Is openess all about monetization?

by

I have been reading in the blogosphere for a while now that the drive for website owners to make their users data open is down to monetization.  This assumes they own the individual users data or have given the individual the privacy controls to make themselves open.  Publishing a website is an open action.  Don’t want to be on the web, don’t launch a website.  OK, others will do it for you but web at heart is all about sharing.  In the dot.com era sharing was built around webpages, and the verb of choice was search, latterly renamed ‘googling’.  As all the webpages could be crawled and indexed (creating value in shared connections between the pages, ie. pagerank) meant that users could search across the web and in exchange for that attention a business model based around advertising, adsense or CPC was made real, as businesses saw the benefit of paying cash for ‘interfering’ in the users attention.  Web2.0 shifted the focus from the page to people.

This throws up a problem according to the Semanticweb blog for CPC advertising in a people centric world,

“1. Help me communicate better with people I already know. Facebook does this well but it is does not monetize well. And there are tons of alternatives – texting/SMS, mobile phone, email and Skype for example.

They go on to extend the case to the situation where there is no need to be mutually connected, i.e. twitter, follow people you don’t know but have an interest in.  In this model the whole system is built with open set as the default and in the case of Twitter a revenue stream for first access to that stream.  Both these business models seem limited and The Semanticweb blog suggests FB solution is,

“Consumers pay by buying stuff. And the social media revolution has reminded us that people buy based on recommendation of friends more than they do from ads (whether traditional or search based). That is intuitively obvious to everybody. What is different is a massively scalable way to deliver those recommendations to vendors selling stuff.”

They point out this is the market where Amazon.com rules.  An e-commerce walled garden of information that via FB ‘like’ button could be distributed across the social web, at least via FB and the developers using its API?  Ironically, we potentially have the case where a dot.com era business model is opened up and made distributed by a web2.0 social garden.  It ‘s progress and it is all heading in the direction of openness.  What about the individual users, is this their vision for web2.0 or are they just happy to follow the web visionaries along until they know what they have let themselves in to?

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: