Skip navigation

Tag Archives: monetização

Apanhado interessante do Digidaily:

New Media Math: There was a time when smart, ambitious young people dreamed of starting magazines and building an audience. Nowadays, a slightly different group is building media through technology. The efficiencies can be breathtaking. Take Instagram, a photo-sharing app for iPhone. The entire venture consists of four people. It has 5 million users, an astounding 1.25 million per employee. It did this in eight months. Whether this kind of media has the same staying power of old-time media remains to be seen. But it’s clear that the nature of aggregating audiences is quite different in the digital era of ubiquitous distribution on platforms like Apple, Facebook and Google. Figuring out how media in a more traditional model — ie, paying people to create content — can compete is a daunting task.

Media Agonistes: Speaking of the troubles facing traditional media, New York Times writer David Carr and director Aaron Sorkin have an interesting chat in Interview that touches on the challenge traditional media organizations like the NYT face when it comes to the rough-and-tumble digital world. Both are decidedly old-school in approach, although in distinct ways. Sorkin actively distrusts all “new media.” He calls citizen journalists “two of the scariest words to me right now,” paints bloggers as untrustworthy and Twitter users as malcontents. Carr, who is a main subject in the new film about the future of the NYT, Page One, takes a more nuanced view. “Well, the Web is like a self-cleaning oven in that it will correct itself over time. The theory is that if you have lots of inputs of information, then the truth will gradually emerge from these thousands of points of light, and people will assemble from them an idea of the way things are. But my worry is that people will not do that, and instead gather what they need in order to reinforce their existing notions of the way things are, and there won’t be a civic common anymore where fact rules. I mean, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the facts are not up for grabs.”

Porous Paywalls: One thing lost in the paywall debate is how embarrassingly easy most are to evade. Hit a subscription prompt of a Wall Street Journal story, plug the headline into Google News. There are several ways around The New York Times subscription plan, too. These publications are trying to strike the balance of building a needed extra revenue stream while not cutting themselves off from the wider Web. The NYT hasn’t shut down “NYClean,” a toolbar addon that eradicates the paywall overlay that appears over articles hidden behind the paywall. It only takes one click. The latest simple evasion tool is a Google Chrome extension for the WSJ. As BetaBeat explains, all a user has to do is download the extension. When clicking on a paywall article, the extension redirects the browser to perform a Google News search, a brief hiccup before the full article appears for free. There’s no telling how many people use these tools, but their ease will undoubtedly cut into any subscription revenue publishers hope to collect.

Duas leituras diferentes mas complementares

Do WSJ:

Oracle Corp., one of the world’s largest software makers, reached $50 million in revenue in its 10th year. It took software king Microsoft Corp. eight years to hit that milestone.

Yet many technology start-up business plans typically project revenue of $50 million in the first five years. The reality, according to research supplied by data visualization company Tableau Software, is that most tech giants come nowhere near those numbers in the first five years.

Do twitter da Made By Many (acerca deste artigo da Business Week):

“The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads”- Jeff Hammerbacher, FB”

Se eu fosse jornalista eu teria MUITO medo.

Newspapers get 3x too many ad dollars, says study

Even though newspapers have lost nearly half of their ad revenues in the last five years, some analysts believe they still are getting three times more advertising than their readership deserves.

This good news/bad news for publishers comes from eMarketer, a research firm specializing in digital marketing trends. I’ll tell you in a moment why this is both good and bad news. First, the story:

In a report released last week, eMarketer compared the amount of time consumers spend accessing various types of media with the percentage of advertising dollars spent on each format.

Television, for example, represents about 43% of the time Americans spend consuming media and broadcasters collect about 43% of the advertising dollars, according to the study. So, that sounds about right.

Newspapers, on the other hand, are pocketing three times more ad dollars than their mindshare would seem to justify. Even though consumers spend barely 5% of their time reading newspapers, eMarketer found that publishers are getting 17% of the ad spend. As you can see from the table below, the situation is the same for magazines.

