Second dot com bubble?

Chips Lovell

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Revenue does not mean profit though. You can make billions in revenue but if you're losing money you're buggered in the long run.

Absolutely. My point was that they stand in stark contrast to the previous generation of dot coms that were floating with hardly any revenues. I doubt if either are profitable at the moment, nor even if they should be profitable at this stage. But if revenues hold up and with lowish overheads, they ought to be able to turn a profit at some point. I think the real issue is whether they can generate enough cash to justify those valuations.

PeakOutput

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Google adwords is pay per click. If no one clicks on the ad you don't pay for it. Plus, I'd say internet ads are more likely to lead to revenue than print media ads.

THIS

you can choose with google adds weather to pay per impression(every time someone sees an add) or per click (every time someone clicks on an add)

the advertisements can be minutely targeted to people who they already know are interested in a topic. this cant be done on any other medium to the same degree. you know people who buy the financial times are interested in business but thats about it. with google, no matter what you are selling you can target the exact people that make up that niche and you only pay for those people. if you have a product that will appeal to students who are 18-20 yrs old you can target them and only them

the possibilities are truly endless, this dosnt mean that a bubble is not possible but i dont believe this is happening right now

what is happening to an extent is an angel investor bubble / start up investor bubble

new companies (like diaspora for example) are able to create a bit of hype around them because they are 4 apparently smart(they come off very badly in any videos iv seen) students from nyu and they have a new (not really) approach to social media. investors know that 1 in 10 or 1 in 50 of these companies will be a massive success and sell for hundreds of millions so they have no problem lumping start up capital at them

i dont think there has ever been a better time to set up a technology business, particularly in the us, as there is now

AlmightyCushion

PeakOutput wrote: »

THIS

you can choose with google adds weather to pay per impression(every time someone sees an add) or per click (every time someone clicks on an add)

the advertisements can be minutely targeted to people who they already know are interested in a topic. this cant be done on any other medium to the same degree. you know people who buy the financial times are interested in business but thats about it. with google, no matter what you are selling you can target the exact people that make up that niche and you only pay for those people. if you have a product that will appeal to students who are 18-20 yrs old you can target them and only them

I didn't even consider any of that. I just thought if I see something advertised on a web page, I can click and impulse buy it then if I like it. If I see something in a magazine I have to remember to go online/instore and buy it. Between the time I see it and end up buying it, I could forget all about it or just talk myself out of it. But all of what you said is still true as well.

seamus

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I didn't even consider any of that. I just thought if I see something advertised on a web page, I can click and impulse buy it then if I like it. If I see something in a magazine I have to remember to go online/instore and buy it. Between the time I see it and end up buying it, I could forget all about it or just talk myself out of it. But all of what you said is still true as well.

Even more importantly than that, you buy it from the company who advertised it.

So in a magazine you might see an ad for Curry's selling the latest iPad, but you go to a closer electronics store to get it instead. I imagine there's a term in marketing for this kind of inadvertent sale.
With web ads, you click on the Curry's ad and you buy it from Currys...

AlmightyCushion

seamus wrote: »

Even more importantly than that, you buy it from the company who advertised it.

So in a magazine you might see an ad for Curry's selling the latest iPad, but you go to a closer electronics store to get it instead. I imagine there's a term in marketing for this kind of inadvertent sale.
With web ads, you click on the Curry's ad and you buy it from Currys...

That's another thing I didn't even consider. Doesn't print media cost more? Given all this I can't see how that's justified.

ScumLord

seamus wrote: »

I'm still not getting you. Twitter can't send stuff to TV. TV shows take stuff from twitter feeds. If TV shows find that they're having ads directed to their feeds, they'll ignore the feed doing so.

Whenever I see twitter posts used on TV it's accompanied with the twitter logo and the mention of the twitter brand name. If a news station wants to display tweets from the people watching it's service it would have to pay twitter for the use of it's branding. It wouldn't just be a case of they would just drop it because all their customers (who can still use it for free) would still be tweet their points in. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed bonanza but it's an income, wouldn't be a big one either.

PeakOutput wrote: »

with google, no matter what you are selling you can target the exact people that make up that niche and you only pay for those people.

I don't know if it really works, the only time I've ever clicked those ads is by accident, I don't ever pay any attention to the content of the ads.

aidan24326

Some dot coms are probably still being highly overvalued.

Bebo was bought by AOL for something like 850 million dollars, and sold on two years later for 10 million when they realised there was no money in it. Ouch.

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know if it really works, the only time I've ever clicked those ads is by accident, I don't ever pay any attention to the content of the ads.

when i was advertising online i was getting about 2% click through rates, this means that about 2% of the total number of people who see the add clicked it

the industry average is 1-3%

if 1 million people see your add (which is easy by the way, i had multiple millions viewing ads i had on bing) then 2% of people is 20,000 people. if you know what your doing each of those 20,000 clicks can cost as little as 1cent each so thats 200euro to get 20,000 people who are specifically interested in your product onto your sell page

now obviously its not as simple as that for every product but then companies have smarter people then me doing this for them but thats the principle

edit, i cant remember this exactly now but i think if you own a website you an expect to make 1cent (or was it 10) for every 1000 people that visit your site

Ri_Nollaig

aidan24326 wrote: »

Some dot coms are probably still being highly overvalued.

Bebo was bought by AOL for something like 850 million dollars, and sold on two years later for 10 million when they realised there was no money in it. Ouch.

Its not like history repeats itself.

Chips Lovell

aidan24326 wrote: »

Some dot coms are probably still being highly overvalued.

Bebo was bought by AOL for something like 850 million dollars, and sold on two years later for 10 million when they realised there was no money in it. Ouch.

It wasn't that there was no money in it per se, it was more that Bebo (and MySpace) got eaten alive by Facebook. They didn't build on their early successes.

th3 s1aught3r

Just think about how many people now visit Facebook and Twitter and the like every day, tens of millions. Now consider how much they can charge for advertising on those sites if they so wish. Do the math

Googles revenues are unbelievble, and people said they wouldnt make much out of search :rolleyes:

ScumLord

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

Just think about how many people now visit Facebook and Twitter and the like every day, tens of millions. Now consider how much they can charge for advertising on those sites if they so wish.

Not really, as they say themselves your not getting your ad displayed to huge amounts of people but instead to relevant people. Unlike a TV ad where hundreds of thousands will see your ad (whether they have an interest or not) targeted ads go to far fewer people.

The other thing about targeted ads is that the real advantage is to smaller companies that want to target local people and those businesses don't have big advertising budgets.

While the value of targeted advertising is better it's still a much smaller amount of people seeing your ad.

I don't see how advertising can possibly take in so much revenue.. No one I know clicks my ads. Is there a whole other type of internet user out there or something?