to go broke. [...]

By: Publishing 2.0 » The Unbearable Lightness of 2.0 Business Strategy

Publishing 2.0 » The Unbearable Lightness of 2.0 Business Strategy — Sun, 21 May 2006 21:34:21 +0000

[...] Maybe I’m just slow. But I still worry that the sea change that is upon us will lead to fewer dollars in the market and Google-like monopolization of the dollars that do remain. I worry that there’s no way to monetize either “owning” or “enabling” the community — both assume a 1.0-like role for a middleman. It still assumes control of something. AdWords is fully distributed, but it is an intermediary — Google OWNS the system, they control it, and they can make it do whatever they want — unless, of course, it’s being exploited by botnets. Maybe cybercrime is the real edge. [...]

By: garbledygook.com » Blog Archive » tech.memeorandum: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? (Scott Karp/Publishing 2.0)

Thu, 18 May 2006 07:16:00 +0000

[...] April 23rd, 2006 What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? — The advent of web-based e-commerce fundamentally lowered the costs of doing business, increasing the scalability (and in many cases the viability) of thousands of small businesses. The introduction of micro-marketing through Google AdWords gave … Source: Publishing 2.0 Author: Scott Karp Link: http://publishing2.com/2006/04/23/what-if-media-20-is… View discussion Filed in News [...]

By: » Google envy blinds Microsoft to the bigger opportunity | Software as services | ZDNet.com

Tue, 16 May 2006 22:37:00 +0000

[...] The first reason is that it might not be so big a market after all, once online advertising really takes hold. A few days before I stood up to speak in Santa Monica, Scott Karp wrote an insightful piece on his Publishing 2.0 blog that posed the question: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?. It was so pertinent that I devoted an entire slide to quote a core passage from his blog: "What if the transfer of marketing and advertising dollars online is not 1-to-1? What if the Internet has fundamentally lowered the marketing and advertising costs for big companies as it has for small companies? What if large companies can achieve the same sales objectives for a fraction of the cost of traditional mass media advertising? [...]

By: Yahoo! Publisher Network » Blog Archive » Showing Someone the Money

Yahoo! Publisher Network » Blog Archive » Showing Someone the Money — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:04:09 +0000

[...] HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a lively discussion on Publishing 2.0, where publisher Scott Karp, as well as Yahoo!Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s Matt McAlister and Jeff Jarvis fromÃ‚Â BuzzMachine, talk about the impact of social media on advertising and the decreasing CPM that new technology offers. Go there >> [...]

By: Joe Wikert's Book Publisher and eContent Blog

Joe Wikert's Book Publisher and eContent Blog — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:51:03 +0000

Scott Karp on the Profitability of Media 2.0…

Scott has a wonderful blog called Publishing 2.0. If you appreciate my blog youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll really like ScottÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s. One of his more recent posts is entitled Ã¢â‚¬Å“What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?Ã¢â‚¬Â He talks about the reduced…

By: » What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?

» What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:54:20 +0000

[...] This article complements the earlier one on MySpace that John posted earlier. Even though much of the hype on social networking software has a negative slant, there is always an upside. The insight here is that MySpace can be used by advertisers for free, even though the major players are rumored to have paid $35,000 for a profile. http://publishing2.com/2006/04/23/what-if-media-20-is-less-profitable-than-media-10/ [...]

By: GTS CS Blog: what does this mean to us?

GTS CS Blog: what does this mean to us? — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:39:09 +0000

[...] What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?bye-bye sinead deegan – a great goodbye flash movie of photos! [...]

By: openBLOG - The company weblog of openBC

openBLOG - The company weblog of openBC — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:05:24 +0000

What can you do with $17m that you canÃ‚Â´t with $3m?…

Visible Path raised $17 million in a second round of venture-capital funding. We hear through the grapvine that Facebook is generating about $1 million per week in revenue and that Linkedin finally broke through too. Social Software isnÃ‚Â´t hype anymore,…

By: kid's allright

kid's allright — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:03:05 +0000

Publishing 2.0 article on Media 2.0…

This article appeared on my del.icio.us homepage in the Popular section this morning. It is a really interesting overview of what may be happening in the world of brand media. Some larger advertisers are starting to realize that they can…

By: Clicked:Â Internet.SOS - Clicked - MSNBC.com

Clicked:Â Internet.SOS - Clicked - MSNBC.com — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:00:19 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Basic Thinking Blog » Sind Web 2 Unternehmen profitabel?