Because the allocation of ad-market share is a zero-sum game, print has to be benefitting at someone’s expense. And two notable victims, in this case, are Internet and mobile advertising.

In the most egregious mismatch discovered by the study, only 0.5% of advertising goes to mobile phones even though people spend more than 8% of their media time using them. With 25% of media mindshare devoted to the Internet and barely 19% of ad dollars going to the web, it is being shortchanged, too.

This is good news for newspaper publishers because it proves that they have done an excellent job to date of convincing marketers of the value of their medium. As such, they have been able to corner a disproportionate share of advertising in comparison to other media.

It also is bad news for publishers, because it represents a formidable threat: What would happen if advertisers began to wonder why they are spending so much on newspapers when they can use cheaper and more targetable advertising to reach the growing audiences on the web, mobile and social media?

In reality, of course, the answer is known. Newspaper sales fell from $49.4 billion in 2005 to $25.8 billion in 2010. Despite a modest economic recovery that has increased ad sales for most other media, publishers anecdotally report that sales in the first quarter of this year were softer than they were a year ago.

If publishers can’t catch up to their digital competitors, the staggering erosion in newspaper advertising in the last five years could be the prelude to something worse.

Via Reflections of a Newsosaur

47%. Sim, é isso mesmo. 47%!! Nada simboliza tão bem a estupidez do tempo em que vivemos.

By way of comparison, Google’s profit margin is is 29% and Apple’s is 28%, and both of those are considered fantastically profitable. Facebook had a profit margin close to 30% as well in 2010. Salesforce and Amazon by contrast, also very respected companies, have profit margins closer to 5%.

In fact, tech companies might not be the best comparison. Hermès, the world’s most lauded luxury brand — a company whose business is selling $20,000 handbags — has a profit margin around 30%. When one of your writers was in business school, a professor with extensive experience in the luxury industry told us that Chanel, a private company which doesn’t report financials, was rumored to be the most profitable company in Europe with profit margins of 45%.

Zynga is either the most profitable company ever – or it’s very close to it.

The main reason this kind of profitability is possible is that Zynga sells “virtual goods.” They don’t cost much of anything to make, don’t need to be shipped to shelves, and don’t need any kind of sales force to be sold.

Detalhe: isso aí já inclui os 30% que a Zynga tem que pagar ao facebook.

Nesse link da Business Insider dá pra ver uma assustadora análise da mecânica de um dos jogos da Zynga, o FishVille. Sim, tem idiotas que criam aquários virtuais e compram peixes virtuais.

De Ed Catmull, fundador da Pixar:

“If I look at the range, you’ve got one [constraint] that is art school, I’m doing this for arts sake, Ratatouille and WALL-E clearly fall more on that side, the other is the purely commercial side, where you’ve got a lot of films that are made purely for following a trend, if you go entirely for the art side then eventually you fail economically. if you go purely commercially then I think you fail from a soul point of view… we’ve got these elements pulling on both sides, the art side and the commercial side… and the the trick is not to let one side win. That fundamentally successful companies are unstable. And where we have to operate is in that unstable place. And the forces of conservatism which are very strong and they want to go to a safe place. I want to go to the same place for money, I want to go and be wild and creative, or I want to have enough time for this, and each one of those guys are pulling, and if any one of them wins, we lose. And i just want to stay right there in the middle.”

Via Technogoogle, que tem um post melhor que o outro.

But Google’s a huge success in a landscape of failure. Online ads sell for pathetic rates relative to broadcast or print. This is because by all accounts online advertising doesn’t work very well. You can measure whether someone clicks on an ad, and often whether they buy something after that click. But it turns out they rarely do those things. So businesses aren’t willing to pay very much for ad space on websites.

Is it really a coincidence that the advertising medium with the best instrumentation also appears to be the least effective? I suspect it’s not. It may be that ads never worked as well as the industry had told us; or it may be that the eyeballs/clicks/conversions funnel is a naive conceptualization of how the system works. Either way, Google has succeeded by giving advertisers what they think they want, which is analytic tools that seem to reveal that the whole enterprise is horribly ineffective.

