Compete

Evidence for Increasing Online Use that is also Accelerating

If you sum up the total unique user sessions in Jan 2008, Jan 2009, and Jan 2010, you get

Jan 2008 – 285M

Jan 2009 – 337M

Jan 2010 – 413M

That is a year-over-year increase of 18% and 23% respectively. Assuming the population of the world does not change that much year to year, the change in total unique sessions leads to the conclusion that online usage continues to increase noticeably.

The Compete.com chart below shows nearly identical number if unique users monthly — Google at 148M uniques and Yahoo at 132M uniques. And Facebook alone achieved another 134M uniques. So while the unique visitors across these 3 sites are not mutually exclusive, there are 414M unique user sessions in the month of January 2010

facebook yahoo google 2 year1 Evidence for Increasing Online Use that is also Accelerating

Well, this is strange. January 2010 numbers from Nielsen reveal Google has 66.3% of the search market, while Yahoo has 14.5% and Microsoft has 10.9% across its various properties. Google is 4x more than Yahoo and 6x more than Microsoft.

search share jan 2010 Evidence for Increasing Online Use that is also Accelerating


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Facebook is going down – pageviews, average stay, pages per visit – why?

From the Compete charts below, it is clear that Facebook is seeing a decline in pageviews, average stay, and pages per visit.  But why?

I know that I have reduced the time I spend on Facebook and I have also reduced the number of messages and other social actions as well.  And I have deleted virtually all of my personal and family photos and will not upload any more. These may be the first signs of a waning of Facebook due to a number of factors.

I can’t get my stuff back out

For example, Facebook has stated that it will not participate in OpenSocial because they do not want people to be able to export their content, conversations, photos, etc, out of Facebook and use on another social network. I am concerned that I will not be able to retrieve or back up content which I believe is mine. I like to have control over my family photos, conversations with friends, etc. I am willing to accept as a “cost” of using the Facebook system the fact that they know who my friends are.  But I am less willing or unwilling to continue putting my content where I cannot get it back, in its entirety.  (Google Docs, for example, just launched a feature where you can back up everything back out of Google Docs into Microsoft Office formats).

Ads in the stream, erosion of trust

A second issue mentioned in a previous post is the increase in advertising on Facebook and also the more unscrupulous practice of injecting ads “into the stream” — ads masquerading as status updates. These are harmful to the overall trust built up in the community and I have un-friended quite a few people whose accounts were clearly used to promote events, products, etc.

Ad-effectiveness sucks

From a prior post – http://bit.ly/EhiW9 – Facebook advertising metric are absolutely abysmal. They keep trying to sell advertisers on the hundreds of billions of pageviews they throw off. But advertisers are getting smarter and more and more of them will buy ads on a cost-per-click basis (instead of CPM, cost per thousand impressions basis).  This means that the ad revenues that Facebook enjoyed from gross INefficiencies will be decimated.


facebook pageviews Facebook is going down   pageviews, average stay, pages per visit   why?

facebook average stay Facebook is going down   pageviews, average stay, pages per visit   why?

facebook pages per visit Facebook is going down   pageviews, average stay, pages per visit   why?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 30th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 …

is keep your audience, keep them interested, or provide enough value to them to get them to switch or get them to come back.

Case in point, Wolfram Alpha.  In many ways it is superior (in a different way) than Google because it is a computational search engine — its results are focused on things that can be calculated — e.g. distance between NY and San Fran, etc.

Interest has waned (see search volume chart) and traffic has dropped (see Compete chart).

wolfram alpha search volume chart The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 ...

wolfram alpha visitor chart The hardest thing to do in web 2.0 ...

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 9th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Compete shows that Bing’s unique users in June 09 is bigger than Twitter, CNN, and Digg.