Basic Thinking Blog » Sind Web 2 Unternehmen profitabel? — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:48:34 +0000

[...] Diese Frage stellte Fischmarkt bzw. verwies auf einen Artikel von Scott Karp in Publishing 2.0. Dort stellt Karp folgende Rechnung auf: LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s take my favorite example Ã¢â‚¬â€ MySpace. ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an article in the Times today about MySpaceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s struggle to monetize itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ever-ballooning asset. According to comScore Media Metrix, MySpace had 28 billion page views in March 2006. Annualized, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 366 billion page views. Yet Richard Greenfield of Pali Capital estimates that MySpaceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s revenue this year will only be $200 million. Do the math Ã¢â‚¬â€ thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a CPM of $0.55! [...]

By: clock — watching time, the only true currency » Media dollars as hard to aggregate as audiences?

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:23:32 +0000

[...] Scott Karp asked a few days ago “What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?” As consumers spend more and more of their media time online, ad dollars have been pouring into online media Ã¢â‚¬â€ the assumption has been that the billions of dollars that large companies spend on mass media advertising and marketing (i.e. TV ads) will ultimately follow the small company dollars online. [snip]. [...]

By: chartreuse (BETA) » Blog Archive » The Coming Death Of Advertising Based Business Models

Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:29:49 +0000

[...] Even Scott Karp. [...]

By: Software Industry Analysis

Software Industry Analysis — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:21:52 +0000

[...] Falling Rate of Profit I don’t seem to be able to go anywhere on the blogosphere without tripping over a blog called something-or-other 2.0. (The emergence and propagation of 2.0 makes it an interesting example of what Richard Dawkins calls a meme.)Following a link from Umair Haque’s post on Edge Competencies and Media 2.0 Profit Pools, I reach something called Publishing 2.0, written by Scott Karp, who asks What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? Scott Johnson agrees: Of Course Media 2.0 is Less Profitable, and a comment on ScottK’s blog by Bob Aman suggests that Everything 2.0 is less profitable than Anything 1.0.There are two different issues here – one micro and one macro. Umair focuses on the microeconomic – which media strategies will be (relatively) more profitable. ScottK makes a more sweeping prediction: “total spending on marketing and advertising will shrink as marketing 2.0 proves to be far more cost efficient than marketing 1.0″.But what of the wider implications of Bob Aman’s comment for the software industry? Companies typically invest in information technology in the hope of greater efficiency and effectiveness. SAP recently claimed that “companies that run SAP are 32% more profitable than those that don’t” – but even if this is true (which Nucleus Research challenges), it is not easy to prove cause-effect. Andy Hayler (of IT vendor Kalido) calls this A Bit Rich, A Bit Poor.One of the things that puzzled Marx was not why profits fell (the falling rate of profit had been identified by earlier economists including Smith and Ricardo) but why they didn’t fall even faster (see SPGB pamphlet). The same question now applies to IT – why has productivity risen so little, despite massive IT expenditure.Part of the problem here is the relationship between macro and micro. One firm’s cost saving is another firm’s lost revenue. Doesn’t this mean that if everybody suddenly became more massively more efficient, for example if IT suddenly started delivering real ROI across the board, the economy would collapse? If so, it’s probably just as well that IT has never delivered quite as much efficiency as the salesmen promised. There have always been well-informed observers expressing doubts about the benefits of IT, from Paul Strassman to Nicholas Carr.On this argument, we shouldn’t be surprised if Industry version n+1 is less profitable in total than Industry version n. In a 2002 study, McKinsey identified only six industries in which productivity has increased : retail, wholesale, securities, telecommunications, semiconductor and computer manufacturing. But these industries are characterized either by massive ongoing centralization (retail productivity statistics are one-sided because they only show the big chains and not the struggling mom-and-pop stores) or by unlimited growth in product demand (Moore’s Law assumes an exponential demand for chips).Let’s come back to Media 2.0. What exactly is the choice facing the media industry? Perhaps the internet erodes the profitability of Media 1.0 even if no media companies are willing to try Media 2.0. In which case, Media 2.0 starts to look a bit more attractive. [...]

By: links for 2006-04-24: Technology Evangelist

links for 2006-04-24: Technology Evangelist — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:50:22 +0000

[...] What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? : Publishing 2.0 MySpace earned $0.55 CPM in March 2006? Looks like a great opportunity for advertisers other than dating sites. (tags: media web2.0 myspace advertising cpm) [...]

By: Quand My Space.com cherche encore le pÃ©trole» Archive du blog» blogs.ZDNet.fr

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:23:44 +0000

[...] MISE A JOUR : lire un billet trÃ¨s intÃ©ressant sur MYSpace.com suite Ã l’article du NYTimes. IntitullÃ© “What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0 ? ” et publiÃ© sur l’excellent et trÃ¨s critique Publishing 2.0. [...]

