Disqus - Latest Comments for Mark Devlin

Re: Revenge of the M-listers? Sign me up

Mark Devlin — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:51:47 -0000

As someone who is new to blog usage. I have noticed three simple points about writing blog posts. These are probably obvious to you. The first is that if you comment on someone else's blog those comments do not appear on Technorati, the second is that comments do not appear on the main RSS feed.,a nd the third is that comments are not tagged. So to get proper exposure, it makes sense to comment on your own blog about posts on other blogs. Another point is that you can edit your posts on your own blog. All these combine to create the link-farming you mention in your post.

Of course, I should really have posted this on my own blog, so I will do that right now. No more comments for me ;)

Re: It’s the Value, Stupid

Mark Devlin — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:31:17 -0000

Great blog and insightful commentary. Subscribed!

I have noticed that attention is given to services that are representative of the Web 2.0 mind-set, which values design over content, disruption over evolution, and ideas over business sense.

Re: 2006/02/27/here-come-the-edge-aggregators/

Mark Devlin — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:55:50 -0000

Edgio is hype. There is no proof that users will use use their blogs (a niche media) to post classifieds. As Peter points out it is a new behaviour for bloggers. Why not simply go to Ebay, where there is a proven market for buyers and sellers? Even if there was a market, it would be extremely easy for Technorati or Google to replicate Edgio's features.

Edgio highlights an insidious problem in the review of new websites: A-list bloggers using their influence to push their own products onto the market. If Edgio had been introduced by "ordinary people" it would be dismissed. Attention spent on poor products by well-connected people is attention taken from more deserving prodiucts by less well-connected people (and I am not just talking about my own site).

There is now a major credibilty gap for any site that reviews new products. How do we know if the next review is impartial? Who has been paid, what relationships have been leveraged, and what favors have been given?

Re: 2006/02/27/here-come-the-edge-aggregators/

Mark Devlin — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:34:57 -0000

Pete,

I appreciate your clarification of your methodology.

Re: 2006/02/28/blogbuy-michaels-little-edgeio-killer/

Mark Devlin — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:17:51 -0000

Are you being ironic when you say you can't wait for the Techcrunch review? To my mind, the credibility of Techcrunch has been damaged by their hype of Edgeio. How can they be expected to give a fair review of their own products, and fair reviews of competing products in the same space? And if you can't trust their views on this product, can you trust their reviews on other products?

There is also a chilling effect on criticism. Participators in any review site should be able to state their opinions on any product without fear that they are upsetting the owner's pet project.

BTW, I think Blogbuy is a far better name than "Edgeio", which is too geeky to gain mass usage.

Re: 2006/03/02/newsvine-launches-phew/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:18:37 -0000

Newsvine is yet another example of a news site that appeals to geeks only. Its appeal to a mass audience is limited, not expanded, by its emphasis on high-levels of user paticipation and cool design over basic news presentation. IMHO the front page is awful, with a poor selection of stories, and too much room taken up by graphics. I wonder what the business model is - I don't see any advertising on the site.

BTW, my site, Crisscross, has let readers comment directly under newsfeeds since 2000. It's hardly an innovation.

Re: 2006/03/23/spout-social-movies/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:51:41 -0000

Amazon already has onwership in 43things.com/allconsuming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Co-op

Re: 2006/03/23/spout-social-movies/

Mark Devlin — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:34:51 -0000

The 43things privacy policy says:

Other Businesses: We work closely with other businesses, and we may share user information with those businesses.

It would be no surprise to find out that 43things shares personal info with Amazon.

Re: 2006/06/01/nowpublic-gets-14-million/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:10:34 -0000

I suggest you avoid using Alexa as the basis of comparison of Web 2.0 start-ups. Please refer to my post on the Alexa popularity myth. In short, Alexa results are over-represented by tech users (and are easily gamed), therefore they did not give an accurate analysis of a start-up's position.

As for NowPublic's "change of strategy" -- a casual look at the site will show that there are hardly any views or comments on their "popular" stories. The site has much less than their claimed traffic levels.

How can NowPublic sell user-generated content when there is none? And how can they sell content to news providers when what little seed content they do have comes from the same news providers themselves?

BTW, OhMyNews worked in Korea because there was a huge gap in the market because national news was so restricted. The market in the U.S. is far more open and competitive.

Re: 2006/06/01/nowpublic-gets-14-million/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:20:58 -0000

However, even if we tracked â€œbuzzâ€ around Newsvine vs NowPublic, I think Newsvine would still come out on top.