This is not because people are voluntarily going to Bing.com.  It is because Microsoft redirected all traffic from live.com and search traffic (results pages) from msn.com to bing.com.

bing twitter cnn digg unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

This is what it looks like when a site changes domain names and redirects all rtraffic from the old site.  By next month Compete will show the same “X” for Live.com vs Bing.com

dailymakeover makeoversolutions unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Already starting to see the decline of traffic from live.com which is entirely redirected to bing.com

live search vs bing unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

bing compete Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 9th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

the problem with online metrics – it’s estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

TechCrunch based the following post on ComScore numbers, which shows “MySpace currently has 124 million monthly unique visitors, compared to Facebook’s 276 million” in Feb 2009.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/23/facebook-hockey-sticks-while-myspace-languishes/

top10 the problem with online metrics   its estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

But checking Compete and QuantCast the numbers are not just slightly different, they are way different.

Compete:  Facebook 74M; MySpace 53M in Feb 2009

QuantCast: Facebook 79M; MySpace 66M in Feb 2009

fb vs ms the problem with online metrics   its estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

facebook quantc the problem with online metrics   its estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

myspace quantc the problem with online metrics   its estimated, approximated, or extrapolated

Given the huge discrepancy, the only thing that can really be concluded is that Facebook has overtaken and is larger than MySpace now and continuing to widen the lead.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

it’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Let’s do a thought exercise.

1.  eMarketer forecasts that retail e-commerce will grow roughly 10% per year for the next few years. This means that the total “pie” of people spending online will only grow by an average of 10% per year. Note that sales is (or should be) the goal of advertising. So that’s why we are looking at e-commerce sales and comparing it to online advertising because both are completed in the same medium and we can eliminate cross-media uncertainties and breakdown of tracking.

e commerce the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

2. online advertising is still exploding with trillions of pageviews per month, thanks to social networks which throw off ungodly numbers of pageviews when people socialize with others. The Compete chart below shows the top social networks which rely on banner advertising (impression-based advertising) to make revenues. Notice that just Facebook and Myspace alone generate 115 BILLION pageviews a month. And if you consider that Facebook shows 3 ads per page, that would be 250+ BILLION impressions per month served by Facebook alone. Furthermore, the rate at which pageviews grow is 250% – 1,000% per year, depending on the site in question.

pageviews the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

3. In the online medium, we have end-to-end tracking from the advertising (banner impression) through to the sale (e-commerce). The banner is served (impressions); a percent of users click on it to go to a site (click through rate – CTR); a percent of those make their way through the site and end up completing a purchase online (conversion rate). Those users who are looking for something and who are considering buying something will be online searching and researching. Those are the ones who are likely to click on banner ads, compared to others who are online to do something else, like write email, socialize with friends, etc.  And if the purchase is their ultimate end-goal (to make a purchase) we have a farily reliable indicator of the growth in not only such interest but also the completion of the task — namely, e-commerce, which grows at 10%.

4. Now, if the number of people who will click grows that 10%, but the number of advertising impressions grows at a slow 250%, the ratio of clicks to impressions drops dramatically because the denominator is growing 25X faster than the numerator. Serving more ads simply will not get the amount of e-commerce to grow significantly faster. The point of diminishing returns has been reached and passed, so incremental ad impressions are ignored and useless. The number of people who will end up buying will not increase significantly faster. And given the tough economic climate the amount of sales may actually decline before it goes up again.

5. If we generalize this back to all retail commerce, it grows at an EVEN slower pace than ecommerce. When you compare this to the dramatic increase in ad impressions and the shift from traditional channels (TV, print, radio – whose impressions and audience sizes are dwindling) to online channels (portals, news sites, social networks – whose impressions and audience sizes are skyrocketing) again the ratio of sales to available advertising drops dramatically. This is a measure of the effectiveness of advertising (sales  divided by advertising spend). It was already small — it sucked — and it will get dramatically smaller soon — it’ll suck more soon.

A way to mitigate this “sucking” is to peg advertising expenditures on a success metric which is an indicator of user intent — cost per click — versus a traditional indicator of reach and frequency — ad impressions served — which from the above is NOT an indicator of consumers’ intent to purchase.  This way, advertisers only pay when someone clicks. Those “someones” click when they are looking for something and are more likely to complete a purchase than those who don’t click.

“CPC banner advertising” anyone?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 15th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments