DISQUS

hellz yeah

add me too: 1602 2763 93

Fred, I'm on the board of a nonprofit called the Northwest Entrepreneur Network, and have been involved for almost 10 years now. The sole focus of the organization is to help entrepreneurs succeed. We started a blog last year (http://www.nwen.org/blog/) where we include guest/syndicated posts on topics helpful to entrepreneurs.

Here's the ask ... if I provide a by-line and link back to your blog, make I selectively include some of your posts?

Whether you call it earned media, earned audience, viral marketing, or whatever, I just don't see your point as being anything new -- hasn't everyone seen case studies? Don't most people in media these days receive links via email, read blog posts, know what twitter is, and are generally aware of how powerful earned media can be?

Everyone wants to do it, but he hard part is doing it right! So it feels like you'd benefit by heading into that territory quickly and making the audience think a little. To what do you attribute *your* success with your blog? How would you measure the cost and ROI? What are the patterns you see when you look at successful campaigns (they're usually either useful, funny or controversial). What's the right process to utilize in building/testing an earned media campaign? How do you test? When is the right time to place media buys to complement your earned media?

I'm sure you'll engage the audience with your presentation skills Fred, but to me the content feels like a retread.

If you think of the behavioral targeting market only as targeting intenders, then you're right -- could very well be a 10% hit to the overall market. But that view is rather myopic.

In reality, there's other targeting available to supplement basic "auto intender" audience segments, so as to further segment them by gender, age range, persona, and affinity strength to certain activities/interests. This multi-faceted targeting approach can mitigate the "busts" and result in fewer impressions necessary to achieve each conversion.

The term "behavioral targeting" is quickly becoming as descriptive as "online advertising", such that it almost is meaningless. The overall online ad space is still so fraught with inefficiencies, that this economic cycle will surely result in the myriad of targeting opportunities to be utilized more effectively.

Maybe it's because the domain could be read in either of two ways?
- Gadgets Expose
- Gadget Sex Pose

;^)

Oh, the irony!! ... that on the same day we shuttered our Others Online toolbar service, which shows you people relevant to the pages you browse to, that Alex and Adaptive Blue announce their Glue product (which is eerily similar in concept)!

Similar to Adaptive Blue (and Me.dium), Others Online has interesting technology on the back end, and we all focused on consumer-oriented products utilizing that technology. Well over a year ago, we used our technology to connect people with each other (social net style) as they browsed the Web. This is what Glue and Me.dium do as well (at a high level).

But we determined early this year, after a spike in user growth (adding thousands and thousands of users in a short time), that there was no way our revenues were going to exceed our costs. The scale of user acquisition was not achievable without spending a massive amount of money -- essentially "buying" users, which I wasn't willing to do. My understanding is that Me.dium is also having a very hard time achieving any meaningful scale.

As a result, we pivoted away from B2C and focused on B2B. And it's working ... we have well-known and successful partners (online publishers and networks), we're currently adding several hundred thousand users per day, earning revenues and have a near-time path to profitability (knock on wood)! By Q1 we expect to be reaching more than 100M unique users per month. Now that's the sorta scale I can work with!

Someone will crack the "social browsing" nut eventually, but it's not going to be us. We sincerely wish Adaptive Blue, Me.dium and all the others the best of luck, and hope they'll stay the course until they reach success.

Happy b-day holmes! In another 40 minutes, it's my birthday too!

Well played, Daniel.

Plenty of room in the space, and the first exit is usually a very good indication of a worthwhile market. You should feel good.

Well played, Daniel.

Plenty of room in the space, and the first exit is usually a very good indication of a worthwhile market. You should feel good.

Good stuff, Tony. My thoughts ...

“Given that taking huge piles of VC money both has the dangers you describe and and firmly closes the door on most early acquisition opportunities, why are people still going after big VC?”

Just as there are people who only eat at nice restaurants or only ski when the conditions are perfect, there are entrepreneurs who are only looking at big market opportunities (where selling for $10M isn't on their radar). For instance, for someone who sold their last company for $100M+ then they might have their sights set on the next one going public and being worth $1B. When you think bigger like that, you tend to only think about bigger investment checks -- like, why waste your time raising ONLY $1M and 50k at a time?! Look at McCaw and Clearwire -- I'm not sure they even bothered with traditional VC instead going for ibank money right off the bat.

Plus VCs can often bring a lot more to the table than money, if you need certain experience, contacts, etc.

