Re:Web 2.0 = web app + 2 founders + 0 revenue
by DonDodge on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @09:33AM
(#45187)
Paul, I agree that this is the definition of Google at 6 months, or any startup for that matter. This was an attempt at snarky humor.
My larger point is that advertising is one model for new startups...but not the only model. Advertising is effective when you have a large, targeted audience, with a willingness to buy/explore ads. Some audiences are too small, or so diverse and random that ads will not work.
Re:Web 2.0 = web app + 2 founders + 0 revenue
by ahsonwardak on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:47PM
(#45321)
Advertising is one model for web startups and the monetization of Web 2.0 apps., but there indeed others:
subscriptions for premium services
subscriptions for access
selling to web giant, like Google, etc.
advertising through alliances and referrals, beyond simple adsense
Re:Web 2.0 = web app + 2 founders + 0 revenue
by trekker7 on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:44AM
(#45139)
I think this is true of startups in general... most startups fail right? The reason why people pick on Web 2.0 in particular is because (a) it's the current trend and (b) it's a lot easier to launch a website than sell enterprise software packaged as CDs, so there may be a lot more Web 2.0 startups out there.
My larger point is that advertising is one model for new startups...but not the only model. Advertising is effective when you have a large, targeted audience, with a willingness to buy/explore ads. Some audiences are too small, or so diverse and random that ads will not work.
There are other revenue models that will work.
Don
subscriptions for premium services subscriptions for access selling to web giant, like Google, etc. advertising through alliances and referrals, beyond simple adsense
I'll ask the community to add more.
Does that explain your photo, too?