April 14, 2009

This whole internet thing could get big someday

NOTE: This post is old, and is probably on different subject matter than my current writing. It is possible the information is outdated or my opinions have changed. -- Josh Klein, May 28, 2012

When I talked about the attention gold rush, I wish I had put it as succinctly as Noah Brier did today:

Terry Heaton makes a point I’ve been trying to articulate for years: “The problem is that the distribution of content isn’t the real problem for media companies; it’s the growing ability of advertisers to reach people without media companies.”

Or, put another way, it’s the ability of brands to be their own media companies. If the Official Google Blog was a newspaper, it’s subscriber numbers would put it in the top 10 for daily circulation. Not only does that mean Google has less need for advertising, but it also means they have less need for media coverage generally.

Noah calls this direct to consumer (which has another meaning in pharmaceutical advertising, but ignore that).

Here’s another example: Johnson & Johnson has plenty of parenting products to sell, so they made Babycenter.com, now the go-to place for new parents.

How many people really see, let alone pay attention to, an advertisement?

Certainly not more than the 5.5 million parents who visited Babycenter in March (by choice), many of whom have given J&J registration information any brand would die for.

Advertising requires constantly spending money. When you stop spending, it stops working. But when you spend money to build something your customers find valuable — like a website worth coming back to — that investment pays off over the long term.

Advertising isn’t going away, and you still need to spend money to make money. The choice is whether or not you’re in this thing for the long haul.

As I like to say, this whole internet thing could get big someday.

I only say that half-ironically. If you think the massive growth of the web over the last decade is a fluke — or has peaked — you’re crazy. We’re 10% of the way there. Stake your claim.

--- Josh Klein

http://thelostjacket.com Stuartfoster

Direct to consumer has always been the way to go for targeted leads. Media companies have diluted this process as companies have tried to reach broader and broader audiences. Now we're looking for the 4 people who will buy our product, then the 100 who won't. Often, you know your product better then anyone and have valuable insight that could greatly aid your marketing efforts. You just have your chance to utilize these skills on a regular basis now.
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

Totally agreed – I think what's different now is the scale at which customers can be targeted. You could always show up at the conference for just the right kind of people and shmooze them, but now you can be in constant contact with them online… and they want you to be.
nogre

If you are right about us only being 10% of the way towards full internet adoption, do you think we are going to need a new way of being identified? Let me explain: It used to be that people just went by first names: John, Sarah, etc. Then it was first names and a description, e.g. John who lives on the Big Hill, or John son of Steve. Then we got last names: John Smith.

With more and more people having (needing) an online presence, it will be harder to uniquely identify yourself because the internet takes away the old identifiers of space and time. There are other Josh Kleins, just as there are other Noah Greensteins. How are we all going to identify ourselves easily when every single one of us is online and needs to be easily found? Should I start signing my name as 'Noah Greenstein (nogre)'?
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

Since when has the enigmatic Noah Greenstein left serious comments on my blog? :)

It's not that I think internet adoption, or penetration, is only at 10% (it's certainly much higher), but rather that we've only integrated the internet into our lives, our society, at about 10% of the level it will eventually be at. Mobile internet connectivity with be ubiquitous, more transactions will occur online, and plenty of other things that we haven't thought of yet.

But that's an interesting question regardless, and one that I've thought about myself. There are other Josh Kleins — and somewhat widely known ones at that — which is part of the original reason for this blog. I've created a piece of “property” that uniquely belongs to me, and when you search for “Josh Klein” on Google I'm the first that pops up.

I'm not sure of the sociological implications, but I do think that we'll be attaching more “meta data” to our names by virtue of the way we increasingly live in public. Facebook pages, for instance, identify you by name and network… and eventually by your favorite movies, your job, and whatever other information you make public.
http://www.thelovablerogue.co.uk The Lovable Rogue

Hey Josh,
There's an interesting article in this week's Marketing Week (UK version at least) emphasising the importance of building your own personal brand. As you suggest, in creating and developing your own personal online space through a blog or social presence, you are simultaneously carving out a name for yourself on the Internet. Certain individuals have already done so incredibly successfully; consider for example Seth Godin. I imagine that we will be increasingly identified by the reach and authority of our networks, with this information being used to specifically target content at us.

Returning to the original topic of the post, this all seems to stem from the disintermediating capacities of the Internet itself. Middle men are no longer required. Despite ever more voluminuous amounts of information appearing online, the tools freely available to users have minimised the time required to locate desired content. Time constraints comprised the traditional logic for the ongoing presence of the intermediary. Now that time requirements have been minismised, it seems only logical that the intermediary will begin to be removed from the equation entirely. I think that all types of intermediaries will need to keep their eyes open over the coming years, ensuring that they continue to add value to the user.

TLR
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

That's really smart. The pattern is emerging across the board. Music isn't in trouble, but the middleman between musicians and fans is. News isn't in trouble, but the middleman between information and the public is.

Technology is the great equalizer, the thing that can unite people who otherwise couldn't find each other. Any industry that relies on “brokers” is probably in for a world of hurt as they get cut out by the two sides of the deal. After all, you're only a welcome participant in the market while you add value, so a buyer and seller only need the broker if they can't do the deal without one.

I think the option for the middleman is to add value in a service that is irreplaceable, by acting as a curator. I pay for the Economist because they curate the news into a weekly magazine that tells me everything I need to know about the world. I don't pay for the New York Times, because everything I read there I can find out somewhere else, and I can't tell which of the thousand articles they publish every day are worth reading (full disclosure: I read the op eds online).
http://thelostjacket.com Stuart Foster

Direct to consumer has always been the way to go for targeted leads. Media companies have diluted this process as companies have tried to reach broader and broader audiences. Now we're looking for the 4 people who will buy our product, then the 100 who won't. Often, you know your product better then anyone and have valuable insight that could greatly aid your marketing efforts. You just have your chance to utilize these skills on a regular basis now.
- http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
  
  Totally agreed – I think what's different now is the scale at which customers can be targeted. You could always show up at the conference for just the right kind of people and shmooze them, but now you can be in constant contact with them online… and they want you to be.
http://Davidbeking.com David King

lol… Love the title for the blog post! that's a funny one! :-) had a good laugh! :)
nogre

If you are right about us only being 10% of the way towards full internet adoption, do you think we are going to need a new way of being identified? Let me explain: It used to be that people just went by first names: John, Sarah, etc. Then it was first names and a description, e.g. John who lives on the Big Hill, or John son of Steve. Then we got last names: John Smith.

With more and more people having (needing) an online presence, it will be harder to uniquely identify yourself because the internet takes away the old identifiers of space and time. There are other Josh Kleins, just as there are other Noah Greensteins. How are we all going to identify ourselves easily when every single one of us is online and needs to be easily found? Should I start signing my name as 'Noah Greenstein (nogre)'?
- http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
  
  Since when has the enigmatic Noah Greenstein left serious comments on my blog? :)
  
  It's not that I think internet adoption, or penetration, is only at 10% (it's certainly much higher), but rather that we've only integrated the internet into our lives, our society, at about 10% of the level it will eventually be at. Mobile internet connectivity will be ubiquitous, more transactions will occur online, and so on… plenty of other things that we haven't thought of yet.
  
  But that's an interesting question regardless, and one that I've thought about myself. There are other Josh Kleins — and somewhat widely known ones at that — which is part of the original reason for this blog. I've created a piece of “property” that uniquely belongs to me, and when you search for “Josh Klein” on Google I'm the first that pops up.
  
  I'm not sure of the sociological implications, but I do think that we'll be attaching more “meta data” to our names by virtue of the way we increasingly live in public. Facebook pages, for instance, identify you by name and network… and eventually by your favorite movies, your job, and whatever other information you make public.
  - http://www.thelovablerogue.co.uk The Lovable Rogue
    
    Hey Josh,
    There's an interesting article in this week's Marketing Week (UK version at least) emphasising the importance of building your own personal brand. As you suggest, in creating and developing your own personal online space through a blog or social presence, you are simultaneously carving out a name for yourself on the Internet. Certain individuals have already done so incredibly successfully; consider for example Seth Godin. I imagine that we will be increasingly identified by the reach and authority of our networks, with this information being used to specifically target content at us.
    
    Returning to the original topic of the post, this all seems to stem from the disintermediating capacities of the Internet itself. Middle men are no longer required. Despite ever more voluminuous amounts of information appearing online, the tools freely available to users have minimised the time required to locate desired content. Time constraints comprised the traditional logic for the ongoing presence of the intermediary. Now that time requirements have been minismised, it seems only logical that the intermediary will begin to be removed from the equation entirely. I think that all types of intermediaries will need to keep their eyes open over the coming years, ensuring that they continue to add value to the user.
    
    TLR
  - http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
    
    That's really smart. The pattern is emerging across the board. Music isn't in trouble, but the middleman between musicians and fans is. News isn't in trouble, but the middleman between information and the public is.
    