Which begs the question: are you tracking "buzz", or are you tracking ability to perform? Both of those sites are performing well in buzz, but not so well in the wider market.

Re: 2006/06/01/nowpublic-gets-14-million/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:21:48 -0000

can you fix the closing blockquote tag? sorry.

Re: 2006/06/01/nowpublic-gets-14-million/

Mark Devlin — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:48:44 -0000

For sites similar to my own, I look at the number of posts, or user-generated pieces of content in a given time frame. I also look at the quality level of user activity, and whether there appears to be growth in the product and its userbase.

As I mentioned in my blog you could also use systems like Websearch.com, that give a wider view of the market than Alexa. There are also professional comparison tools (if you can afford them).

What I'm saying is that reliance on a single metric such as Alexa.com can lead to distortions in the perception of both individual companies, and the market in general.

Re: 2006/07/26/meebo-im-now-in-netvibes/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:55:17 -0000

Ask and ye shall receive...

Crisscross Friends will launch a meebo.com-like aggregated instant messenger on August 1. The IM system will be integrated to our social network, giving profile-to-profile messaging, as well as the ability to simultaneously talk to your Yahoo, MSN, Google and AOL contacts.

http://www.crisscros.com/friends

Re: 2006/07/28/elifelist-myspace-meets-43things/

Mark Devlin — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:21:20 -0000

Old news. We have been doing this for months now...

http://www.crisscross.com/friends

Re: 2006/09/18/how-the-heck-did-zebo-get-4-million-users/

Mark Devlin — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:03:03 -0000

Please do not reward people who lie about their numbers by giving them publicity.

Re: 2006/09/18/how-the-heck-did-zebo-get-4-million-users/

Mark Devlin — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:09:43 -0000

Peter,

So what your saying is that if a company says they have X number of users you will just take that for granted? A quick search on popular items from Zebo's tag cloud reveals the following:

car - 10,521 users
bike - 3312 users
dvd - 4752 users
shoes - 9560 users
clothes -11254 users

It is impossible that they have four million users. They might have maybe as many as 20,000 users (and how many of them are fake remains to be seen).

From the NYTimes article:

"Yet some four million people have joined the free site since January, during its private beta test, according to Roy de Souza, Zeboâ€™s founder and chief executive."

Mr Souza is lying. I doubt they even have four million page views.

Re: 2006/09/18/how-the-heck-did-zebo-get-4-million-users/

Mark Devlin — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:11:42 -0000

Pete,

No disrespect intended, but what more facts do you need? Simple searches show that the site does not have anywhere close to four million users. Alexa charts, and the broader websearch chart (http://ranking.websearch.com/TrankTrend.aspx?ur...) also show that the site is not popular -- if anything it's popularity is declining.

Mr de Souza is an web advertising specialist. If he made a mistake with his numbers he is incompetent. If he insists on the four million number then he is lying. He can't have it both ways.

As a Web 2.0 consultant and leading blogger in this space it puzzles me why you were not able to determine whether Zebo's numbers were reasonable or not on your own. Thank god for reader comments ;)

Re: 2006/09/18/how-the-heck-did-zebo-get-4-million-users/

Mark Devlin — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:02:16 -0000

steve-ray:

Alexa statistics may be of variable quality, but they will certainly tell the difference between a site with four million users and one with no users.

The site owner said that "four million people have joined the site since January". That is very different from them having four million email addresses. Even if ZeDO had four million email addresses it does not mean that ZeBO has four million users. To add them into PR for an unrelated site is misleading at best.

Peter:

the reason Iâ€™m rarely skeptical about these sites is because I get snowed under with hate mail if I say the slightest negative thing. Injecting skepticism is about as far as you can go, unless you enjoy the death threats, comment spamming etc.

That's got to be one of the most spineless comments I have ever read. Are you afraid that the Web 2.0 mafia will force you to put rounded corners on your site? As a consultant I suppose it pays to be nice to everybody, but it's not really journalism, is it?

Re: 2006/11/02/indian-youtube-doesnt-deserve-15-million/

Mark Devlin — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:04:31 -0000

Theres's more to running a business than software development. Perhaps the company behind this would rather spend VC money on site promotion than software development. It could also be reasoned that by using off-the-shelf software will allow them to get to market faster.

