Entrepreneur On Yahoo/Tumblr: It's the Content Readers, Stupid 92
An anonymous reader writes "Weighing in on Yahoo's recent acquisition of Tumblr for $1.1 billion, social networking entrepreneur Adam Rifkin argues that Tumblr is extremely valuable business property because it has successfully organized itself around the 'Interest Graph' (people interested in the same hobbies or things), rather than the 'Social Graph' (family, friends, and coworkers/colleagues, as is typical for Facebook). He opines that, for a social networking site, readers are far more important than writers; writers, after all, 'have time but no money. Certain groups are going to be overrepresented: Students, stay-at-home moms, the underemployed, retirees.' While readers are just the opposite: they 'have money but no time.... They want to see a picture of a watch they like, and buy it now.' In other words, it's the readers of the content that businesses are trying to reach. And interest graphs can be specifically targeted by businesses, much more so than social graphs."
Re: (Score:1)
I say there's probably a Tumblr page for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider it a wakeup call that the electronically savvy are not necessarily the most electronically aware, I guess!
That being said, though, I think there are a few insights that can be offered: Windows Live is the default homepage on most new Windows machines, and might never be changed (an alarming number of people will readily type in "google" to Bing rather than set their homepage), and at any rate its rank would appear inflated because Google is fragmented. Twitter is probably behind LinkedIn because Al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus there's an age distribution, and there's been a rather fast tumbling down of other sites.
Tumblr is more popular amongst current high-school kids than facebook is. Facebook is for parents and grandparents. Tumblr is for the current high school kids. Actually, facebook is for the bonus site to make for your parents to see that you're friends with the good kids and the appropriate hoity-toity-clubs like math-club, science-club, model United Nations, scouts of boys and girls, etc. [i do not know where
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't watch the Superbowl, but no matter how much time I spend say playing or watching Ice hockey it will in no way will diminish the value of targeting all those follow the NFL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not that easy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need data, yahoo can then process it and build up an accurate model of you. People are more honest on tumblr...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can either possess Tumblr's audience or you can influence Tumblr's audience, but never both at the same time.
- The Tumblr uncertainty principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need data, yahoo can then process it and build up an accurate model of you. People are more honest on tumblr...
well what this guy is saying is that tumblr is worth so much because you can target the readers better because you know that they read a blog about cats and sexy women.
like, no shit sherlock? but it's not stupid to think that is not actually worth a billion dollars. I mean, how many men are they going to sell lingerie to..
Yahoo integration can be simpler... (Score:1)
Why dissociate? (Score:1)
I don't think it is right to dissociate the social graph from the interest graph. There are things (people, topics, groups...) linked by relationships. Depending of your goals you can analyze some kind of relationships and later some other kinds for other purposes. The error would be to use only the social or the interest graph. Success will be to build the analysis on the right relationships at the right time.
Monitization Guess (Score:2)
They will gather information about you on tumblr and sell ads on other sites. So this is the best route for Tumblr to become profitable without losing "street cred" (So lame that that is a business term)
Re: (Score:2)
...One revenue of Money maybe (Score:2)
Ah, okay...that actually makes a lot of sense. Tumblr itself isn't really suited to advertising.
I don't disagree with the parent comment(although only as an *extra* revenue stream) to there overlords Microsoft, but a disagree with yours Why wouldn't an advertisement for cat products not be suitable for displaying on a page of long haired cats. In fact for tumblr itself it does not have to profile you *like* Microsoft and Apple do it can profile the site your watching. Like Amazon so with your shopping basket. I actually think Amazon had a missed opportunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me more that they do want to sell ads on Tumblr but then indeed highly targeted ads. Not targeting the person, but the content of the page they're reading.
Why try to profile users, and guess what their interests may be, when you can also have the user themselves select what they indeed find intersting, and target those intersts? A user may be interested in one thing now, and in another thing later. They may be interested in something now that they were not before - and very likely to want to buy
It's called multipliers (Score:2, Insightful)
People who can get other people to listen to them (or to read, whatever) are called multipliers, because if you can convince or persuade one of them, they convince or persuade many for you. That's why "content is king". You don't get to the masses without the few people that the masses look up to. Of course you want to have the writers who write what is worthwhile to read. Pretty much by definition that can't be any service with millions of users.
Sure it's the content (Score:1)
free pornography
so am i a reader or a writer? (Score:5, Insightful)
im trying to figure out which color of star i should have to sew onto my sleeve when they come around asking for my papers.
Maybe its about class (Score:2)
im trying to figure out which color of star i should have to sew onto my sleeve when they come around asking for my papers.
