To build the online media giants of tomorrow, companies need models where the costs of both content and distribution are near zero. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and countless others employ this model. These models allow scale to emerge at very low-cost.
And in these particular examples, the scale achieved is astronomical — on the order of hundreds of millions or billions of users. In thinking through how to build businesses around this scale, a lens emerges: what kind of traffic produces that scale?
In the case of social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr, the root activity on the site is the sharing of content. But the content shared on those sites differs widely, particularly around which content attracts the most engagement. Broadly, Facebook attracts photo sharing and light-hearted personal content. Twitter responds far better to true news and topical information sharing. Tumblr seems to resonate around entertainment and creative media. And Pinterest lights up around home design, apparel, food and other commercial items. (I am taking some liberties by generalizing, but you get the point.)
At the scale of Facebook, you could have your users share almost anything and still be able to build a large business, purely by loading the site up with lots of advertising that is (at very least) rudimentary targeted. At that scale, you can reach billions of dollars in revenue. And I believe, even at their scale, their ad load will need to further increase (along with their targeting abilities) in order to signficantly grow the business. (They also must move advertising off-site, as they are now doing, which I detail in this post.)
But if your service attracts particular verticals of content engagement, not all content is created equal, and some is much more valuable than others.
I divide traffic/content engagement into three buckets: topical, informational and transactional.
- Topical content engagement is what is mostly taking place on Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter. It is comprised of posts generally linking to news, information, family, entertainment, photos, etc. The signal in this stream is the lowest of the three in terms of monetizeable traffic.
- Informational content, often found on sites like SlideShare, Zillow and automotive blogs is the sharing of information that is near the top of the funnel for demand creation. Things like business white-papers or product reviews are perfect examples of informational traffic. This traffic has significantly more value than topical traffic, and excels at attracting endemic advertisers in the key verticals of travel, auto, tech, financial services, real estate and pharma, to name a few. Intent is well understood in this traffic and the signal is strong.
- Transactional content is traffic that is essentially one click away from a purchase. Obviously, traffic found on ecommerce sites is the prime example of this and search traffic is a close second, but increasingly Pinterest is proving itself to be a massive source of high-converting traffic. Here, intent is clear and the signal is strongest.
I believe, with the Facebook share price correction, we are entering a period where sites based on topical content traffic are going to struggle in generating value for themselves. Much of the valuations around the consumer web are rationalizing, and because of that, investors are once again focused on understanding business models. Social media properties building traffic around informational or transactional content will be significantly more valuable than topical ones in this forthcoming period. This general notion that every social property with scale will be able to create their own custom “social ad” units and monetize themselves consistent with their earlier valuations, I think, is flawed, unless those properties are in the two higher tiers of content.
Great thoughts but I’d add that it’s not just traffic, it’s content structure and user intent. Facebook and Twitter actually have a tremendous amount of informational and transactional content lurking within but because both services just present all data relatively similarly and flatly, they aren’t able to do much with this content today. However look for Twitter to use Twittercards and link management (affiliate programs, “products in your stream”) to differentiate. Similarly Facebook with Lee Linden of Karma leading their commerce efforts will surely think similarly. Products your friends bought, etc
That’s a great point, Hunter, and it is a larger point about how additional user data, when overlaid on content, increases advertiser knowledge and targeting ability. Good fodder for additional post.
I’m seeing a full blown 3rd party developer API built on top of Twitter Cards in near future. I posted about it lightly here: http://chrisamccoy.posterous.com/twitter-cards-and-its-forthcoming-platform-ap
David – Agree. We can perhaps look to China, where social platforms are much more fragmented and organized around interests and demographics. There is no “Facebook of China.” Users tend to aggregate around platforms and content they identify with (organized around demographics, topics like movies or restaurants, shopping, etc.) rather than aggregating on one common platform and hoping to wade through a morass of content to catch a piece that might be relevant to their own personal interests, etc.
This is consistent with the CPC pricing we see on the Outbrain network. General news carries the lowest CPCs whereas specific verticals like healthcare and finance command higher CPCs. The highest CPCs are associated with brands. Naturally this pricing is commensurate with the value each visitor represents for those properties.
Thanks for that data, Andres.
why are you giving this way for free…geez
Howard, I need you as my agent.
There is a big difference between being a content creator, being a distributor and being a service provider. You can’t lump all three into one model because they’re very different businesses. In addition, just because the internet as a platform combines all three into a single environment, and this affords all of the above the ability to cross lines that normally they could not have, it doesn’t mean every company has, or should. Models work differently for each. Pinterest is not a media company. It’s a bookmarking service – service provider, Tumblr is a service, not a content company. Facebook is a communications service, secondary to this it can be an information delivery platform. Monetization works differently for all of these things. We are not in a one size fits all world. it has nothing to do with the type of content and everything to do with the type of business.