Re: 2007/03/07/mark-cubans-youtube-love-affair-continues/

Mark Devlin — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:58:37 -0000

>Itâ€™s like a Donald Trump versus Rosie Oâ€™Donnell feud for the tech blogosphere.

And about as interesting...

Re: 2007/03/08/bolt/

Mark Devlin — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:43:57 -0000

> Letâ€™s hope it doesnâ€™t make entrepreneurs more risk averse

Perhaps it will also make some entrepreneurs realise that they can't get rich by infringing other's copyrights.

Re: 2007/03/08/bolt/

Mark Devlin — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:59:08 -0000

Pete

The game isn't over yet, Viacom sues Google for $1B

Re: 2007/04/19/petition-against-alexas-statsaholic-lawsuit/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:08:34 -0000

I am a regualar user of Alexaholic. It is disgraceful that Alexa is bullying a company for using the tools it provides. Shame on Amazon.

Re: 2007/04/19/petition-against-alexas-statsaholic-lawsuit/

Mark Devlin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:04:45 -0000

Uh-oh. If he's not actually using the API then that's not good. I have been involved in these type of dramas before, and often they are not what they first appear. I should have found out more before posting my support so I'd like to remove my name from the petition, pernding further investigation.

Bilal: Alexa/Amazon is not a charity. They used their skills to collect user data. That data is an aggregate and does not belong to you, or to any other group of users. If they want to charge for it, that's their decision. It's not a tax if you have the choice not to pay it.

Re: 2007/04/22/alexa-vs-statsaholic-widget/

Mark Devlin — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 07:43:16 -0000

I'm confused: Does a star support Alexa or does it support Alexaholic?

Re: 2007/05/13/monitwitter/

Mark Devlin — Sun, 13 May 2007 23:34:49 -0000

Surely "monitter" would be a better name.

Re: Audiences Are NOT Created Equal

Mark Devlin — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:14:24 -0000

This discussion reminds me of Open Source vs. Microsoft.

You say that some audience groups are smarter than others but discount the fact that mainstream media already has a highly-informed group of people that are making decisons for their audience - editors and publishers. Those people are generally smarter and better informed than their audience. Not to mention the people behind them who work to keep the business of media running.

To ask MSM to start "engaging their audience" is incorrect terminology (and slightly condescending). They have been engaging their audience very effectively for years. What you are asking for is for them to provide systems for greater audience participation. However, explicit audience participation in news is only once part of the solution. Most mainstream readers do not have the time or inclination to actively participate in selecting their news -- they just want to read, or watch, a presentation of news. I can see this from my own site, where the proportion of posters to readers is 100 to one. There is however, much to be said for implicit models, although it should be remembered that people come to news sites not to read what they know, but to read something different ;)

Digg, etc don't work well because they conform to the wider meaning of democracy: the rule of the mob. They reflect the difference between these two questions: Do you want to read what everyone else thinks is popular?
Or do you want to read what is most interesting to you? Although algorithms will become more sophisticated there will always be room for highly informed human editors (a representative democracy?) to interact with audiences.

"The future of media is somewhere between Old Media and Web 2.0" is not a particularly bold prediction. It is more interesting is to predict where the boundary will lie. It is already clear that MSM is adapting to maintain their audience. Their efforts to co-opt bloggers and to add various "new media"-like products to their media leads me to believe that the boundary will resolve in MSM's favor.

Any person wanting to start a new media based on technology alone should think carefully about the values implicit in MSM, the methods they use, and about how easy it is for MSM to copy new media features.

Re: The Art of Not Taking Yourself Too Seriously

Mark Devlin — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:17:58 -0000

Actually, there are gatekeepers. Always were, always will be.

Re: What You NEED vs. What You WANT

Mark Devlin — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:59:20 -0000

Obligatory Rolling Stones Quote:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

The quote says that as a member of the audience your desires may not match with what is provided. Each media has to try to cater for a variety of needs, wants and passing interests (a hierarchy of desire, if you will). There will be a core group of addicts who need the offering, a wider number who would like it but balance their preferences with other media (I prefer "would like" to "want") and even more who have a passing interest.

My site has a small group of reader/participators, a larger number of regular core readers and then many, many more who simply come by to read one story from a link or search engine. To expect those readers who pass through to participate is unrealistic. But I have to develop all areas to make the site work.

Reinforcement of existing values is a useful function of media. FoxNews was successful because it identified a potential audience (people who perceived CNN as being too liberal) that was not adequately represented and gave the core audience what they needed and a wider audience what they wanted.

Re: You Know You’re a Geek If You…

Mark Devlin — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:17:24 -0000

1. Have a blog
Just started a week ago http://blog.crisscross.com
However, I much prefer to write comments on other people's blogs. BTW, don't you think it is a bit selfish when people comment about your posts on their blogs instead of commenting on yours? Or is that just the way it is?

2. Knowingly use RSS
Just got multiple feeds going in IE7 yesterday. So I have been actually using RSS for one day, even though in all of my sites we have been supplying RSS feeds for a couple of years :)

3. Understand Web 2.0
The Web 2.0 uncertainty principle: If you understand it, you don't know it.

4. Think anything built with Ajax is Ã¢â‚¬Å“coolÃ¢â‚¬Â
If you look at most AJAX functions you will notice that they don't actually save the user much time. Even so they make the page slicker. However, I don't think anything built with Ajax is cool. Ajax doth not the product make.

5. Think blog Ã¢â‚¬Å“A-ListersÃ¢â‚¬Â are Ã¢â‚¬Å“coolÃ¢â‚¬Â
Nope. I think end-users are cool.

6. Use a Ã¢â‚¬Å“memetrackerÃ¢â‚¬Â
Nope. I don't want to work to get my news.

7. Want to own your Ã¢â‚¬Å“attention dataÃ¢â‚¬Â
Whatever.

8. Podcast
Never listened to one, but have written a business plan and got sponsorship for a professional-quality podcast we will start shortly about Tokyo life :)

9. Use a beta version of anything
Everything I make is a beta ;)

10. Were ever picked on in school
Unfortunately, yes.

Didn't you miss out "11. Think corporations are evil (especailly Microsoft, and except Google)"?

I suppose what I learned form the above is that you don't need to actually use something (RSS, Web 2.0, Ajax) to know it's value, but it probably helps.

Re: The Coming Search Advertising Crash

Mark Devlin — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:35:09 -0000

A recent study showed that 51% of UK internet users only visit 5 sites. In my experience as people become used to the net they search less. This is bad for search and good news for existing brands. However, Google now has hundreds of thousands of advertising clients that they can repurpose if necessary -- their strength is really in the client base, not the output media.

Re: It’s All About the FILTER

Mark Devlin — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:51:40 -0000

But a blog canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“winÃ¢â‚¬Â in Media 2.0 by being a Ã¢â‚¬Å“destinationÃ¢â‚¬Â for readers any more than an Old Media company can win by making its website the ultimate destination.

Can you expalin how this matches with your recent post where you said that Blogs are destinations?

Re: More MySpace (and Web 2.0) Skepticism

Mark Devlin — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:51:36 -0000

The value is in data-mining.

Re: Exploitation 2.0: Web 2.0 Wants to USE You

Mark Devlin — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:04:26 -0000

When people are compensated by receiving benefits from a service they have little reason to distort the system. When you compensate users directly with money then people who are not interested in the service will game the system for their personal gain.

In your Adwords example you would find that people would be clicking on ads that have no value to them just to earn personal revenue. This would devalue the entire system. You would have attention spam.

If you have to pay someone directly to be your customer then perhaps your service simply isn't good enough.

Let's stop thinking that there is a holy grail web 2.0 business model that comes with new technologies. The business models of the most successful online businesses are no different from those of the past -- collect groups of users by offering shared information and monetise them through subscriptions, advertising or transaction fees. Technology may change, but business remains the same.

Re: Technorati Top 100 Is Changing Radically

Mark Devlin — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:42:55 -0000

FYI:

#26 http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/
News site about mobile phones and technology. Publisehd by one of Japan's biggest technology publishers i.e. not a personal blog.

#29 http://atnewz.jp/
This looks like a Japanese Digg-style tech site not a personal blog

Technorati Japan has a list of the top Japan blogs here: http://technorati.jp/talk/top100.html

It is in Technorati's interest to continually promote the blog space as growing but considering that the results now include high-noise-low-content MySpace posts I wonder how much of the current "growth" is actually taking place outside MySpace or MSN Spaces. And how many of the "blogs" that are tracked are not simply news sites where people comment (including my own site).

Re: Digital Editions of Print Pubs Are Publisher-Centric

Mark Devlin — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:32:21 -0000

Actually, I think it is a step in the right direction.