I keep thinking this seems to be another divide between (what used to be) Middle and working class. Whatever you call those two groups nowadays.
Re:Maybe its about class (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure illiterate people have even more money.
Re: (Score:1)
I like the Japanese definition of working class; If you have a salary you do not work for yourself and you are therefor working class. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy - a creator has more followers than they are following. A reader has the reverse.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you're posting so you're definitely a writer, ergo no money lots of time. However, you're posting in response to something, so you must have read it so you're a reader, so lotsa money and no time. However, you're posting in response tosomething on slashdot, so if you follow the norm (for slashdot) you did not RTFA so you're definitely not a reader, so less money and more time?
As to which color of star to ask, I do not think our badge system defines that as of yet. Please speak to the gamification T
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still wondering... What is the label for we that have neither?
Re: (Score:2)
The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).
Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.
This acquisition is massive folly!
yeah. 1 billion would have been a massive overvaluation EVEN IF it had been doing 10 million of profit. which it certainly wasn't.
topical blogs.. well doh. like "hot asian women", "hot bikini women" etc. categories are surely worth a lot to advertisers.. this guy just doesn't sound that smart. sure we know that it's a popular web service.
so was geocities. was geocities worth 3 billion dollars? HELL NO. and they had topic oriented readers and blogs as well. tumblr is just geocities for 2010's. good thing is
Fag packet figures (Score:4, Interesting)
The acquisition is priced at over $1billion. Max annual revenue for Tumblr is $13million projected to be $100million this year(high hopes that are highly unlikely, I predict $20million).
Yahoo! is paying through the nose for a highly unprofitable company with no hope of ever generating a ROI.
This acquisition is massive folly!
I am sick of this back of a fag packet figure being banged around. In November 2006, YouTube, LLC was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion(the largest at the time). Its argued today its worth http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/03/google-inc-goog-youtube/ [valuewalk.com] $45.7 Billion Ironically in the context of this article Google outbid Yahoo. In terms of numbers http://allthingsd.com/20100319/the-numbers-behind-the-worlds-fastest-growing-web-site-youtubes-finances-revealed/ [allthingsd.com] youtube revenue for the year before the sale to Google was $15,057 (whole making losses of hundreds of thousands each month)
I have no idea whether this is a good deal. But these figures are not of relevance.
Stop cutting a pasting from other sites and think for yourself (registering would be a good start too)
Re:Price vs. Revenue (Score:4, Interesting)
But if fits the new internet model of how you make money. Put in a few thousand hours developing (and promoting) an application that a large number of people find marginally interesting -- enough that you have a huge number of page hits. Then sell to one of the majors at a vastly inflated price, so your 10,000 hours or so of work is rewarded with a billion dollars.
Net pay rate if you succeed, $100,000 an hour.
Net pay rate if you don't succeed: $0/hour.
Who gets the big payoff is a total crap shoot. It's like winning the lottery, only the stakes are bigger. Who loses? The suckers you get to buy you out.
And it all goes to prove something I've been saying for years: Hard work and prudent investments will never make you rich. What will make you rich if finding a way to get paid for what other people are doing.
aha, the 'consumption economy' nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
readers are far more important than writers
- the "consumption economy" nonsense strikes again.
In this case production is writing and reading is consumption. If the readers are not exchanging anything of their own for the content they consume, then the writers (producers) aren't getting anything from that trade.
Rifkin is wrong about more than that, both, the readers and the writers are products on these sites, their information is collected and exchanged, the customers are the businesses that pay for the information.
Has ANY reader on tumbler actually paid for anything TO tumbler? I doubt it. Just like no writer on FB paid for anything there.
What Rifkin is confused is the reason as to why it is even possible to find investors into such business models in the first place, the reasons are not obvious at the first glance, because you have to step back and take a look at the bigger economy around. The bigger economy is massively lacking savings and investments and the business climate is destroyed. This is NOT an economy of readers, this is not even an economy of writers, this is an economy entirely based on fake money.
The banks, the hedge funds are able to borrow fake money created by the Federal reserve at fake interest rates and they have no incentive to use that money for any productive business that will NOT generate 50 or 100 times the original investment back. So every attempt at a new social site is just a gamble.
This market in social media development is just like the larger bond and stock markets (and other fake loan markets, like the student loan market). This is all about cheap money and lack of real business opportunities, complete lack of real savers of-course, so the only people that are still making money are those, who have access to cheap money provided by the Fed basically (through whatever intermediaries).
This is a fake economy, those readers and writers BOTH have no money but what the fake economy is able to borrow or just steal from the dollar asset holders around the world via inflation (money printing).