“Can you talk about how to decide whether a business/idea should fall into the “lifestyle” category or the “get funding a go big” category?"

It feels to me that the person/founder(s) should decide this for themselves, not the business. As in, do you *want* a lifestyle business (which are certainly the majority), or do you only want to swing a bit more for the fences. The majority of people in this world decide to have a business that earns them a comfortable living, which is fine. Then there are the nutcases (yours truly) that are only looking at big market opportunities and way different risk/reward ratios. Doesn't mean one can't lead to the other, but I think you need to decide what you want first THEN whether your idea fits.

Hi Andrew,

I'm accustomed to thinking in terms of lifetime and lifetime value, and measuring that against cost per user acquisition, rather than a retention coefficient.

Similar to what you outlined above, you look at new users on day 0 and then for all subsequent days look at how many returned. In all cases, it's a dramatically steep curve at first but then flattens out to form a long tail. And in all cases, you can arrive at a factor for user lifetime. For instance, on average you might find that in the first week you see 3 visits from each new user. Multiply 3 by your factor (let's say it's 6.5) and you can estimate your average user comes to your site 19.5 times before they are gone for good.

If you somehow netted $.005 from each visit, then you're making about $.0975 per new user and can therefore spend up to that amount for each new user acquired.

But with this data in hand (and there are ways you can look at this daily -- you're not necessarily 20-30 days behind in analysis), you can see how changes you make to your site affect your week1 and tail factors for average user lifetime.

I tire of the twitterers who only announce their blog posts, or others. That's what I use RSS for!

Personally, I use all social media to share more information about myself -- helping others get to know me and how I think simply helps establish relationships online (business relationships for me ...).

Welcome back.

I continue to see ads targeted to women on my Facebook profile, causing me to make sure they actually know I'm male. (they know)

I think Mike is a straight shooter. It doesn't resonate with me that he had some sort of motive in manipulation here.

If the blogosphere is looking for drama/conspiracy, then perhaps consider the benefit Rick/BlogWorld received by *announcing* Arrington's presence -- surely that alone drove many other speakers, exhibitors and attendees.

I think Mike is a straight shooter. It doesn't resonate with me that he had some sort of motive in manipulation here.

If the blogosphere is looking for drama/conspiracy, then perhaps consider the benefit Rick/BlogWorld received by *announcing* Arrington's presence -- surely that alone drove many other speakers, exhibitors and attendees.

Hi Jim, I'm in Las Vegas and you're up on stage right now so I looked up your blog! (You're looking a little bored actually ... :-)

I'm CEO of a company called Others Online. It's kind of a directory, I suppose -- but we don't organize blog URLs by category. Instead, our users organize themselves by whatever keywords/tags represent their interests, behaviors, what they're writing about, etc. (We also "auto-tag" users but that's another story.) Our primary purpose is to display them to others across the Web who are reading content relevant to those keywords -- targeted advertising for bloggers, really. But we do have a search page on our site too. No "directory" though.

wow, seems to me that they're going from a great name to a confusing one. I figured the controversy around them was limited to the "techo chamber". Either the negative press is a larger problem than I thought, or they really are just creating a larger brand under which to place their multiple products/properties.

I think it's a matter of perception whether I was "attacking" BlogRush or not. I don't think anyone can refute that, like Amway, there's a motivator (and reward mechanism) for establishing a "downline". The people at the top are rewarded the most, and this reward scheme takes a pyramid shape. This is fact -- let's call a spade a spade. I've done my best to stick to facts rather than opinion, and even though these tactics aren't something I would employ I am envious of their successful distribution/launch.

In short, we agree on the following:
-- Our web site doesn't differentiate us well enough. I'm not a very good marketing person.
-- Gaining support for *anything* by attacking others does not work.
-- toolbars aren't for everyone (ours is optional BTW, but using it increases your visibility and CTR significantly)

I think it's a matter of perception whether I was "attacking" BlogRush or not. I don't think anyone can refute that, like Amway, there's a motivator (and reward mechanism) for establishing a "downline". The people at the top are rewarded the most, and this reward scheme takes a pyramid shape. This is fact -- let's call a spade a spade. I've done my best to stick to facts rather than opinion, and even though these tactics aren't something I would employ I am envious of their successful distribution/launch.

