2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0 – Presentation Transcript
What is Web 3.0? Dr. Augustine Fou June 16, 2009. June 16, 2009.
Evolution of the Internet microprocessor 40 yrs 10 yrs 20 yrs 5 yrs present web internet 2.5 yrs social networks e-commerce 1.5 yrs Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Web 3.0? June 16, 2009.
Evolution of the “Web” content commerce search social networks social content social search social commerce As each stage reaches critical mass, the next stage is tipped into present June 16, 2009.
Key Characteristics present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
Speedy
more timely information and more efficient tools to find information
Collaborative
actions of users amass, police, and prioritize content
Trust-worthy
users establish trust networks and hone trust radars
Content
content destination sites and personal portals
Search
critical mass of content drives need for search engines
Commerce
commerce goes mainstream; digital goods rise
Ubiquitous
available at any time, anywhere, through any channel or device
Individualized
filtered and shared by friends or trust networks
Efficient
relevant and contextual information findable instantly
June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – retail/shopping present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
what friends bought or want to buy
drag-to-share items which friends know friends are looking for
item collections
value in the aggregation
overstock.com amazon.com FB app: MyFaveThings
contextual reviews
reviews of reviews
what others bought
individualized recommendations
June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – social networks present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
aggregates all your online identities
syndicates all your updates to all social networks
social actions visible to friends
trust networks across geography, time, and interests
collection of personal homepages
geocities.com facebook.com peoplebrowsr.com June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – restaurant reviews present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
Yelp content vetted through a user’s trust network and individual recommendations made based on situation and need, in real-time
user submitted reviews
related items based on similarity of user preferences
infrequent publication
centralized editorial control
zagat‘s yelp need reco for great Italian + GPS + Yelp 5-star Babbo, been there, love it June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – photos present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
real-time, contextual “do you like this knit shirt?”
friends give immediate feedback
share photos with friends and strangers
enable visitors to tag and comment
individual albums
kodakgallery.com flickr.com ? June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – real estate present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
information vetted by fellow users, recommended directly an in context
listings plus relevant information like school zones, comparable sales, alerts
listings based on parameters
corcoran.com streeteasy.com trulia iphone app June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – encyclopedia present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
content is ubiquitous and available through any channel or device
trust network proactively forwards relevant info to user who needs it
created, updated, and edited (policed) by user actions
digitized version of printed encyclopedia
britannica.com wikipedia.com chacha.com June 16, 2009.
Illustrative Examples – online coupons present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
coupons delivered contextually and proactively when user needs it (without the user even asking for it)
instant feedback
community action makes it more accurate and useful for others
collection of online coupons – value in the aggregation
Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)
Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)
Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)
Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.
As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.
I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.
- social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want
But what I found was eye-opening to say the least. Despite the potential of social ads where the social actions of your circle of friends could make the ads more targeted, none of the anticipated positive effects were observed. Despite the promise of mass reach, there was not the corresponding attention or clicks. And despite the use of demographics-based targeting, there was no statistically significant difference between different targets nor the control sample, running during the same time period.
What we saw were click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% — and the 0.01% often seemed like rounding because they did not report more than 2 decimal places. As a result of these click rates the effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 and average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25. I’ve been running these Facebook ads for more than 12 months; and millions of impresisons later, there is no observable improvements to CTRs and thus CPMs and CPCs. But since I set up the campaigns to only pay when there is a click (CPC basis), I can let these run indefinitely because I am getting so few clicks, it’s not even making a dent on my credit card (which I use to pay for the ads).
Ideas for Facebook
In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.
1. reduce the number of ads per page to 1 – displaying multiple ads artificially depresses click-through rates because users can only click on 1 thing at a time, even if they liked more than one of them. Displaying 3 on a page simply increases the denominator while the numerator does not increase — in the click-through rate equation: clicks / impressions.
2. make ads sharable – in the rare instance a user views an ad, it may or may not be relevant to her, but she may know that it is relevant and timely for a friend. By making ads sharable, she can click and send to a friend, who is very likely to find it useful and valuable, especially having been sent by a friend.
3. let users opt-in to ads in specific topic categories - when users are in the market for specific things, they are more likely to subscribe to pertinent news feeds, offers, etc. related to that topic or category. By giving users more power over what they want to see, it will also give advertisers more targeted and engaged prospects to target.
4. expand search-based advertising – when users search they are looking for something and are open to discovering something they didn’t know to ask for. So ads served up in response to a search is usually a lot more effective than ads served up simply when a page is loaded (display advertising). Facebook can serve display ads based on pertinent search queries.
Earth to Facebook… anyone listening?
By Dr. Augustine Fou. Dr. Fou is Group Chief Digital Officer at Healthcare Consultancy Group a group of agencies within the Omnicom family specializing in pharma and healthcare. He helps clients develop digital marketing programs or improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness existing campaigns via advanced analytics, social marketing, and digital strategy. You can read more of his writing on digital marketing on this blog and follow him on twitter @acfou.