I think the push for better tools and more efficient ads is basically a race to the bottom. In fact, less perfect instrumentation might allow the ad industry to capture a bit more revenue from business thanks to decreased efficiency.

Trecho de um puta post do Manifest Density.

Dessa vez, uma apresentação mais ancorada no lado econômico da coisa. Isso é, os dois lados.

Post foda do Brainstorm9 assinado pelo Rapha Vasconcello, da Click:

Há alguns dias atrás me peguei empolgado com uma ideia, como há tempos não sentia. É uma dessas coisas simples e geniais que a gente esbarra por aí, de tempos em tempos: conheci os Gregory Brothers, e fiquei chapado. Há tempos que eu não via algo tão original e tão inspirador.

Simplificando ao máximo, eles pegam um vídeo na web, geralmente um que esteja começando a ganhar fama, um vídeo com potencial criativo, e o transformam em música. Pode ser qualquer vídeo. Como a música fica aceitável, a vendem na iTunes Store. Isso mesmo: ganham dinheiro com música, de um jeito totalmente novo.

Esse é talvez o melhor exemplo. Veja o vídeo original:

E a música criada em cima:

As músicas do Gregory Brothers são vendidas no iTunes:

Semana passada estava na posição 63 do ranking, uma abaixo da Rihanna, e HOJE está na posição 38.

Outros números: Cerca de 30.000 músicas vendidas na iTunes Store, teve dia que chegou a TOP 3 (imagem abaixo). Número 89 na Billboard Hot 100, matéria no Today Show de hoje nos EUA e uma série de vídeos-respostas (1 e 2) que não param de aparecer.

E o mais bacana:

Quer outro elemento novo? Os Gregory Brothers dividem o lucro da venda da música com a família Dodson, e Antoine, o “figura” que deu a entrevista, hoje aparece em shows, concede entrevistas e já juntou dinheiro suficiente pra mudar do bairro pobre onde o incidente aconteceu.

Puta estratégia!!!

A Mentez é a empresa mais bem sucedida em jogos online na AL, em especial no Brasil, e o Orkut é a principal plataforma. Em uma entrevista, o CEO da Mentez falou coisas interessantes sobre o mercado brasileiro. Comecemos com uma provocação. Ao falar das características dos jogos brasileiros, o cara diz que é muito importante injetar a cultura nacional no jogo:

“Another example is that in farming games in Brazil, users could steal from other users. That wouldn’t work in the US or Europe, but for Brazilian users it was a key functionality, and it’s a reason our farming game is number one in Brazil.”

A Mentez tem uma espécie de paypal bem peculiar:

[At Mentez] we have a strong monetization platform that’s a combination of online and offline. In Brazil, about 40 percent of people don’t have a credit card, so there’s a payment gateway to process cards, and 120,000 points of sale on the street, so users can go and buy the credits. Also, 35 percent of the population accesses the internet through cafes.

Orkut ou facebook?

Right now Orkut is huge, I believe the number one site in Brazil. My estimation is that it has over 50 million users. So for Orkut to keep growing is difficult. I don’t believe they’re growing because they have 80 percent penetration of internet users, and from what I’ve seen Google is investing in Orkut and they want to keep their leadership.

But Facebook is investing as well. The way that Facebook is growing in Brazil is with high-income users, people that speak English or have friends in the US. They’re very strong with the high-income users. However, the Brazilian market is a massive market, so if you want to be a player in Brazil, you need the rest, where Orkut has its leadership.

Para fechar, mais monetização:

The good news is that the Brazilian user’s monetization behavior is similar to the United States. Four to six percent of the user base does transactions, versus what I hear is about six to eight percent in the US.

For our only game that has been on the market for more than a year, we’ve seen users spend $10 per year. The life-cycle of our games, from what we’ve seen, is 8-12 months, but like in any other market they eventually get flat and start to decline.