June 16th, 2006

Vertical 2.0 vs. Mass 2.0

by Scott Karp

The launch of AOL/Netscape’s multi-channel Digg clone/killer came in the same week as news of new verticals in the soon-to-be-launched version 3 of Digg. As with vertical search, both Digg and its imitators see an opportunity to carve up the community-driven news category.

The same is true of the related memetracker category, with Gabe Rivera now running four vertical versions of the original Memeorandum.

WeSmirchBallBug
Memeorandum
Techmeme

Ditto for social networking sites — for example, MySpace’s books, comedy, games, and movies verticals:

MySpace Comedy

Like Netscape, these verticals within MySpace have no distinct branding. (How long do you think it took them to come up with MySpace Comedy?)

Netscape Beta

On Netscape, community topic interests are just a bunch of undifferentiated “channels” (a very 1.0 term, but then it is AOL).

MarktdBoompa
On the flip side, you have companies launching verticals dedicated to serving one community, such as Marktd, the Digg-like PSFK spin-off that focuses on the marketing community, and Boompa, the social networking site for car enthusiasts.

Gabe’s memetracker sites seem to bridge the divide because they are separately branded with dedicated URLs — after he decided to spin off more verticals, Gabe clearly made an effort to more distinctly brand the gossip and baseball sites. Boompa is example of the purest form of vertical — they do cars and nothing but cars.

Which brings us to the key strategy question — which is better, the branded niche approach or the uni-branded vertical approach?

Interesting, when TechCrunch wrote about Boompa, a commenter raised the issue of whether a general car site was niche enough:

Boompa is competing against thousands of generalist and niche oriented auto communities that already have established brands, huge user bases, and equal if not superior feature sets. Automotive enthusiasts choose communities about their specific vehicles - that is why communities like benzworld.org and m5board.com (which I frequent) are so much more popular than general communities like autoforums.com. If you are going to go after a larger landscape than just one manufacturer, than you should target a specific demographic and create a community around it like tunerfriends.com - boompa is just too generalist and too late to market.

To which Boompa founder Dave Snider responded:

You could be right, though traditionally umbrella sites do tend to handle more traffic then boards for no other reason then google (more content usually equates to more traffic). Cardomain, who I consider the site most similar to ours, is easily the largest non-classified car site on the net at present. Also, we are as far as I know the only car site that has a specific board per car model, so we do at least try to give people a narrow experience if they want it. Add that with a part specific database (who is using such and such part), user submitted guides (though we don’t have many at present) and there’s a potentially large amount of content to be built over time. Again… potentially, which isn’t saying much.

I believe you’re correct about relevance though. Are we going to be as relevant for VW fans as VWVortex? Definitely not. I think we’d be successful simply if people put their sigs linking to their car at boompa at those sites.

One could argue that the uni-branded vertical approach allows for cross-selling opportunities, but I’m betting that the niche approach will ultimately prevail. There is something very mass media 1.0 about the Netscape/MySpace approach of trying to be all things to all people.

But then again, that’s exactly what Yahoo did.

It remains to be seen how truly different Media 2.0 is from Media 1.0 — will it be level competition among thinly sliced niches or the same old consolidation and conglomeration?

Comments (3 Responses so far)

  1. Vertical Diggs vs. Mass Diggs…

    Scott Karp looks at the emergence of digg-like sites and wonders if the difference between Media 2.0 and Media 1.0 will be competition among thinly sliced niches rather than the same old consolidation and conglomeration….

  2. この週末の Publishing 2.0 はなかなか面白い記事が連発されていた。いずれも Web 2.0 に関する話である。Vertical 2.0 vs. Mass 2.0 は、Boompa の話に触発されて書かれた記事のようだが、「新 Netscape のようにあらゆるニュースをカバーする Vertical なサイト」と「一分野のニュースに特化した Niche

  3. Overview of Digg-a-likes and memetrackers by Publishing 2.0 Full view posted to aggregators by amayfield(11) Yesterday Publishing 2.0 takes a look at memetrackers and news communities in the wake of Digg’s announcement that it will move into new areas and AOL’s launch of a “Digg killer” under the Netscape

  4. To niche or not to niche?

    I’m not sure if that is the question. Both models can survive with one or two leaders in each vertical segment along with some large-scale “portal” (forgive me for using that word) netowrks like MySpace, Bebo, Cyworld and so on.

    Why should this be an either-or situation? There is no reason to think that the two models cannot co-exist.

    Fox understands aggregation, so MySpace was a natural fit. When Car and Driver, Kelly Blue Book or eBay Autos decides to “go social,” they’ll do something like (or aquire) Boompa.

    One unresolved question regarding the niche sites is just how much funding they need (if any) to create enough traction to be legit networks, and the investment community must hate this.

    As I’ve previously written and commented on Fred Wilson’s blog, it is easy to understand how VCs could get confused when 2 guys can build a cool network like Boompa on a shoestring budget in 2 months that could explode on viral alone.

    How much is Boompa worth compared to a site like Gusto? Gusto just got $3M in VC and the founder tossed in $1M from his pocket. And between you and me, other than the old-school content and editoral ops on Gusto, they look pretty similar to Boompa. Did they need $4M for editorial? If so, ouch!

    Or, was it because the sector is hot, the concept/vertical is strong, the guy who created it has a track record and has already built and sold a travel company, and VCs are just *dying* to invest?

  5. There’s an ongoing discussion/debate at Big Blog Media right now about the direction we’re going to take over the next few months. The areas under discussion follow a similar line to this article onPublishing 2.0

Subscribe without commenting

Add Your Comment

Subscribe

Receive a free daily email newsletter with new Publishing 2.0 posts


Publish2

Publish2 is a web-based newswire that makes it easy for journalists and newsrooms to gather, publish, and distribute links to the best news on the web. Like traditional newswires, the Publish2 newswire is a cooperative effort -- tapping into the collective editorial judgement of newsrooms and independent journalists, distributing links across the newswire and driving traffic to high quality journalism. Our mission is to help journalism survive and thrive on the Web by promoting the practice of link journalism.


Publish2 Posts

Media 2.0 Workgroup
Clicky Web Analytics
Close
E-mail It