(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...When Mark and I wrote a Web 2.0 strategy overview for a Very Massive European Telekom, one of the qualities all the properties offered was freedom: portable data, flexible access, and “free beer.” Thing is, when folks get cool stuff for free and there are no ads, they usually wonder, “who’s paying for this?”
“Venture capitalists tend to be fans of ad-driven sites since advertising revenue theoretically covers the cost of giving away a Web service free, and free sites attract users much faster than sites that charge money. Such sites are typically also cheap to run because there is often no need for customer-service agents or costs for physical goods. So such companies can have high profit margins if they succeed. Many of today’s hottest Web properties are based on the online-ad model, including Google Inc., which pairs ads with search results, and social-networking site Facebook Inc.” Via WSJ
Sometimes, displaying ads is a psychological operation, “we’re not baiting you. This service will always be free. We’re not going to, all of a sudden, start charging. We won’t go out of business.” Serving ads on your Web 2.0 site might never really become a profit center, especially if you’re subscription-driven or sell products, but it does allow tend to reassure visitors that neither you nor they are a fool. Running ads also makes a site look less like a hobby, since many “weekend” Ruby on Rails Web 2.0 platforms can look a little half-baked.
Ads also offer an “exit” since there should never be a dead-end on any one of your web pages: if your site doesn’t give your visitor what he wants, maybe an ad will.
Filed under: Advertisements, Advertising, Web 2.0, Web Ads, Web Advertisers, Web Advertising, Web Applications
Loading ...
Leave a Reply