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:45:55 +0000

About CPM : I m afraid Comscore and Nielsen always underestimate the number of pages views. Mostly because they exclude traffic from outside US (and others reasons relative to the panel). So the real CPM is lower …

By: grumpysecretary

grumpysecretary — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:31:17 +0000

Regarding this:

2. An Economist article on new media cites Lauren Rich Fine, a financial analyst for newspapers, who estimates that Ã¢â‚¬Å“for every advertising dollar that a newspaper gets for a print reader, it receives only 20-30 cents for his online equivalent.Ã¢â‚¬Â

This of course is true…for now. But that will change.This is a temporary problem caused by the unwillingness of the “print sales” infrastucture to embrace the internet. Most newspaper’s sales staff’s are full of old school sales folks who in many cases refuse to admit that the “online edition” is relevant to them. Most papers have seperate staffs for the “online edition” and small market papers may not have any online sales strategy at all! And the publishers are weak and feckless in the face of sales ineptitude.

Don’t you see? It is the “newspaper” that undervalues the online reader, not the advertiser.

By: /Message: Umair Haque Answers Scott Karp

/Message: Umair Haque Answers Scott Karp — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:57:47 +0000

[...] Scott Karp asks a good question: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? He uses the example of MySpace, now in the hands of a Media 1.0-ish company. Will they actually get the returns they seem to expect? He suggests that the answer is maybe not. But what happens if big company brands realize that they no longer need a media middleman to connect with consumers? Why, for example, does a brand need to set up a page on MySpace in order for MySpace users to link to that brandÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s online presence? If a brand succeeds in creating compelling and entertaining content that speaks directly to consumers and creates immediate value for them, why not just set that up Ã¢â‚¬Å“for freeÃ¢â‚¬Â on their own site and use the viral power of social networks to spread the word? [...]

By: BatesLine: Neither rare nor well done

BatesLine: Neither rare nor well done — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:49:10 +0000

[...] Dave Winer answers Scott Karp’s question about Media 2.0: “But what happens if big company brands realize that they no longer need a media middleman to connect with consumers?” Why do you think they call it media? [...]

By: THE BROWSER: MySpace haters unload on the Web - Apr. 24, 2006

THE BROWSER: MySpace haters unload on the Web - Apr. 24, 2006 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:39:31 +0000

[...] Do the digerati have it in for MySpace? After a lengthy profile of the social-networking website appeared in the New York Times this weekend, the blogosphere quickly erupted with bilious reactions. Some observers made basic errors in their haste to put down MySpace, like Newsvine CEO Mike Davidson, who confused reach, the size of a website’s audience, with pageviews. But the most thoughtful posts questioned the premise of the Times piece: That MySpace, with all its billions of pageviews, has yet to live up to the profit potential for which News Corp. (Research) bought it last year. Bloggers noted that MySpace’s advertising woes went far beyond its deeply discounted ad rates. Publishing 2.0 argues that online advertising may simply never be as profitable as older forms of advertising, since it’s easier for advertisers to see which ads are effective and only pay for those. Clickety Clack notes that the Times piece underplayed a key point – that Yahoo (Research) and Google (Research) passed on the opportunity to place text advertisements on MySpace’s pages, because MySpace users are on the site to socialize, not shop. [...]

By: Learning The Fractions Of An Online Economy - AdPulp

Learning The Fractions Of An Online Economy - AdPulp — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:37:29 +0000

[...] Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0 poses some interesting economic questions about scale and efficiency. As consumers spend more and more of their media time online, ad dollars have been pouring into online media Ã¢â‚¬â€ the assumption has been that the billions of dollars that large companies spend on mass media advertising and marketing (i.e. TV ads) will ultimately follow the small company dollars online. If this assumption is correct, websites with the greatest command of online consumer attention, e.g. MySpace, will be the beneficiaries of this 1-to-1 transfer of marketing and advertising dollars to digital media. [...]

By: Scott Karp

Scott Karp — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:18:28 +0000

Eyal, indeed, you are correct — I was off by a decimal place. Unfortunately, it’s going to take several more decimal places to make MySpace the hot property everyone assumes it will be.

By: Eyal Hertzog

Eyal Hertzog — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:13:25 +0000

Am I wrong here or $0.06 CPM is a mistake?

Annual income: $200,000,000
Annual page-views: 366,000,000,000
Annual Mega Page-views: 366,000,000 (thousands of page-views)

CPM: $0.55 (that’s 200/366)

That’s the CPM I would expect from this type of website. No surprises here.