The web-format is quite weak when it comes to advertising. A 'Digital edition" allows advertisers and publishers to reuse creative material and gain flexibility with ad sizes and placement.

The vast majority of people who consume newspapers are readers and not participators, so user-driven features are not necessarily as important to them. Also, tablet computers lend themselves better to portrait-style documents. When a computer page is the same size and format as the print page then scanning and turning pages becomes quite natural. For example, the Sony ebook is this format, and I don't think people are complaining about interactivity when reading books on it. It think people would be quite happy to be able to download the paper as-is onto the reader. This is even more true of design or photography-led magazines, which don't look that good on the web.

We would like to release a PDF or digital edition of our magazine, but PDFs don't fit well on peoples' screens. If the screens were tablet or portrait format as standard then it would be quite popular I think.

So far, digital editions haven't worked well, but if this initiative allowed for more people to read more types of content online, and shook up stale ad formats, then it would be an interesting step.

Re: Will Search Advertising Be Winner Take All?

Mark Devlin — Mon, 08 May 2006 05:26:24 -0000

Search advertising will be displaced as advertisers come to realize that social networks define target audiences better.

Re: Online Ad Rates Accelerate the Advertising Death Spiral

Mark Devlin — Thu, 11 May 2006 02:08:07 -0000

Scott,

I first started reading your blog because you were a voice of calm who recognised the values in Web 1.0 were applicable to Web 2.0. Now it seems you have caught some kind of "bubble fever" which has the unfortunate symptom that you feel compelled to declare that anything 1.0 is dead, dying or unecessary :( Please get well soon.

Advertising prices are going up because demand is high, not because it is declining. Demand is higher because advertisers now realise that they can advertise online effectively. The market is growing, it's the nature of the spend that is changing. Whether a company spends money on ads, direct mail, or in-house marketing it's still money spent on promotion.

As I mentioned recently in my post Social networks are (Demographic) Search Engines, much of the future of advertising on the web is personalised direct marketing. Companies, particularly those in food service, have always used direct marketing to reach their customers; it's just that the tools to do so on the web have not been that great so far.

You have overestimated the ability for humans and corporations to effectively to do their own marketing. Just as a blogger is not a media company, a burger company is not a media company. It is unrealistic to think they can, or should, be able to deliver the kind of results that are required to consistently gain attention in the market. Ad agencies and media companies are simply better at collecting potential customers. Note that all the campaigns you mentioned were created and promoted (using PR and advertising) by intermediary ad agencies, using the clients' advertising and promotions budget.

Re: Vocational vs. Avocational Media

Mark Devlin — Sun, 14 May 2006 02:31:37 -0000

Most bloggers do not understand the distinction between the role of the publisher, editor, and the journalist. With respect to growing a business, the issue is not whether bloggers can be journalists, but whether they can be publishers ie. a person who can bridge commercial and creative worlds. For good or bad, bloggers generally focus on the journalist role, thinking that is the whole package.

Re: “Mediocrity Is Finished”

Mark Devlin — Thu, 18 May 2006 21:59:35 -0000

I don't think there is any contradiction in what he's saying. Fox didn't buy MySpace to make money from ads --they bought it so they could repurpose (high-quality) content direct to MySpace users.

Re: The Unbearable Lightness of 2.0 Business Strategy

Mark Devlin — Sun, 21 May 2006 20:20:16 -0000

Jeff's image of the independent, but lonely, blogger that worries about the value of community is instructive. Maybe communities are not for him, but most people get value from them.

It's called the edge because it's not the centre. Most people want to be in the centre of things because at the edge, no-one can hear you scream.

Re: Google Reality Check

Mark Devlin — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:12:04 -0000

It makes sense for any large-scale site to drop Google and go with their own system. Many larger companies already outsource their text-link programs or have created their own systems. We run an in-house system for our local clients. We consider Google ads as filler, and a good way to add revenues while building the product.

PS: I doubt Morrisey would approve of your misuse of his song title. Perhaps "Bedroom bloggers of the world, unite and take over" is more in line with the sad and lonely sentiment of "Shoplifters of the world..."

Re: Increasing Advertising’s Low Return on Consumer Attention

Mark Devlin — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:17:54 -0000

Scott,

Profiling companies without telling us how their product actually works is simply adding to the generic Web 2.0 hype. If you are going to profile a company, please either give enough details about their business model for your readers to make a reasonable assesment, or leave it until the public announcement.

By the way, your analysis of Adwords is wrong.

What IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m getting is not the Ã¢â‚¬Å“best inexpensive digital video cameraÃ¢â‚¬Â but rather offers from the best gamers of the AdWords system with the deepest pockets.

But hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the bigger problem: In my search for the video camera that I will ultimately purchase, money will change hands between advertisers and intermediaries as my attention Ã¢â‚¬â€ and my intention to buy Ã¢â‚¬â€ is Ã¢â‚¬Å“monetized.Ã¢â‚¬Â But not a dime of that ad money will make it into my pocket.

Where does the money in those "deep pockets" come from? The company that has the most efficient production and distribution will have the most money left over for advertising. The reward for efficiency is more advertising, and more sales. This leads to economy-of-scale which drives prices down across the whole industry.

As a consumer, you benefit from ad competition by vendors in two ways 1) lower prices and 2) less time to take a decision. (Advertising is communication, and if a company can communicate its benefits more quickly, then that is a major benefit to the consumer.)

Re: Increasing Advertising’s Low Return on Consumer Attention

Mark Devlin — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:19:28 -0000

Whatever their philosophy is, it means little without actual details of how their site actually works. This is especially true when they claim to overturn existing advertisng models with their system. So many sites have had great ideas, but have failed when the product actually reached market. The road to hell is paved with good intentions ;)

You have misread my analysis. I did not say that all value accrues to the intermediary. I said the oppposite. Consumers receive direct benefits when corporations compete to advertise to them.

The first benefit to consumers is that competition between advertisers drives prices down, and rewards more efficient companies. The second benefit is that competition to create better advertising messages ultimately saves consumers time.

Re: Increasing Advertising’s Low Return on Consumer Attention

Mark Devlin — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:57:01 -0000

First of all advertising media provides space for companies to compete against each other on price and benefits. If one advertiser offers a candy bar for $1.00 and another offers a candy bar for $0.90 consumers will usually buy the cheaper one. If two items are equivalently priced, then the company that can present its benefits to its market will win the sale. Without a marketplaces consumers are not aware of pricing and benefits.

Competition reduces prices. For example, due to efficient manufacturing methods, Company A makes a candy bar for $0.90, while Company B makes an equivalent bar for $1.00. Both companies can sell their bar for $1.10 in the market. Company A can invest more in advertising, and sell more of its product. Company A can then take advantage of economy of scale, and manufacture the bar for less.

To compete, Company B has to either 1) improve the efficiency of its marketing, or 2) improve its total business processes. Say it improves its manufacturing so that it produces the bar for $0.90 (same as company A). Now both companies are competing soley on marketing ability. They will both work to improve their efficiency of their marketing message, and its delivery. Ultimately, as a result of this competition prices will fall (or prices may stay the same, but benefits will rise).

Look at cars: Due to competition (and heavy advertising of benefits) the features you can get on a cheap car now include air conditioning, lots of gadgets and a host of saftey features.

You have a paradox in your post: How can all those irrelevant ads save me time? The point is that you judge them to be irrelevant very quickly. I am pretty sure that you only check the first few Adsense ads on a page, and ignore the rest.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Advertising is the worst form of gaining attention...except for every other form that's been tried.

Re: Jellyfish’s Liquid E-Commerce Market

Mark Devlin — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:52:36 -0000

Scott

To mix a metaphor, you have been totally suckered by Jellyfish. They hooked you with an exclusive look at their unreleased site, a behind-the-scenes discussion with the owners, the discussion of principles and, crucially, the pledge to keep the mechanics of the site secret. They made you feel part of the select inner circle (even though they were using the same technique with other blogs), and used your desire for attention and your vanity so you would hype their product, while at the same time craftily avoiding negative comments about the product. Gotta love that kind of publicity.

I warned you that it was wrong of you to hype Jellyfish without letting your readers decide for themselves. Now the feedback has come, youre continuing the act to plan by becoming their apologist. Rather than objectively trying to understand why people think Jellyfish will not work as planned, you have the audacity to berate them as suffering from a "lack of imagination". You have lost all objectivity towards the product and are acting, quite simply, as Jellyfish's shill.

How easily sold you are.

Re: Jellyfish’s Liquid E-Commerce Market

Mark Devlin — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:39:45 -0000

Scott

Personally, I am not that interested in what Jellyfish does, but I am very interested in how blogs and other media can be used to generate PR. I consider this situation to be an excellent example of how a company can manipulate bloggers to generate buzz.