Excerpt from TechCrunch: “Click fraud is serious business on the big search engine advertising networks because the bad guys can make serious money. Sign up for an Adsense account and put those ads on parked domain names or wherever. Then all you have to do is start clicking those ads like crazy, using bots or cheap labor.” On Facebook, “advertisers are clicking on competitor ads to drive up their costs and drive down their ROI.”
“So the bad guys just create thousands of fake Facebook accounts with a wide variety of demographic information. This sounds like a lot of work, but it’s highly automated. the going rate was just $10 per 100 accounts if you supply the unique email accounts. Once the accounts are created, they use software to fill out the varied demographic information, and that software also manages all these accounts. The fraudster then logs in to Facebook via these accounts and views the ads that are displayed. The right competitive ads come up and Bingo, the software then clicks them. Facebook rules allow an account to click any advertisement up to six times in a 24 hour period, and all those clicks are charged. All you need is a few accounts to view the ads and then click to the max.”
Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?
Others have found similarly dismal click through rates from Facebook advertising
Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful
April 7, 2008 – 5:03 pm
Quite by coincidence, I’ve encountered a few statistics on Facebook’s advertising platform. I thought I’d post links to the results I’ve uncovered, in case anybody is wondering about average CTR rates for Facebook.
First up, Rod Boothby got a click-through rate of 0.01%:
This week, I ran $105 worth of Facebook Fliers. That bought me 52,500 impressions. It looks like the flier bought me about an extra 500 site visits. That’s about $0.21 per hit.
Michael Ferguson ran a bunch of Facebook ads for Kinzin:
Click-through rates are abysmal. I was running the identical ad in about 15 different regions (you need to run them as separate ads to get the stats broken out), getting just over 10M views. Our average clickthrough rate was 0.06% (that’s 1 in 1513, for those counting at home). The best we did anywhere was 0.14%.
He later reports that the conversion rate was “at a pretty reasonable clip” at about 5%. By ‘conversion’, I think he’s meaning people who actually signed up for Kinzin’s free service. All of this stuff is contextual, but if visitors had to lay down money, the conversion rate would be considerably lower.
The folks at Valleywag report similarly dismal numbers:
Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for eachother to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.
From AllFacebook:
Fred Wilson has been updating the world about his venture in Facebook advertising over the past week. Today, Fred posted and updated screenshot of his ad campaign’s performance and it doesn’t appear to be too stellar. For one of his campaigns, out of 10,080 impressions there were only 8 clicks. The average cost-per-click for Fred was $0.08 and the average CPM was $0.06. This is a less than stellar performance. This is nothing new though.
And lastly, from a digital student marketing blog in the UK. This would seem like a natural fit for Facebook’s audience:
Our most recent campaign saw 1.4 million page impressions delivered at specific universities – and only a 0.04% clickthrough rate. Ouch.
Click-through rates seem to sit around 0.04%, which is profoundly lame if you ask me. I’m no online advertising expert–it’s not really our thing–but I’ve run a bunch of Google AdWords and other contextual advertising campaigns. We regularly get click-through rates of 3%, and I gather that’s nothing special.
Here’s my theory on Facebook: it’s a silo. People visit the Fun House of Facebook, and conceptually treat it slightly different than the rest of the web. They’re in Facebook, interacting with friends, playing games, sending messages and now chatting on IM. As such, they’re really unmotivated to leave. Who wants to leave the Fun House?
We’ve seen similar results across Facebook. It’s really difficult to drive visitors out of the app and to your own website.
Every year around SXSW, there’s a surge in interest about twitter. This time around people have even gone as far as to proclaim twitter to be “the next google” or “the future of search” etc. Bullocks!
Here’s why:
1) distant from other social networks – While we are seeing a massive surge in interest and usage of twitter, it is still a long way off from the number of users of other social networks; it will take a long time to get to critical mass; and this is a prerequisite for twitter to assail the established habit of the majority of consumers to “google it.” — Google’s already a verb.
2) no business model – It remains to be seen whether Twitter can come up with a business model to survive for the long haul. Ads with search are proven. Ads on social networks are not. And given the 140-character limit, there’s hardly any space to add ads.
3) lead adopters’ perspective is skewed – Twitter is still mostly lead adopters and techies so far; so the perspectives on its potential may be skewed too positively. As more mainstream users start to use it, we’re likely to see more tweets about nose picking, waking up, making coffee, being bored, etc…. This will quickly make the collective mass of content far less specialized and useful (as it is now).
4) too few friends to matter – Most people have too few friends. Not everyone is a Scott Monty ( @scottmonty ) with nearly 15,000 followers. So while a user’s own circle of friends would be useful for real-time searches like “what restaurant should I go to right now?” the circle is too small to know everything about everything they want to search on. And even if you take it out to a few concentric circles from the original user who asked, that depends on people retweeting your question to their followers and ultimately someone notifying you when the network has arrived at an answer — not likely to happen.
5) topics only interesting to small circle of followers – Most topics tweeted are interesting to only a very small circle of followers, most likely not even to all the followers of a particular person. A great way to see this phenomenon is with twitt(url)y. It measures twitter intensity of a particular story and lists the most tweeted and retweeted stories. Out of the millions of users and billions of tweets, the top most tweeted stories range in the 100 – 500 tweet range and recently these included March 18 – Apple’s iPhone OS 3.0 preview event; #skittles; and the shutdown of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News. Most other tweets are simply not important enough to enough people for them to retweet.
