The idea of a community site sharing ad revenue with members who add content to the site isn’t new. Forum operators have tested it, for example, by rewarding thread starters with a share of the ad revenue generated by that thread. A review site, RateItAll.com, has implemented a split for its reviewers. To date, I’ve felt there were risks associated with rewarding community members directly for their contributions. By putting what is generally an altruistic or hobby activity into a financial context, one could actually demotivate great contributors. If a Linux server expert writes a great forum how-to post, for example, he’ll derive most of his satisfaction from the creative aspect of writing the post and from the positive feedback of the readers. That he spent a few hours pulling it together doesn’t really matter – it was fun, and his effort is recognized by his peers. But, add a revenue share deal, and let him know that he made $8.37 from that post, and he might start thinking, “Gee, that’s way below minimum wage, and my clients usually pay me $150/hr. I need to waste less time on posting!” There’s actually neuroscience research that reinforces this issue – see our related post, Why Paying Online Community Volunteers Doesn’t Work . Now, YouTube has announced their intention to share ad revenue with those who post original videos as described in YouTube may pay for videos – and we think it might actually work.
Is Yahoo the real leader in social media? In Yahoo: We trump MySpace, Facebook, ZDNet writer Donna Bogatin quotes Yahoo CEO Terry Semel:
In There will be no Linux Vista, ZDNet blogger Dana Blankenhorn makes an interesting point. Linus Torvalds, principal spokesperson for Linux, says he has no immediate plans to update the Linux kernel from Version 2.6, which has been out for well over two years. Microsoft, of course, is launching Vista, its upgrade to Windows XP.
A new virus is taking advantage of severe weather in Europe to infect computers, according to ZDNet in ‘Storm Worm’ hits computers around the world.
We’ve been bullish on Netflix surviving the post-DVD era (see Netflix, Community, and the Death of DVDs and Netflix Using Community Intelligence), and now it looks like Netflix is taking the next step in the process. Continue reading »
Little more than a year ago, the search market looked like it might be up for grabs for the first time in years. Microsoft was attacking search with renewed energy, Yahoo was shaking up its effort, and Ask.com was on TV with clever ads. It seemed just a matter of time before search juggernaut Google would feel the pressure. Apparently, nobody told Google: the latest comScore results are out, and Google once again increased its market share. As reported by ZDNet, Google’s share of search traffic bumped upwards by .4% to 47.4%. Yahoo gained .3% to hit a respectable, if distant, 28.5%. MSN lost a half-point they could ill afford to drop to 10.5%. The novelty of Ask is apparently wearing off, as they slid slightly to 5.4%. Here’s the amazing statistic: for U.S. searches, Google has gained market share in 16 of the last 17 months! This must be depressing indeed for Google’s would-be competitors. I suspect that all of them would be happy to see Google lose some share, regardless of who gained it – anything that reduces the perception that “google” is shorthand for searching the Web benefits all of the competition.
Bloomberg writer Matthew Lynn is in a distinct minority. Amid the almost universal gushing over Apple’s newly announced iPhone, Lynn rains on the Apple parade in Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move. Lynn offers several reasons for the iPhone turning into an expensive flop:
The launch of the iPhone generated as much press for Apple as any product introduction I can remember. Commentators gushed about the gorgeous screen, the novel interface, the 200+ patents… not bad for a product that hasn’t even begun its FCC certification process yet. And before the hoopla from the introduction had begun to die down, Apple managed to ratchet things up a notch by getting sued by Cisco, the owner of the iPhone trademark. And then Apple termed the lawsuit “silly”, claiming their phone wasn’t like Cisco’s phone, even though they had been in negotiation with Cisco for some time.