FYI, an ad hominem is an attack on the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. In this case my argument is that you have acted as a patsy for Jellyfish. Your behaviour is the issue in this case, so it is not an ad hominem. However, your reply is an ad hominem because it does not discuss the issue and instead attacks me, the messenger. By resorting to an ad hominem, rather than discussing the issue you give the impression that you cannot answer my criticism.

Re: Jellyfish’s Liquid E-Commerce Market

Mark Devlin — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:49:18 -0000

Scott

Giving a supported argument for you being a patsy for Jellyfish simply cannot be considered an ad hominem.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

In this case however, the actions of the person do have a bearing on the claim, therefore there is no fallacy.

From your previous post on Jellyfish:

Brian and Mark shared with me the details of how Jellyfish works, which got me more jazzed than IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been in a while about the prospect of some game changing evolution. I promised not to disclose the details pre-launch, but that should happen any day now, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m eager to delve in once theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re live.

There is no mention of Root, or any other competitor on the original post.

I actually think it is even worse that you didn't see the site. It shows that you were prepared to accept the word of the owners without any proof of execution. You then put it out to the readers of this blog as being "revolutionary" without actually seeing the site. The end result was that, by claiming to have inside knowledge of the system you allowed Jellyfish to get the benefit of PR without criticism from your readers.

I wonder if you would find such behaviour acceptable from a tech journalist?

Re: Jellyfish’s Liquid E-Commerce Market

Mark Devlin — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:15:00 -0000

Scott, I have no agenda, other than to point out that bloggers can be manipulated to provide PR for smart marketers.

Rather than answering my question, you are attacking the messenger again. This time there's the cute reversal: the implication that I may be a shill for a Jellyfish competitor, complete with a demand for full disclosure! No, I don't own any stock in any of Jellyfish's competitors. Then there's the somewhat vain idea that I have sour grapes because Crisscross has not been mentioned in your blog. I don't come here to get PR. You readership is small, and it's not my target audience.

In any case, there is no need to discuss the issue further here. I hope that next time you get inside information that you consider the implications -- there's enough hype on the web already.

Re: PayPerPost Will Taint Us All

Mark Devlin — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:49:45 -0000

As the person who accused you of being Jellyfish's patsy, I would like to make it very clear that I never at any time accused you of taking money from Jellyfish. To imply that the accusation was about money is either spin, or you still don't get the issue.

Yes, Scott, you may try to take the moral highground by stating that you do not accept money for posting, but corruption comes in many forms. Journalists and bloggers should simply be aware that, rather than using paid methods, clever marketers will use, and have always used, indirect methods of influence. Free invitations, bonds of friendship, pre-release looks, and a host of PR tricks are all ways to gain the favor of the media.

Regarding the credibility of blogs in general; It only takes a click for readers to access multiple sources to verify information. If a blogger is seen to be unduly influenced the situation can be discussed in the comments. Whatever the issue, hopefully the blogger (and audience) can gain understanding of the issue and be more wary next time.

I don't blame you for getting sucked in - Jellyfish simply used you to get a free ride. It would certainly be a mistake to judge the entire contents of a blog by one seemingly tainted post, or to judge the entire value of blogging as a media because of the effects of any inflence. It's just something to be aware of, deal with, and move on.

Re: PayPerPost Will Taint Us All

Mark Devlin — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 06:55:57 -0000

By Mark DevlinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s definition, just TALKING to a ANY commercial interest automatically turns you into an advertisement.

Don't put words in my mouth. I neither said, nor implied this.

You did much more than talk to a commercial interest. You promoted a company as "revolutionary" without even seeing their site, and without giving your readers enough information about the service to comment about it. In other words you promoted Jellyfish at the expense of your readers.

So far in your defence of the issue you have used ad hominem attacks, issued a vague threat about what happened to others who have crossed you, suggested I had an external agenda (including possibly owning stock in Google Adwards, or stock in a Jellyfish competitor), suggested that I have sour grapes because you didn't mention Crisscross on your blog, implied that I accused you of posting for money, and falsely attributed a definition to me.

I hope you will let this go now, as your defence tactics are, to my mind, harming you more than the original issue.

Re: Distributed Revenue-Sharing Ad Platforms Are the Paradigm For Monetizing Social Media

Mark Devlin — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:05:58 -0000

Can users really be motivated to monetize their profile better than the site owner, especially when the amount of revenue users can generate is very small? Assuming a profile even gets 1000 views, at $1 CPM the site owner will only get $1. Multiplied by millions of profile this makes a healthy number. But the individual profile owner will only get $0.50. It's more of a bother to collect it...

