Ad-Supported Revenue Model Dying
Have to agree with Rupert Murdoch in his saying ad-funded revenue models are dead.
Having almost a 15 year-run online, I think we're done with the concept of "we'll drive lots of visitors to the site and charge advertisers for exposure to them!". It's so old - so dying - and so 1999.
As a business-owner, advertiser, and online marketing pro, I have to say that all me and my clients ever seem to talk about is results. When we say "results" - make no mistake that I'm talking specifically about sales. Money...for lack of a better or more creative term.
I believe that the business model of offering results - or perhaps sales to clients - is going to jive nicely for 2010 and beyond. Call it the results-model, the sales-model, whatever - I'm not that creative. But ultimately, perhaps having a shared piece of the pie is the revenue model that ultimately may just be the most profitable.
Businesses will always want exposure to target audiences. However, how about if advertisers partnered with sites and gave them a piece of every sale generated? Sounds like affiliate marketing - or even network marketing - but with a twist. Advertisers get sales, the "partners" get a percentage of sales for their revenue model, and consumer gets the same thing they always got...product or service for a price.
I see the same happening in media. Newspapers should still offer exposure to markets - but they should get a piece of every sale generated rather than a per-ad payout. They can survive too this way. If you truly believe in the exposure you're selling, why shouldn't everyone work on a results basis?
Murdoch says ad-funded models are dead
http://www.strategyeye.com/articles/digitalmedia
Back
Having almost a 15 year-run online, I think we're done with the concept of "we'll drive lots of visitors to the site and charge advertisers for exposure to them!". It's so old - so dying - and so 1999.
As a business-owner, advertiser, and online marketing pro, I have to say that all me and my clients ever seem to talk about is results. When we say "results" - make no mistake that I'm talking specifically about sales. Money...for lack of a better or more creative term.
I believe that the business model of offering results - or perhaps sales to clients - is going to jive nicely for 2010 and beyond. Call it the results-model, the sales-model, whatever - I'm not that creative. But ultimately, perhaps having a shared piece of the pie is the revenue model that ultimately may just be the most profitable.
Businesses will always want exposure to target audiences. However, how about if advertisers partnered with sites and gave them a piece of every sale generated? Sounds like affiliate marketing - or even network marketing - but with a twist. Advertisers get sales, the "partners" get a percentage of sales for their revenue model, and consumer gets the same thing they always got...product or service for a price.
I see the same happening in media. Newspapers should still offer exposure to markets - but they should get a piece of every sale generated rather than a per-ad payout. They can survive too this way. If you truly believe in the exposure you're selling, why shouldn't everyone work on a results basis?
Murdoch says ad-funded models are dead
http://www.strategyeye.com/articles/digitalmedia
Back