Make Money Online

The Winter Olympics kicked off just days ago in Vancouver, Canada. As always, the primary media coverage is traditional television, but there’s a new and essential spin this year – social media.

As Alexandra Samuel points out in her blog for Harvard Business Review,  the Winter Olympics is “a living social media experiment.” While social media was used during the Summer Games in Beijing, “this is the first time it will be deployed in a free and democratic regime,” says Samuel.

Social media is having an impact that goes beyond the Olympics Games themselves. For example, the city of Vancouver became a hotbed of social media activity well before the games even started. Vancouver’s local media coverage of the Olympics has also changed dramatically, according to Samuel. Citizen journalists, she says, “have provided an alternate – and often critical – take on the Games.” Linda Solomon, publisher of the Vancouver Observer, an online news magazine that recruited over 150 contributors, tells Samuel, “It’s not about crafting a story anymore, which is an art that takes many years to master. It’s about telling what you see and think, something anybody can do. This levels the playing field.”

Another area that is depending heavily on social media is the “Cultural Olympiad” – an entire series of multi-disciplinary festivals running before, during, and after the Games. The Cultural Olympiad showcases Canadian and international music, dance, theatre, visual arts, and film.

In addition to making early use of Twitter and Facebook, the Cultural Olympiad launched Canada CODE, a giant digital project that, for a year before the Olympics, provided Canadians with an online platform for “connecting, creating and collaborating” with the people of the world to present “an ever-evolving portrait” of Canadians. The culmination of CODE is an invitation to enter the “Virtual Stadium” and upload a personal photo for a chance to be a virtual part of the Olympics Closing Ceremony.

The International Olympics Committee has had to deal with the impact of social media by establishing regulations for its use. The IOC allows athletes to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media tools as well as blogs, but requires that they limit any posts to personal experiences. “You can’t act as a journalist if you aren’t,” said Bob Condron, director of media services for the United States Olympic Committee. “You need to do things in a first person way.” Athletes are also forbidden to reference any sponsor or advertiser that is not an official Olympic partner. Condron told Wired, “These are going to be the Twitter Olympics.”

Whatever happens during the Olympics, it seems clear that social media has changed the ground rules. Says Samuel, “On the one hand, the Olympic narrative of global community seems like a natural fit for social media… On the other hand the complexity and business model behind the Games make the prospect of grassroots storytelling a huge challenge.”

Read the rest here:
Winter Olympics a Test Case for Power of Social Media

I’ve periodically written about the plight of print publishers and their reluctant move to the digital world. One of the looming issues for these publishers when they make the transition to online content is how to get consumers to pay for it.

This all may be coming to a head in 2010. According to a study just released by the American Press Institute and reported on by eMarketer, close to sixty percent of member publishers are considering charging for content that is currently free. Twenty-five percent of them said they’ll have a paid strategy in place within six months.

Whatever plans publishers are concocting to charge for content may be worth little more than the paper their newspapers and magazines are printed on. According to a new report from research firm Forrester,  eighty percent of consumers say they are not interested in newspaper and magazine online content if it is not free. Only three percent say they would pay individually for each article read. This is a major blow to all those publishers (and there are a lot of them) who are toying with a “micropayment” strategy.

Forrester also asked the question: “If the publications you read were no longer available in print, how would you prefer to access that content?” Thirty-seven percent of consumers picked online access via a website. Fourteen percent preferred access via portable devices like mobile phones. Remarkably, ten percent wanted a relatively old-tech solution: to receive PDFs by email. Only three percent wanted to use eReaders such as the Amazon Kindle. Hmmm, that kind of puts a damper on the hoopla around eReaders, doesn’t it?

Forrester analyst Sarah Rotman Epps makes this point in reporting the results: “…one size won’t fit all – consumers want choice. There’s no one delivery platform, and no one pricing model, that will satisfy all consumers.”

The biggest problem for publishers of online content, then, is finding a magic bullet (not yet identified) to get consumers to pay for that content.

But there may not be one; in fact, advertising-supported content may continue to be the safest route for publishers. Let’s face it, Pandora’s box is already open. Consumers now get unlimited, free access, just by paying an Internet Service Provider, to virtually all the information they need. They’ve lived and breathed in an online world where a free Google search reveals just about everything worth knowing.

That’s why Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, just weeks ago threatened to remove his publications from Google’s search index. Despite the fact that The Wall Street Journal has successfully implemented a paid online subscription service, a specific story can be accessed for free by non-subscribers via a link posted on Google.

While I’m not a big fan of Murdoch, I like The Wall Street Journal model for paid content. The subscriber has three different choices (per Rotman Epps’ point above): the daily newspaper in hard copy, the paid online version of the newspaper, or a combination paper/online subscription. The price difference is only about $15 between the newspaper and online version, which keeps the value of the online version high. The online version does offers some free content to a non-subscriber, but a subscription is required to continue reading most stories in full and get exclusive online extras.

One of the reasons it works is because the Journal’s audience is business people who are willing to pay for valuable information – but the paid content strategy is working, since the subscriber base for both the online version and the newspaper is growing. In fact, The Wall Street Journal is one of only two hard copy newspapers with positive circulation growth (the other is USA TODAY). Other publishers need to figure out how to offer information that is so highly valued that people want to pay for it.

It’s crunch time for publishers. As they wrestle with getting themselves out of the print world and into the digital world, they will face this challenge of finding a way to convince consumers to pay for online content. As the Forrester report suggests, however, there will be no single easy solution. If they want to survive, content publishers will need to do a better job of listening to what the consumer wants.

Read the original:
Listen to What the Consumer Wants

Long before Malcolm Gladwell’s extraordinary best-selling book The Tipping Point, there was Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm, published almost twenty years ago, and his follow-up book, Inside the Tornado. Moore talked about the flash point at which a technology product progresses from early adoption to mass adoption.

There can be little doubt that social media has “crossed the chasm.” Social media surely meets Gladwell’s tipping point criteria as well: “Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do.”

So with mass adoption under its belt, where is social media headed next year? The end-of-year predictions are already starting. Rather than depend on casual prognosticators, however, I like to follow the thinking of people who analyze trends and offer perceptive observations grounded in reality.

That’s why I think David Armano’s blog for Harvard Business Publishing is worthy of mention. Armano is a founder of Dachis Group, a consultancy based in Austin, TX specializing in social business. Its clients include AXA, BP, Philips, and Coca-Cola, so I have a feeling Armano knows what he’s talking about.

Armano identifies six social media trends for 2010, but I want to focus on the implications of his commentary rather than the specifics. One underlying theme of Armano’s blog seems to be that social media’s mass adoption comes with consequences, both to individuals and businesses. Individuals overwhelmed with multiple messages from multiple sources may bring a new meaning to the term “anti-social,” because, as Armano says, they need to “filter out the clutter.” But at the same time, Armano believes businesses will be impacted by social media’s popularity: “…employees will seek to feed their social media addictions on their mobile devices.” What used to be a coffee break may turn into a “social media break.”

“There are relatively few big companies that have scaled social initiatives,” says Armano, so in 2010, there could be more companies looking “to uncover cost savings or serve customers more effectively through leveraging social technology.” At the same time, companies will probably need to extend their email and Internet policies to include social media. “From how to conduct yourself as an employee to what’s considered competition, it’s likely that you’ll see something formalized about how the company views social media and your participation in it,” says Armano.

Notice the beginnings of a complex situation emerging when it comes to social media — not unlike what has occurred with email and cell phones. People can’t get enough of social media, but it may come to a point where there’s a backlash and it needs to be controlled. Businesses want to do more with social media and do it better, but they are likely to put rules into place to prevent its abuse.

Maybe in 2010, people will begin to think about social media in a new way: Can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

More here:
Social Media: At the Tipping Point

The 2009 Cone Consumer New Media Study, results of which were released on October 20, shows the continuing growth of consumer empowerment.

Cone, a strategy and communications agency that specializes in cause branding, looked only at users of “new media,” defined as “dialogue among individuals or groups by way of technology-facilitated channels” – social networks, blogs, games, message boards, and the like. Over one-third of the respondents use new media two or more times a week.