In any case, the vast majority of page views on MySpace are almost certainly from the internal mail system. A gmail-like monetization system makes more sense.

Re: Distributed Revenue-Sharing Ad Platforms Are the Paradigm For Monetizing Social Media

Mark Devlin — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:48:18 -0000

Scott, can you elaborate on how the person would be able to drive $1000 of sales?

If users are actively contacting friends on the system to sell product then that seems to be a kind of multi-level marketing. Some people could succeed at this (with a lot of work), but it could be seen as an abuse of the network by users who dont want people to become their friends just to sell them something.

If users are waiting for people to turn up at their profile then we are back to CPM calculations, only in the case of affiliate programs the value might be higher, say $2 CPM.

Re: Distributed Revenue-Sharing Ad Platforms Are the Paradigm For Monetizing Social Media

Mark Devlin — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:12:29 -0000

"Leveraging the social network" sounds very like MLM to me. In Web 2.0 everyone can be a salesperson ;)

Re: The Hypocrisy of Google’s User Experience Policies

Mark Devlin — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:09:11 -0000

Scott: When you mistype a domain name, which would you rather have 1) a blank page or 2) a page with relevant ads? Even if it is only a small benefit to the user, it is still a benefit.

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Invalid (Fraudulent) Clicks

Mark Devlin — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:40:52 -0000

Scott,

Don't you think that the companies offering CPC have an inbuilt incentive to stop click fraud? Surely ads taken on networks with higher click fraud will have a lower performance, causing advertisers to switch to networks with lower fraud.

Re: Journalism Should Be Nonprofit

Mark Devlin — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:40:21 -0000

The BBC is not supported by donations, but by direct taxation. In the UK, if you do not have a TV license you will be fined, or go to jail, even if you do not use BBC services in any way. The government funding of the BBC gives rise to potential conflicts of interest beyond those when news is funded by corporations.

It is not true that companies do not want to advertise next to war stories. All major media carry ads next to such stories. It is unlikely that any particular advertiser would have the desire or need to influence the presentation of news from war zones. If an investigative journalists encountered a conflict of interest they can switch to a media outlet that does not have a conflict.

Rosen, like many bloggers, devalues the publisher's role. It is no revelation that journalists are generally non-profit, but trying to remove for-profit publishers from the equation will not help journalism. What Rosen proposes should not be seen as a replacement for the current news business model. In a fragmented world some journalists may be able to find funding independently but in the main journalism will continue to be subsidised by publishers who are aware that investigative and quality journalism has its place in the media mix.

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Invalid (Fraudulent) Clicks

Mark Devlin — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:57:01 -0000

BTW Google is now displaying the number of invalid clicks on Adsense reports. If Yahoo does the same then advertisers will be able to see which system is more effective against fraud and shift budget accordingly.

http://adwords.blogspot.com/2006/07/estimating-...

Re: The Fundamental Problem of Invalid (Fraudulent) Clicks

Mark Devlin — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:59:40 -0000

Surely the definition of invalid clicks is ones that don't contribute to ROI. Competition to reduce clickfraud is a competitive advantage.

Re: A Challenge To The Well-Intentioned SEO Industry

Mark Devlin — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:01:00 -0000

Threadwatch.org appear to be a larger site than yours. FWIW, Alexaholic link. To move the result down the serps you need to get more of your articles quotes on large sites.

Re: How Age Matters In Media, Web Services, And Social Networking

Mark Devlin — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:44:33 -0000

Regarding ageism: I recommend Tolstoy's bicycle which is a fascinating compendium of people's acheivements ordered by the age of the person when they acheived them. From Shirley Temple to old-age record holders. The title comes from the fact that Tolstoy rode a bicycle for the first time when he was 67.

Re: All Blogs Are Publications And All Bloggers Are Publishers

Mark Devlin — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:44:17 -0000

I have always said that the real issue for bloggers was not whether they could become journalists or not (some have, with difficulty), but whether they could become publishers. (some have, with difficulty).

Re: Facebook’s Vulnerabilities

Mark Devlin — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:34:27 -0000

Just a note to say that on sites like mine, the profile is the network ie all the profile items are interlinked and compared and therefore the ad targeting is much deeper.