Thanks for your comments, but I fundamentally disagree. All of the businesses you mention (that I mention) are in the business of delivering audience to advertisers (except Pinterest, but that will change soon when they start charging for traffic in one way or another). In my book, that is the purest definition of a media company on the web. You can find examples of companies which produce content and only monetize it by selling it to consumers, but usually they also deliver audience to advertisers. On the web, companies who deliver audience to advertisers are media companies, whether they pay creators to create content or not. That is the fundamental conundrum of online media economics; by far, the most profitable models have zero cost of content and zero cost of distribution. The rest is just semantics.
But that’s because they choose that model. My point is that they do not have to.
So each of the content engagement buckets David describes are quite valid. The business models behind each bucket will vary, of course. And those businesses that create or license content and distribute it (yes, because they choose to) will have a far different economics than those that don’t.
David, great post. I agree with much of this. Content tied around intent or as close to intent as possible will create most value. It’s similar to the Outbrain example above and any search engine marketing example. High intent categories and keywords will drive highest yield.
And what do you think about general news content? Is that monetizable?
Well, for clarity, all content is monetizeable, I am just pointing out the differences in relative value. News is in the “informational” category. You can see the challenges with building big businesses online around general news.
Google spends $10 Billion a year to acquire traffic. The model is arbitrage. Always has been. Always will be.
Jonathan, I’m not sure I understand the criticism here. You say Google spends $10B on traffic acquisition. But they do $50B in revenue. Perhaps you are saying their costs of distribution aren’t zero, as I allege. That’s a good point. But their costs of content relative to traditional media are zero.
Great post. AMEN on everything you said… new user patterns are causing new user experiences and whoever can nail the “preferred user experience” wins it all.
Thanks for writing this post.
[...] * David Pakman: Not all trade is combined equal [...]
I think that the three bucket are often overlapping where the Informational Content or Topical Content can drive Transactions or other direct consumer or trade revenue models. The historic hallmark of media companies has been dual or multiple revenue streams from advertisers and consumers. LinkedIn come to mind as well as Consumer Reports or others with consumer pro versions or who create distributor revenues.
[...] Oxpeckers What the new NYT public editor reads – Atlantic Wire “Social ad units” or no, the Web media economic model is still broken – David Pakman [...]
[...] * David Pakman: Not all traffic is created equal [...]
Thanks for this clear, concise, informative post. For content developers it may provide insights on what platforms to distribute information on.
[...] David Pakman, a partner at Venrock pointed out recently, not all traffic is the same. Advertisers, he predicts, will direct their spending toward transactional content that has a lot of [...]
[...] David Pakman, a partner at Venrock pointed out recently, not all traffic is the same. Advertisers, he predicts, will direct their spending toward transactional content that has a lot of [...]
[...] David Pakman, a partner at Venrock pointed out recently, not all traffic is the same. Advertisers, he predicts, will direct their spending toward transactional content that has a lot of [...]
[...] David Pakman, a partner at Venrock pointed out recently, not all traffic is the same. Advertisers, he predicts, will direct their spending toward transactional content that has a lot [...]
[...] David Pakman, a partner during Venrock forked out recently, not all trade is a same. Advertisers, he predicts, will approach their spending toward transactional calm that has a lot of [...]
[...] David Pakman, a partner at Venrock pointed out recently, not all traffic is the same. Advertisers, he predicts, will direct their spending toward transactional content that has a lot [...]
[...] Pakman by 林西抹抹茶 除非注明,本站文章均为原创或编译,转载请注明: [...]
[...] Pakman by 林西抹抹茶 除非注明,本站文章均为原创或编译,转载请注明: [...]
[...] Pakman by 林西抹抹茶 [...]
[...] By Pakman [...]
[...] have different attributes, and the reality is that news or “informational” content has become a commodity, and is difficult to monetize. In a nutshell, that is what is fuelling the disruption that newspapers are experiencing — [...]
[...] have different attributes, and the reality is that news or “informational” content has become a commodity, and is difficult to monetize. In a nutshell, that is what is fuelling the disruption that newspapers are experiencing — [...]
[...] have different attributes, and the reality is that news or “informational” content has become a commodity, and is difficult to monetize. In a nutshell, that is what is fuelling the disruption that newspapers are experiencing — [...]
[...] of content have different attributes, and the reality is that news or “informational” content has become a commodity, and is difficult to monetize. In a nutshell, that is what is fuelling the disruption that newspapers are experiencing — and [...]
[...] Pakman by 林西抹抹茶 除非注明,本站文章均为原创或编译,转载请注明: [...]