Highlights of the study include the following:

1.    Consumers are increasing their interaction with companies and brands online. Almost 80 percent of new media users interact with companies or brands via new media sites and tools. This is an increase of 32 percent from the 2008 study. More than one-third of users (37 percent) interact via new media at least once per week, up from about 25 percent last year. New media users “overwhelmingly believe companies or brands should not only have a presence in new media, but also interact with their consumers in this space,” says Cone. In addition, consumers “think more highly of companies or brands when they or their friends can interact with them in a new media environment.”

2.    Consumers believe they can influence businesses by voicing opinions online. Sixty-two percent of respondents believe they can influence business decisions by voicing opinions via new media channels. About one-quarter have offered their opinion on an issue or contacted a company directly. Consumers are also interested in and influenced by information they get online. A large majority of respondents (85 percent) want companies to tell them what is in products and how they are made. Three-quarters of new media users say new media channels are an effective way to learn about Corporate Responsibility efforts.

3.    Supporting causes is important to new media users. Seventy-nine percent of respondents believe companies and nonprofit organizations should use new media channels to raise money and awareness for causes. Eighty-five percent of respondents say new media provides them with an opportunity to learn about new issues. Eighty percent say new media provides another way to support their favorite causes. Sixty percent have used some form of online or new media to support a cause. However, only 18 percent of users have made a cash donation through new media. Why? Nearly 39 percent said they didn’t trust that their efforts would actually help the cause, and 31 percent said they’d rather support causes offline. While no single cause had a majority of attention, leading causes supported via new media include animal welfare (29 percent), health and disease (28 percent), education (23 percent), the environment (22 percent) and human rights/equal rights (21 percent).

New media users appear to be active, interested and engaged. They are influenced by information they get online – and they believe they can influence businesses by communicating with them online.

It is clear that Internet-savvy consumers have high expectations. They want businesses to use new media. This is good news for online marketers, but there is this cautionary note as well: Businesses need to be ever-vigilant about using new media appropriately, and they must be responsive to consumer inquiries and comments.

Read the rest here:
New Media Study Shows Increasing Consumer Empowerment

Using customer data to improve a company’s marketing is nothing new. This strategy has been a staple of direct marketing for decades. But the way data is being used today in the online world holds great promise, even for small Internet marketers.

For example, virtually anyone selling anything can make use of the targeting capabilities of Google AdWords to get click-throughs from potentially qualified prospects. It’s cost-effective for any marketer of any product or service because of the pay-per-click model.

The next great advance in online advertising is likely to be the widespread availability of powerful personalization tools, similar to the recommendation model pioneered by online sellers like Amazon. While product recommendation technology is ten years old, it is only now that smaller online retailers are considering it. Typically the technology was either proprietary or prohibitively expensive, but that may be changing.

eMarketer reports that 40 percent of online merchants were planning to add personalized product recommendations to websites by the end of 2008. Interestingly, one impetus is the growing popularity of social networking, which enables peer recommendations. The recommend-it and rate-it mentality is ubiquitous in such environments.

Even more intriguing is the emerging market for online customer data. The New York Times reports that “behavioral exchanges” such as Blue Kai and eXelate Media are springing up. Blue Kai says it is “building the world’s largest database of intentions.”

These exchanges buy and sell user cookies. Basically, the owner of a website would sell a cookie from a user transaction to a buyer who wants to more effectively target an online advertising campaign. According to the Times article, the buyer could be an advertiser, its agency, a website publisher, or even an ad network.

To avoid privacy conflicts, Blue Kai and eXelate practice full disclosure – they permit consumers to view the information their exchanges have collected, as well as tell the exchanges if they don’t want to be targeted.

If these exchanges ultimately improve targeting, that could be a welcome development. It may very well reduce randomly served ads and maybe even spam e-mail. Using data the right way could create a richer, more relevant online experience for everyone.

Read more here:

When Steven Colbert recently suggested that newspapers should just add porn sections if they were serious about competing online, it was funny and sad at the same time. Newspapers serve an important part in any healthy democracy. But if they’re going to survive, they need to address a two-fold dilemma: falling subscriptions and declining ad-revenues.

