Web 2.0, "mom-and-pop" style

The Economist featured an article in its March 19 edition called "Making the Web Pay: The End of the Free Lunch -- Again."  It's a quick read, and it's interesting food for thought.  Just like the Internet bubble burst in 2000, the article asserts that history is beginning to repeat itself -- and Web 2.0 is going to come crashing down, given the current pressure on sites like Facebook and Twitter to develop a business model.

I agree that a viable business model is necessary for any Internet business that plans to generate significant long-term revenues and profits.  That's business school 101.  And within the next 12 months we'll have a much better idea about Facebook's and Twitter's long-term profit potential.

I think you'll continue to see the Facebooks and Twitters of the world -- online services that generate a large user base first, then try to monetize those users later.  Some will survive, others will not.  But for every one Facebook or Twitter out there, you'll see 100 websites or online services that aren't as concerned about making money.  These are the sites run by avid business owners who view their site as their baby.  They want to build a community, provide a solution to a problem, or make the world a better place in a small way...and maybe make a few bucks while they're at it.  Sure, these sites will still try to generate some revenue.  But they'll survive through inexpensive ads, donations, or simple pay-to-play business models.  But because it's a passion rather than a business, the user experience takes priority over revenue.

It will keep these companies small and under the radar in many cases.  But regardless of what happens to Facebook and Twitter, the mom-and-pop Web 2.0 sites will do just fine.

Video books: A new way to bring long-form content to your audience

I try to read books.  I really do.  But for the past couple years, I've really struggled to get through nearly every book I've picked up.  I might get through the first few chapters, but somehow I put them down and never pick them up again.  It's depressing.

With tongue embedded firmly in cheek, I blame Google for my reading woes.  Here's a cover story from The Atlantic entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"  Whether it's correct or not -- and there's been much debate about that -- the premise that the Internet has changed the way our brains function is an interesting one.  Ever since I read this article last summer, I've conveniently had a scapegoat for that huge stack of unfinished books sitting in my home.

So when I saw this Washington Post article about how Jeff Jarvis and HarperCollins are launching what they're calling the "video book" (or as Amazon is calling it, a "V-Book").  It's a 23 minute video for sale for $10.  It's basically a video synopsis of his book.  He's not trying to cover the entire book here -- just summarize it and hit the key points.  That's what makes this format quite different from the audiobook, where you have a full or abridged version of a book that you listen to on CD, tape, or in a digital format like Audible or Playaway.

I think the price point is interesting.  Some people may not want to pay $10 for a 23 minute video book when they can buy the full book on Amazon for $18.  But for those who are busy and know they won't get through the full book, it might be a good deal.  And with the CD version of Jarvis' book going for $30 and the Audible version priced at $28, the $10 video book really seems like a bargain.

Could this be the future of books?  Are books going to be reduced to 20-minute sound bites (or in this case, video bites)?  If Google has really made us stupid as that article from The Atlantic hypothesizes, and given the success of online video in the past couple years, video books might have some legs.

I'm sure book marketers -- and other producers of long-form content -- will be watching closely and experimenting with similar formats soon.

What new "supersized" web ads and the U.S. auto industry have in common

Recently a number of sites that belong to the OPA, or Online Publishers Association (ESPN, The New York Times, Forbes.com, Wall Street Journal, iVillage, and others) announced they're launching three new web ad sizes.  See MarketingVox article here, PaidContent.org article here.

From MarketingVox:

AdWeek reports that members of the Online Publishers Association — including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and ESPN — have agreed to avail the following ad units to advertisers:

• The fixed panel, a 336-by-860-pixel banner. Wider than standard skyscrapers, it follows users as they scroll down the page.
• The XXL, a 468-by-648-pixel box with an expandable video option.
• The pushdown, a 970-by-418-pixel unit that takes up over half of a page before rolling up.

In other words, web advertising is about to get a lot bigger.  I don't mean more popular -- just bigger in size.

I suppose these changes aren't much different than when larger ad sizes (including 728x90 leaderboards, 120x600/160x600 skyscrapers, and 300x250/336x280 rectangles -- also known collectively as IMUs) hit the scene in 2001-2002.  IMUs were the first major change since 468x60 banners were developed in the mid-1990s.

I understand why these new OPA sizes are being introduced in 2009.  Revenues are down, and online publishers are looking for ways to create excitement.  It's no coincidence the last time new ad sizes hit the market in 2001-2002 was in the middle of a big ad slowdown, and now we're seeing another new set of sizes during our current recession.

A few thoughts:

• Pam Horan, president of the OPA, said, "As we talk to the agency community, one of the things we hear is they need new creative ways to connect with our audiences on the page."  Of course they are!  At least 50% of the RFPs that come across my desk are asking for "new and unique placements" or "outside the box thinking."  Agencies always love new and bigger sizes, because they feel like they can get more creative with their creative.  The only difference is the economy.  When times are good, the majority of publishers don't listen to agencies' requests.  But when dollars are disappearing, publishers and agencies do whatever they can to convince advertisers that they're doing something new and different.
• Read any wish list for the online advertising business written by an industry analyst or expert in the past few years.  You'll usually see statements like, "Online advertising needs to become more standardized in its creative placements, execution, and reporting.  There are too many sites with varying standards and practices out there."  These sorts of blog entries and columns are especially common at the beginning of a year, as people are writing their predictions for the coming year.  Well, sadly these new web ad sizes won't help bring us toward greater standardization -- they'll take us farther away.  These new ad sizes are not being adopted by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), the industry group that establishes de-facto standards for online ad sizes and practices.
  
• More sizes equals less standardization.  More sizes equals more work for agencies to produce different sets of creative that will fit multiple websites.  More sizes equals more unsold inventory for many publishers.  Why?  Because publishers will have a wider variety of spots to fill on their sites, since it'll be hard to match up a greater number of sizes with the advertisers who have creative in that size.
  

The "let's make ad sizes bigger" and "let's keep throwing more sizes out there" mentality of the online ad industry reminds me of another business sector that isn't doing so great right now -- the U.S. auto industry.

• "Let's make them bigger" strategy sounds extremely familiar to the path General Motors and Ford adopted in the 1990s, by supersizing their vehicles and pushing so many SUVs onto the roads.
• And "let's give the market more and more choices" sounds exactly like GM's strategy of producing hundreds of different models and trim lines of its vehicles -- as opposed to Toyota's and Honda's philosophy of more standardization and fewer different models.

A few new ad sizes might put a few short-term dollars in a few publishers' pockets, but they certainly aren't the long-term answer the online ad industry still needs.