    Technology is the great equalizer, the thing that can unite people who otherwise couldn't find each other. Any industry that relies on “brokers” is probably in for a world of hurt as they get cut out by the two sides of the deal. After all, you're only a welcome participant in the market while you add value, so a buyer and seller only need the broker if they can't do the deal without one.
    
    I think the option for the middleman is to add value in a service that is irreplaceable, by acting as a curator. I pay for the Economist because they curate the news into a weekly magazine that tells me everything I need to know about the world. I don't pay for the New York Times, because everything I read there I can find out somewhere else, and I can't tell which of the thousand articles they publish every day are worth reading (full disclosure: I read the op eds online).
http://Davidbeking.com David King

lol… Love the title for the blog post! that's a funny one! :-) had a good laugh! :)
- http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
  
  Thanks David!
http://trainingtime.wordpress.com/ Marie

Like Johnson & Johnson did with Babycenter.com, companies need to find ways to utilize media in a way that their audience finds useful. More than just building awareness, being valuable in the eyes of your customers will ensure your success over the long run. Great post!
http://trainingtime.wordpress.com/ Marie

Like Johnson & Johnson did with Babycenter.com, companies need to find ways to utilize media in a way that their audience finds useful. More than just building awareness, being valuable in the eyes of your customers will ensure your success over the long run. Great post!
- http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
  
  Thanks Marie! I had a great conversation earlier this week about how undifferentiated products can still succeed because of smart awareness building, but I remain unconvinced that it's an approach you'd want to take unless you had the marketing might of a Fortune 500 behind you and a product you simply HAD to sell. In the grand scheme of things, I see these businesses doing poorer in the new economy.
  
  Those that deliver real differentiated value to their customers, as you say, are the ones that can utilize media to deliver smart marketing as just one more benefit of the product itself.
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

Thanks Marie! I had a great conversation earlier this week about how undifferentiated products can still succeed because of smart awareness building, but I remain unconvinced that it's an approach you'd want to take unless you had the marketing might of a Fortune 500 behind you and a product you simply HAD to sell. In the grand scheme of things, I see these businesses doing poorer in the new economy.

Those that deliver real differentiated value to their customers, as you say, are the ones that can utilize media to deliver smart marketing as just one more benefit of the product itself.
graphiker

Well, you are in good company here. In this week'sNew Yorker', James Surowiecki writes that companies who keep investing in R&D and advertising emerge from recessions in stronger positions than ones that hunker down. He's got some interesting historical examples, like Kellogg's and Post cereals.
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

I did see that; interesting article! Here is the link for anyone who missed it: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/04…
http://www.joshklein.net joshklein

Thanks David!
graphiker

Well, you are in good company here. In this week'sNew Yorker', James Surowiecki writes that companies who keep investing in R&D and advertising emerge from recessions in stronger positions than ones that hunker down. He's got some interesting historical examples, like Kellogg's and Post cereals.
- http://www.joshklein.net joshklein
  
  I did see that; interesting article! Here is the link for anyone who missed it: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/04…
http://mdaniels.com Matt Daniels

Wow–never heard/knew of babycenter.com

I think this is a growing trend–beyond just having a “direct to consumer” channel.

A few companies are pushing platforms that integrate with their consumer's lifestyle rather than creating a pithy micro-site. It's the realization that people do not revolve around brands (i.e., driving to jnj.com), but rather, brands should revolve around the paths and lifestyles of people (via Mike Arauz).

And I'm incredibly surprised that a big CPG like Johnson & Johnson gets this.
http://mdaniels.com Matt Daniels

Wow–never heard/knew of babycenter.com

I think this is a growing trend–beyond just having a “direct to consumer” channel.

A few companies are pushing platforms that integrate with their consumer's lifestyle rather than creating a pithy micro-site. It's the realization that people do not revolve around brands (i.e., driving to jnj.com), but rather, brands should revolve around the paths and lifestyles of people (via Mike Arauz).

And I'm incredibly surprised that a big CPG like Johnson & Johnson gets this.
http://swingtradingx.blogsome.com Swing Trading

Insightful read. I have just bookmarked this at stumbleupon. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.
http://swingtradingx.blogsome.com Swing Trading

Insightful read. I have just bookmarked this at stumbleupon. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.
staffpower

It gives more informative message for me. The companies how sell their product via media. Thanks for sharing it.
staffpower

It gives more informative message for me. The companies how sell their product via media. Thanks for sharing it.
staffing power

This whole internet thing could get big someday

All Posts