Of course, as more and more content inevitably moves online, newspapers should be focusing on increasing online ad revenues and online subscriptions. To do that, they have to increase both traffic, i.e. the number of unique visits and page views. By following the example of where the more successful web portals are now and where some of the more popular emerging portals are headed, they just might be able to that.

In a word, newspapers should be considering how to use social media and mobile technology to hyper-target both ads and content. In doing so, they’ll be able to open up their ad space to both advertisers from around the world/web, and mom & pop business that could never before afford newspaper ad space.

Localized Ads

Newspaper know more about their paying subscribers than just their IP. They have a billing address. Between the two, then, they can show ads for businesses in specific neighborhood.

This, in turn, means they can open up a variety of specialty ad rates that will make it affordable for mom & pop businesses to advertise “in the paper.” Since newspapers know exactly how many people in any given neighborhood subscribe to the paper and what content they interact with the most, they can target the audience accordingly.

A Social News Organization

Newspapers need to consider building community around their subscribers for two reasons: (1) traffic/page views, and (2) user-data — which we’ll get into below. This means integrating the usual suite of social media features such as user profiles, comments, sharing features, and leveraging APIs.

First, letting users interact through profiles and comments can help page views go up. Secondly, allowing readers to easily share content with their personal network by leveraging APIs, such as Twitter and Facebook, should also help increase engagement. Most importantly, however, will be the user data amassed through subscribers’ profiles.

Hyper-Targeted Affiliate Offers

In addition to the profile information that users would provide, newspapers will amass extensive data on its users, including content preferences and online behavior patterns. In conjunction with the data they have on subscribers’ locality and its average demographic, such information would be invaluable in identifying the specific kinds of product offers of interest to their readers.

Imagine if newspapers used this data to leveraged the eBay and Amazon APIs to show users offers they were actually interested in. Users would respond well to the ads, and instead of relying online on impressions, newspapers could monetize and CTRs and even conversions — as any other content-driven super-affiliate does.

Going Mobile

Former Financial Times journalist, Tom Foremski, recently pointed out that papers are already thinking in terms of “mobile journalists equipped with notebooks, cell phone modems, and cameras,” so the next step is to think in terms of mobile subscribers — not mobile readers, but mobile subscribers.

The first step would be sending readers mobile alerts on topics they want. Not only would this increase engagement and offer more value on subscription fees, this would also boost impressions. As mobile readers click through on an SMS to view the story, papers further increase page views, and therefore impressions.

And to build on localized ads, newspapers could leverage location based services (LBS) technology to show mobile subscribers ads that are relevant to their current location. For example, a mom & pop restaurant could reach out to a mobile user who is not from that neighborhood, but happens to be in it.

A Watchdog Business

Newspapers are in the business of (1) providing authoritative information so that they can (2) sell subscriptions and ads. But they are also much more than mere content publishers. They play an important role in a healthy democracy. There is a lot more hinging on their survival, then, than mere jobs and tradition.

Web technologies can help them better distribute their content, so they simply need to adapt their subscription and ad models to these new channels. Granted, the development of that kind of platform would be not be a simple feat; but whoever managed to pull it off well would be in a position not only to make considerable profits, but save a dying but important industry and democratic institution.

Read more here:
Upgrading the Newspaper Revenue Model

Recent launches of Amazon’s Kindle 2 eBook reader and its Sony counterpart, the Reader Digital Book, have satisfied the wants and needs of bleeding edge consumers with longer battery life and enhanced text readability. But how much are they expected to disrupt traditional print-based media like books and newspaper? More importantly, will they significantly influence the way the majority of consumers consume printed media?

I’ve read a couple of analytical pieces, including a recent post Kindling an Interest in eBooks by Revenews writer Barry Silverstein  comparing the potential  revenue generated by an eBook  to a paperback and a hardcover.

The Great Paper Waste

While on a per unit basis it appears that hardcover books and their limited editions/first edition counterparts give better returns than eBooks, the writing’s on the wall that digital printing will outperform and likely supplant traditional media. The factors  are pretty overwhelming and the question is when this will happen.