In short, we agree on the following:
-- Our web site doesn't differentiate us well enough. I'm not a very good marketing person.
-- Gaining support for *anything* by attacking others does not work.
-- toolbars aren't for everyone (ours is optional BTW, but using it increases your visibility and CTR significantly)

I asked for where BR tells users their impression and click data is totally inaccurate -- you point to the obvious statement they have regarding CREDITS. I know you know that credits are different from impressions and clicks.

You're not telling me anything I haven't already read and considered.

Whilst there might be small % differences in what I listed, the idea that somehow Blogrush are giving out 450% of the credits actually being earned in the system is…

I don't know where you came up with that idea. Let me point out again what I said specifically:

Based on the stats I've compiled from people who've reported them (again, from their BlogRush reports, which I understand you purport to not be factual), on average the credits earned are 450% of the impressions delivered.

I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. On average the total credits earned were 4.5x the number of impressions delivered. I suspect your "total credits earned over the last 30 days" stat exceeds your "impressions delivered over the last 30 days" too, yes?

The list I provided is not MFA. It's from our own system, based on our own algorithm, and represents the interests our users have shown in their blogging and browsing behavior, not necessarily the interests they explicitly added to their profile. There's a bit of science there to explain (auto-tagging, relevance ranking, etc.), but something tells me you're not interested in that sort of substance.

I've long concluded there's very little I could say to inspire you with confidence -- you appear locked into your perspective and unable to open your mind to anything else. That said, I was willing to go down the road of your silly "worm farming" game/example. I already admitted "failure" in this example, and feel this angle of yours is simply indicative of an intention to subjectively single out weaknesses rather than objectively consider potential strengths/benefits.

I asked for where BR tells users their impression and click data is totally inaccurate -- you point to the obvious statement they have regarding CREDITS. I know you know that credits are different from impressions and clicks.

You're not telling me anything I haven't already read and considered.

Whilst there might be small % differences in what I listed, the idea that somehow Blogrush are giving out 450% of the credits actually being earned in the system is…

I don't know where you came up with that idea. Let me point out again what I said specifically:

Based on the stats I've compiled from people who've reported them (again, from their BlogRush reports, which I understand you purport to not be factual), on average the credits earned are 450% of the impressions delivered.

I'm not sure how much clearer this can be. On average the total credits earned were 4.5x the number of impressions delivered. I suspect your "total credits earned over the last 30 days" stat exceeds your "impressions delivered over the last 30 days" too, yes?

The list I provided is not MFA. It's from our own system, based on our own algorithm, and represents the interests our users have shown in their blogging and browsing behavior, not necessarily the interests they explicitly added to their profile. There's a bit of science there to explain (auto-tagging, relevance ranking, etc.), but something tells me you're not interested in that sort of substance.

I've long concluded there's very little I could say to inspire you with confidence -- you appear locked into your perspective and unable to open your mind to anything else. That said, I was willing to go down the road of your silly "worm farming" game/example. I already admitted "failure" in this example, and feel this angle of yours is simply indicative of an intention to subjectively single out weaknesses rather than objectively consider potential strengths/benefits.

Social network. That whole "social graph" speak frankly annoys me too, for the same reasons. It sorta feels like Microsoft taking an established technology and calling it something new just for commercial reasons.

Andy, I must have missed a few reads. Can you please provide links to where BlogRush tells users their impression and click count data is totally inaccurate and not factual?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the total credits earned are less than 20% of total impressions delivered. How are you arriving at the 20% number? Based on the stats I've compiled from people who've reported them (again, from their BlogRush reports, which I understand you purport to not be factual), on average the credits earned are 450% of the impressions delivered. That's only a sample size of 48 users though, to be fair.

Oh, and I'm afraid you'll have to tell your friend that we don't have anyone in our community showing an interest in "worm farming", although we do have the following for other potentially relevant keywords/tags? (posted first page of result set only)

Count Keyword
44 farmer
31 lopez farm
30 farm cottages
29 state farm
23 farm animals reptiles
18 de farmece
17 farm insurance
17 frances farmers revenge
14 farmhouse
13 link farm
13 the farm
12 farmhouses
12 holiday apartments farmhouses
12 plymouth farmers
11 dairy farm

Count Keyword
18 tapeworm
15 roundworm
14 heartworm
10 roundworms
10 storm worm
9 book worms
9 worm explanation
9 wormers
8 roundworm cats
7 guinea worm
7 cat worms
7 heartworm tapeworm
7 wormer
6 bookworms
6 ring worm
6 ringworm
6 wiggler worms

Our index is entirely keyword-based, no categories, so the targeting and community is also keyword/tag-based which provides a much finer degree of relevance, user-control and utiliy. It's also explicitly AND implicitly driven.