6) single purpose apps or social networks go away when other sites come along with more functionality or when big players simply add their functionality to their suite of services.
Am I missing something here, people? Agree with me or tell me I’m stupid @acfou
The new digital landscape and modern consumers are dramatically different
The new “digital landscape” is dramatically different from the environment into which TV, print, and radio ads were launched no more than two decades ago. Even today’s Web 2.0 environment is different than the Web 1.0 environment of a decade ago. As the Internet led to the more facile accumulation and dissemination of information and as social networks brought even mainstream consumers online, the power of consumers has increased significantly relative to advertisers. For example, they will search for information when they want it and ignore all other forms of interruption media pushed at them. They will look for independent and objective reviews of products or services and distrust brand messages put out by advertisers touting their own virtues. And they will rely on the actions of the community to help them filter and prioritize the best “stuff” from the ocean of available content.
Audience fragmentation caused by the proliferation of niche cable channels (e.g. the fly fishing channel) and abundant online video channels means that ”mass media” is not so
“mass” any more – there are no longer massive audiences tuned into a single television
program at the same time. ”Media” is now two-way or many-to-many – i.e. consumers tend to talk amongst themselves. But many advertisers and their agencies still rely heavily on one-way tactics - pushing a carefully crafted message out at target customers.
Globalization, information proliferation, and socialization have irreversibly changed industries
Other macro forces are also re-shaping the industries, in particular the advertising, marketing, and communications industries.
Globalization means that, for example, coding can be outsourced to India, graphic design to Australia, or television production to Asia, all at a fraction of the cost of “in-house” resources. The wide availability of tools like online photo editing tools (picnic.com), video editing sites (motionbox.com), and even high-end 3D and special effects software (Blender.org) — all of which are open source and free — fuel the perception that such digital capabilities and services should be lower cost, if not free. These trends mean that agencies whose revenues were derived from these services are facing constant downward pricing pressure.
The proliferation of information has also irreversibly changed the perceptions, behaviors, and habits of consumers. The abundance of information online conditions users to search for information and form their own opinions through research. They also expect more detailed information than can be typically delivered through TV, print, or radio ads — e.g. they want to see the product brochure online, do price comparison shopping across dozens of retailers, and read peer and expert reviews before buying. And they will do the above on their own time (e.g. planning a family cruise vacation at 1 am when the kids are asleep), which destroys the concept of targeting using day-part or show content.
The socialization of consumers online means that the conversations that used to happen among a few people around the watercooler are now happening online for all to see. The collective complaints or praises of products and services now become inputs to many other users doing research online before their next purchase. Furthermore not only is the spread of information much faster online, but the impact could also be dramatically larger — for example, 1) by the end of opening weekend, hundreds of user reviews of a movie can immediately determine its fate — a mega hit or a “straight-to-DVD” movie, and 2) the action of a single person who found an unsavory clause in AT&T’s Wireless’ “fine print” and posted it online caused such a community uproar that AT&T made a public statement that it would be removed.
Traditional agencies rely on old business models (and other challenges for traditional agencies)
Despite the new landscape conditions of no more mass media and consumers doing their own research online, many advertisers are still doing traditional advertising. And many of their agencies are still relying on old business models (agency of record) and being paid for production. Creative ideas are still being given away for free during the pitch process; if the pitch is won the agency then gets to bill against production of assets. But freely available tools or production and abundant lower cost producers are causing clients to question costs.
Other challenges plague traditional agencies. All clients want to “go digital;” but digital is seen to be a “bolt on” capability among big agencies and smaller agencies are perceived to be more digitally savvy. Further, ”clients find it hard to know how much digital stuff costs,” says Peter Cowie, Managing Partner of Oyster Catchers, a search consultancy based in London. “Many clients are using in house capability to save costs and retain control.” Cowie continues, “many clients are deeply insecure about digital marketing” partly because of its novelty, but also, practically because of the wide array of new disciplines, including for example, social networking, mobile, gaming, search, analytics, user interface, Flash, AJAX, e-commerce, online ad networks and media buying, etc.
The new digital agency plays the role of a strategic advisor and subject matter expert
So what is the role an agency can and should play in this new landscape? We believe, the role of a strategic advisor to calm clients’ insecurities and ensure a cogent and smooth incorporation of digital. Smaller agencies that grew up in digital may not have the expertise in traditional disciplines nor a global footprint and enough staff to handle large global clients. However, large traditional agencies, with a few key changes to business model, organizational structure, and internal processes will be able to guide clients through the shift towards digital, by changing the marketing mix and ensuring that all channels are integrated, working together, and reinforcing to each other.
These changes may include 1) managing a network of independent specialists (who serve on SWAT teams for client projects) instead of in-house FTEs, to account for the wide variety of new skills and disciplines 2) shifting away from the business model of being paid for production to being paid for managing a network of geographically disperse low-cost providers, and 3) providing thought leadership as subject matter expert in digital disciplines, strategies, and tactics.
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