This is a fake money, gambler based economy and it is the most unstable type of economy you can imagine and it has 0 chances of growing an actual productive economy until this fake economy implodes.
Re: (Score:1)
And we should trust the musings of a dumbass Bohunk who hacks together a shitty POS system (that he won't reveal the name of because it's so shit) because ...?
Re: (Score:2)
If the readers are not exchanging anything of their own for the content they consume, then the writers (producers) aren't getting anything from that trade.
Unless the writers want people to read their stuff. Then that's what they get.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice rambling and it shows you didn't even read TFS (or lack comprehension).
Readers are not supposed to start giving money to Tumblr. Advertisers are who bring in the money.
The idea: some writer writes about some great album he just listened to. Reader reads it, thinks "that's cool, I want to listen to it, too". Advertiser pays tumblr to place ad at this article advertising said album, hoping that reader clicks the ad and buys the album from advertiser. Targeted advertising - back to targeting interests mor
Weighing in (Score:1)
is who? Somebody who I've never once heard of, but paid slashdot to run his shitty adverstory? This website is a shallow husk of what it used to be.
That is not weighing in (Score:2)
is a shallow husk of what it used to be.
Ironically, I remember when AC had the better comments, as they were used to to protect the individual. Now its just spam.
Too much time spending to create content (Score:3)
The premise of this whole article to justify yahoo buying a Picture only wikipedia(or animated gif porn cloud collections to some) for to sell advertising on...now its become trapped as Microsoft's Gimp (yes another one...Nokia is still wearing the mask for a Billion pay off every so often).
I wrote loads but changes my mond...the reality is there are not two groups. There is no rich reader vs poor writer, there may well be a measurable difference in balance of these activities between both groups ...but precious time in question means they are simply doing each activity less...rather than focusing on a hobby sites over a person interaction sites. because hobbies are something you only do if your rich with no time...and they are not as friendly as the poor people without hobbies.
The bottom line here is there is one Yahoo story...and its the elephant in the room. Lets talk about Bitch Yahoo digging itself out from Microsoft's Heels.
So, we built an internet, the great infrastructure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet has become the new "idiot box" as my grandparents used to call Television. It's not all bad news though for those of us who choose to use it well. Between Google, WolframAlpha and Wikipedia we have, at our finger tips, the greatest accumulation of knowledge humankind has ever known. Using it well can and will make the difference between an idiot and a resourceful, intelligent human being.
Idiot box (Score:3)
The internet has become the new "idiot box"...Using it well can and will make the difference between an idiot and a resourceful, intelligent human being.
So nothing like an idiot box then.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct - for the 0.001% who can use it wisely.
Paradoxically, sometimes using it wisely means not using it.
Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (Score:5, Informative)
"We" as in "my generation": the engineers who are now 35 to 50.
Sorry pal. The TCP/IP protocol stack, sockets API, and LAN technologies were developed in the '70s and early '80s. Tim Berners-Lee (present age 57) and Robert Cailliau (age 67) invented the WWW in the late '80s, partly based on SGML which was invented by IBM in the '60s. Relational databases the theory of optimization and transactions also came out of IBM in the '70s, with client/server computing added by engineers at Sybase Corp. in the '80s. I could go on but I don't have half an hour to burn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, we built an internet, the great infrastruct (Score:5, Interesting)
Every great infrastructure ends up being used massively for stupid reason. 90% of postal mail I receive is spam, but 10% is important. (YMMV). The same goes with internet.
Drop the social network crap and funny cat pictures, and you will find again what you are looking for in the internet: a large base of knowledge and communication between people. My four most visited website are: slashdot, jeuxvideo.com (a french video game website), wikipedia and arxiv. And personnaly, I feel just fine about the internet.
Time but no money? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both? I'm sure a majority of people who post on /. have both time and money.
You must be new here. It's been made painfully obvious time and again that the writers can't read and the readers can't write.
Do you think the editors read these comments? Did you RTFA? That's what I thought.
The adjective may or may not be misplaced (Score:2)
FTFY
Never looked at Tublr until now (Score:1)
I loathe Facebook to my very core.
Tumbler is popular because it has tons of free por (Score:1)
Insightful article? (Score:2)
Ah, that reminds me again... (Score:2)
Those words remind me again why I stay away from all these made-up-word-lacking-a-vowel services and host my own stuff on my own server. I'm not a target. Just a hacker willing to share, but on my own terms.
Maybe I should call it Servr to at least give it a semblance of social startup coolness...
umm... (Score:1)