For instance, I had no idea we had users with those interests because I NEVER INDICATED the interests myself, either explicitly or implicitly. That'd be like showing a "wiggler worm" ad to someone who's interested in "retirement savings".

Andy, I must have missed a few reads. Can you please provide links to where BlogRush tells users their impression and click count data is totally inaccurate and not factual?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the total credits earned are less than 20% of total impressions delivered. How are you arriving at the 20% number? Based on the stats I've compiled from people who've reported them (again, from their BlogRush reports, which I understand you purport to not be factual), on average the credits earned are 450% of the impressions delivered. That's only a sample size of 48 users though, to be fair.

Oh, and I'm afraid you'll have to tell your friend that we don't have anyone in our community showing an interest in "worm farming", although we do have the following for other potentially relevant keywords/tags? (posted first page of result set only)

Count Keyword
44 farmer
31 lopez farm
30 farm cottages
29 state farm
23 farm animals reptiles
18 de farmece
17 farm insurance
17 frances farmers revenge
14 farmhouse
13 link farm
13 the farm
12 farmhouses
12 holiday apartments farmhouses
12 plymouth farmers
11 dairy farm

Count Keyword
18 tapeworm
15 roundworm
14 heartworm
10 roundworms
10 storm worm
9 book worms
9 worm explanation
9 wormers
8 roundworm cats
7 guinea worm
7 cat worms
7 heartworm tapeworm
7 wormer
6 bookworms
6 ring worm
6 ringworm
6 wiggler worms

Our index is entirely keyword-based, no categories, so the targeting and community is also keyword/tag-based which provides a much finer degree of relevance, user-control and utiliy. It's also explicitly AND implicitly driven.

For instance, I had no idea we had users with those interests because I NEVER INDICATED the interests myself, either explicitly or implicitly. That'd be like showing a "wiggler worm" ad to someone who's interested in "retirement savings".

Hi Andy, of course I recall the comment I left on several blogs. I just hadn't left it on this thread, so reading your post it seemed out of context.

Like I said, I'm not an affiliate marketing/promotion/hype machine. I'm just a guy who feels the advances in contextual/behavioral marketing technologies can be harnassed to offer value to others online on a person-to-person basis (with control on either end), rather than a B2C basis. I suspect if you took half the time you spent writing this post to look at Others Online, then you'd understand how we're not at all about "who's the last person on this page". I would invite your frank and educated opinion (though somehow I suspect you've arrived at a judgement already), and expect I'd agree with many of your comments.

I'm very happy for you, John, Bumpzee, ... and the entire affiliate marketing industry. It's not my cup of tea, but clearly it's important to your annual income and you're an important guy in the space.

Whatever stats you have collected are fatally flawed because no one other than the people behind Blogrush can say how many credits have actually been allocated, and 99% of people reporting stats are just going by the click stats shown in their console… or didn't you read the article?

Yeah, I read your article twice actually, but I still don't understand a lot of it -- no offense, but it seems like a bit of hand-waving and distraction tactics. Credits, and the allocation thereof, are different than impressions. I'm just talking about clicks as a % of impressions, which has nothing to do with credits. Credits are just unserved impressions, yes? That click/impression data, fatally flawed or not, is coming from BlogRush.

The way the system is designed, there is the exact opposite. There is always going to be excess display inventory that they can give away to the smaller bloggers.

That's not exact opposite. (again, more hand-waving) You're saying the same thing I am, that there is always going to be an excess of credits over impressions, but simply adding that they may re-distribute this overhang to "smaller" bloggers. But that Robin Hood theory doesn't make sense. Why would they take credits from one person and give them to another, with no basis or formula, or user terms, especially when also treating these credits as currency?

But back to the point, given their pyramid-shaped reward scheme, how can this aggregate overhand NOT grow indefinitely? If it can never be fully depleted, then isn't it really just a red herring, to keep people trying to build their downline? It quickly becomes a silly number that, even if all new user regisrations stopped, would take months or years to fulfill. And then if people start pulling the widget, there are no more impressions left to deplete the credit balance.

What do you think BlogRush will do then, BUY ad space until every last remaining credit is used? doubtful ...

You sure were right about one thing ... it "doesn't add up".