Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Aidan Henry
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Cambrian House: Failure or evolution? on Mathew's comments
So basically Michael is saying that the model failed rather than the execution? That was the main thing I wanted to find out...
Cheers,
Aidan
Cheers,
Aidan
1 reply
1 year ago
in How will Twitter ever make money? on Online Media Cultist
I think you hit the nail on the head with:
"I'm starting to wonder if they might be in danger of rolling out some sort of revenue model "too late." Twitter's profile is very high right now, so they don't have the luxury of tinkering (as much) as they may have had a year ago or even the beginning of the year."
Cheers,
Aidan
"I'm starting to wonder if they might be in danger of rolling out some sort of revenue model "too late." Twitter's profile is very high right now, so they don't have the luxury of tinkering (as much) as they may have had a year ago or even the beginning of the year."
Cheers,
Aidan
1 reply
Eric Berlin
That's why I think my very first thought about this today was: why don't they just throw up some banners already!? :-)
1 year ago
in How will Twitter ever make money? on Online Media Cultist
Hey Eric,
Thanks for the kind words :)
I definitely think that Twitter needs to capitalize on its user base fairly soon, but it must be done in a very succinct manner. I acknowledge your idea of traditional advertising, although I think they can drive much higher CPMs and provide interesting, relevant ads if they leverage the context. It definitely is a potentially dangerous move, but I think it can be effective if done properly. And, at some point, Twitter needs to do something...
Cheers,
Aidan
Thanks for the kind words :)
I definitely think that Twitter needs to capitalize on its user base fairly soon, but it must be done in a very succinct manner. I acknowledge your idea of traditional advertising, although I think they can drive much higher CPMs and provide interesting, relevant ads if they leverage the context. It definitely is a potentially dangerous move, but I think it can be effective if done properly. And, at some point, Twitter needs to do something...
Cheers,
Aidan
- 2 points
- Jump to »
Eric Berlin
I'm starting to wonder if they might be in danger of rolling out some sort of revenue model "too late." Twitter's profile is very high right now, so they don't have the luxury of tinkering (as much) as they may have had a year ago or even the beginning of the year.
That said, a commenter over on your piece at RWW made an interesting suggestion about "tacking on" ads to existing tweets in the "free space." I wonder how much space there is to work with there?
That said, I still think that unless the ads were very occasional, they would annoy people (and me) as the ads would be grouped into what people assume is a content space, as opposed to an ad space.
Will be very curious to see what they come up with! Or who knows, maybe Google will simply drop $400 million on them or something and that will be that. ;-)
That said, a commenter over on your piece at RWW made an interesting suggestion about "tacking on" ads to existing tweets in the "free space." I wonder how much space there is to work with there?
That said, I still think that unless the ads were very occasional, they would annoy people (and me) as the ads would be grouped into what people assume is a content space, as opposed to an ad space.
Will be very curious to see what they come up with! Or who knows, maybe Google will simply drop $400 million on them or something and that will be that. ;-)
1 year ago
in Digg: A social media Petri dish on Mathew's comments
I think the people that are pissed off are the people who "used to" regularly make the front page. I saw to heck with them. In theory, nobody should be making the front page on a consistent basis if the system is true. Only the best content should rise to the top, and I doubt a few given individuals are submitting all the best content. Therefore I'm totally FOR algorithm changes that level the playing field and only allow for the best content to reach the top.
These little groups and cliques that have prospered for so long are now in turmoil and they're in a pissy mood. Do you really think that a few top blogs and news sites produce the best content all the time? Think again. I'm not a conspiracy theorist here, but there Digg "rings" and "circles" out there. These groups pledge together and vote items to the top. My guess is the new algorithm recognizes voting patterns and a LACK of voting diversity, hence the reason some submissions aren't making the front page...
Just my two bits on a lovely Friday :)
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
These little groups and cliques that have prospered for so long are now in turmoil and they're in a pissy mood. Do you really think that a few top blogs and news sites produce the best content all the time? Think again. I'm not a conspiracy theorist here, but there Digg "rings" and "circles" out there. These groups pledge together and vote items to the top. My guess is the new algorithm recognizes voting patterns and a LACK of voting diversity, hence the reason some submissions aren't making the front page...
Just my two bits on a lovely Friday :)
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
1 reply
mathewi
I agree completely, Aidan.
1 year ago
in Wordpress lands a whopper on Mathew's comments
Seriously though... $29.5 million to build out the server network and add new features? That's one helluva B round...
It seems to me that the company was able to operate pretty lean up until now. I can understand taking on some money to boost the growth curve, but $29.5 million?
Wouldn't $10 or $15 million be enough? I also wondering what kind of valuation they got?
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
It seems to me that the company was able to operate pretty lean up until now. I can understand taking on some money to boost the growth curve, but $29.5 million?
Wouldn't $10 or $15 million be enough? I also wondering what kind of valuation they got?
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
1 reply
mathewi
Yeah, I'm wondering that too, Aidan. They reportedly turned down a
$200-million acquisition offer, so I assume it's higher than that.
$200-million acquisition offer, so I assume it's higher than that.
1 year ago
in It’s a good thing you can’t burn blogs on Mathew's comments
I'm going to provide the most ambiguous answer ever, yet I think it does provide some value and insight...
We need both mediums.
Traditional media (books, magazines, newspapers) provides a unique, professional, well-researched, all-encompassing voice. What social media (and blogs) provides is the ability to challenge ideas and thoughts via comments and trackbacks, further solidifying arguments or completely disproving them. Previously, we were at the mercy of the given publisher.
Mathew... I always enjoy your perspective on a topic such as this, as you dangle a foot on each side of the fence...
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
We need both mediums.
Traditional media (books, magazines, newspapers) provides a unique, professional, well-researched, all-encompassing voice. What social media (and blogs) provides is the ability to challenge ideas and thoughts via comments and trackbacks, further solidifying arguments or completely disproving them. Previously, we were at the mercy of the given publisher.
Mathew... I always enjoy your perspective on a topic such as this, as you dangle a foot on each side of the fence...
Cheers,
Aidan
www.MappingTheWeb.com
1 reply
mathewi
Thanks, Aidan. I think you are right -- and I'm glad you enjoy my
fence-sitting :-)
fence-sitting :-)
with ideas wasn't a problem, but crowdsourcing people to follow
through on them was a lot harder to do -- whether that's a failure of
the model or the execution of the model is open to interpretation, I
suppose.