By: I’m Simon Dickson. » Blog Archive » A decade of disintermediation

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:13:07 +0000

[...] Dave Winer quotes a piece by Scott Karp: “But what happens if big company brands realize that they no longer need a media middleman to connect with consumers?” Well, forget the ‘if’. Some of us already did realise – a decade ago. [...]

By: » Web interface extremes: Ajax or online command-line | Enterprise Web 2.0 | ZDNet.com

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:50:26 +0000

[...] As it turns out, the software of the future is about building participatory audiences more than it is about attracting customers, at least at first. Whether that will lower the value of business models themselves remains to be seen, but providing the right interface to your audience will be a big part of the equation, inside and outside the firewall. [...]

By: Journerdism

Journerdism — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:39:18 +0000

[...] The Publishing 2.0 blog asks an interesting question, “What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?” But what if thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fatal flaw in this assumption? What if the transfer of marketing and advertising dollars online is not 1-to-1? What if the Internet has fundamentally lowered the marketing and advertising costs for big companies as it has for small companies? What if large companies can achieve the same sales objectives for a fraction of the cost of traditional mass media advertising? [...]

By: The Crisscross News

The Crisscross News — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 05:23:25 +0000

Profit is a virtue…

Scott Karp wonders if Web 2.0 isn’t less profitable than Web 1.0. Maybe I am misisng something but there seems to be a basic confusion between revenues and profits in the comments. Even if online revenues are lower than traditional…

By: Creative Slice

Creative Slice — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:24:44 +0000

I like your take on web2.0 marketing and do believe it runs true. At Creative Slice we are constantly finding new ways to promote small businesses we work with and with the whole web two point zero trend it’s becoming easier and easier to level the playing field.

Personally I believe this trend will help small businesses rather than large corporations. Advertising will be less about quantity (e.g. TV ads) and more about quality, experience and personal touch.

By: The Stalwart: Media 2.0 Better Be Less Profitable Than Media 1.0

The Stalwart: Media 2.0 Better Be Less Profitable Than Media 1.0 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:13:49 +0000

[...] Trawling through Memeorandum on a cloudy April day, just came across the following from a discussion surrounding the question "What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?". Now, I can’t claim to know, with certainty what Media 2.0 or even Media 1.0 is. It’s best to leave leave that to the experts. What I can say is that, anything 2.0 should be less profitable than the 1.0 version. And if there’s ever a third iteration, that better be even less profitable. [...]

By: Ed Kohler

Ed Kohler — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:42:53 +0000

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad on MySpace that’s geotargeted or personalized in any way to me, so they could surely increase their CPM by using some of the information they know about me to display ads I may actually find relevant.

By: Stuart MacDonald

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:34:18 +0000

Scott, my take on the whole MySpace challenge is this. Not only do they have a huge challenge in monetizing the traffic because they can’t make money off of people “going” somewhere (they want to stay put, thank you very much) but also the talent available to deliver a monetizable message to them where they are is not widely available. The finesse and light touch necessary to make creative that will work is not likely to emerge from the traditional ad world. It’s a microcosm of the broader challenge the ad and broadcast world is having with all of these changes.

Looking forward to seeing you at mesh.

By: Bob Aman

Bob Aman — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:48:01 +0000

Frankly, I’d take it at least a step further and say that Everything 2.0 is less profitable than Anything 1.0. Probably significantly less. Does that mean it’s not worth bothering? Eh, no, not really. The 2.0 stuff is way more fun, and that counts for something.

By: Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » Sunday squibs

Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » Sunday squibs — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:01:41 +0000

[...] What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0? Scott Karp raises an interesting Ã¢â‚¬â€ and potentially scary Ã¢â‚¬â€ question about the future value of advertising. [...]

By: Publishing Hacks » Blog Archive » The Profitability Paradox

Publishing Hacks » Blog Archive » The Profitability Paradox — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:57:54 +0000

[...] Over on Publishing 2.0, Scott Karp wonders if Media 2.0 will be less profitable than Media 1.0. I think it will be. While the cost to produce and distribute content on the Internet is much cheaper than print, people value online content differently. There is a dichotomy between what people are willing to pay for in a bookstore and what they are willing to pay for online. Exact same content, but valued differently. [...]

By: gapingvoid: wrong question:

gapingvoid: wrong question: — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:49:07 +0000

[...] Wrong Question: “What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?” [...]

By: Scripting News: 4/23/2006

Scripting News: 4/23/2006 — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:55:48 +0000

[...] Scott Karp: “But what happens if big company brands realize that they no longer need a media middleman to connect with consumers?” [...]