According to a post by Dave Taylor in response to how much of a book’s print run remains unsold  or destroyed, the industry estimates are between “as little as possible” to about 55%. Having worked in the publishing industry before, I’ve seen as much as 90% of the print run of a book remain unsold.

Similar to how CDs,  DVDs, and other physical goods are produced, you might expect 5% of product produced to be bestsellers, going into a 5th or 10th printing, another 30-50% to break even and possibly generate marginal profit, while the balance is relegated to the bargain bin section of your bookstore or online and direct mail specialty book clearinghouses. If said stock, whether CD, DVD, book, magazine, newspaper, remains unsold, it’s either recycled or ends up in a local landfill.

What this means is  with half of all books printed not sell the  viability and bottom line  for traditional publishers is brought down. Printing a string of dud books could be financially fatal for niche and specialty publishers.

The Digital Publishing Paradigm Shift

How digital publishing disrupts the established business model is by allowing authors the option to choose to self-publish.  This is feasible if they’re confident in promoting their books themselves outside of the book catalog  and book tour avenue of publishing publicity.

Publishers  can also benefit since by being  able to avoid printing an excessive amount of inventory, reduce production and storage costs and channel their efforts more towards promotion and less on the production element of the business.

But the biggest payout for digital book readers could potentially be the environmental impact.

Step into your bookstore and imagine that half of the books you sell will be unsold and relegated to a paper mill for shredding or burning.

When you take that example and multiply it by all the bookstores in the country, the potential is there for digital publishing to supplant not just the business model for brick-and-mortar bookstores, but also positively impact the environment.

Overcoming The Final Barrier

Cost, however, remains a barrier at this point. At the current $350 to $400 price bracket, eBook readers will appeal to the tech set  and remain out of the hands of the masses for some time.

If the industry trend in MP3 players is similarly replicated in the eBook reader industry, we might eventually see these devices drop to the $100 price point or better. When that happens, we might see printing presses become a thing of the past.

Andrew Wee blogs about blogging, affiliate marketing and social traffic at Who is Andrew Wee.

View original here:
How eBooks and Digital Publishing will Disrupt Traditional Book Publishing

From an online revenue perspective, eBooks today represent a small market.

Amazon is out to change that. The e-commerce giant, doing well despite a sagging economy, recently introduced Kindle 2. This next-generation reading device comes with a library of over 240,000 books, worldwide newspapers, magazines, and blogs. It’s got 3G wireless for book downloading, an improved screen, and it’ll even read books out loud to you.

Sony offers the “Reader Digital Book,” a Kindle competitor. Both Amazon and Sony are banking on early adopters who want to read books electronically and remotely. With the Reader Digital Book priced at $400, and Kindle selling for $359, consumers will need to read a lot of eBooks to make their investment worthwhile.

But the more interesting Amazon announcement came on March 4, when the company said that iPhone and iPod users could get a new free Kindle application that gives them access to the entire Kindle library.

Just days after Amazon’s iNews, Barnes & Noble announced a $16 million purchase of eBook retailer Fictionwise. Barnes & Noble’s eBook sales sputtered in the past, but now it will try to give Amazon a run for its money.

The Amazon iPhone/iPod application and the Barnes & Noble acquisition may help ramp up eBook sales. But there’s no guarantee book publishers will be fully onboard. A recent article in Financial Times stated:

“What is perplexing for publishers is the long-term viability of the existing model. The profit margins are difficult to determine… E-books are sold at a fraction of the suggested hardcover price on the physical edition with many new Kindle titles sold at $9.99.”

The “existing model” that concerns publishers is the fact that eBooks sell for under $10, while hardcovers sell for upwards of $25. eBooks are a little more expensive than paperbacks, but paperbacks are typically published only after a hardcover edition’s selling cycle has ended. Publishers have to cover the costs of marketing and author advances, whether a book is published as a hardcover, paperback, or eBook.

Still, with book publishers facing continuing declines in profits, you’d think the industry would embrace any avenue to increase sales, especially if it actually decreases their dependency on printing and distribution. But book publishers are not known for being visionary.

Book publishers do follow consumer demand, however. So if a critical mass of consumers creates a true demand for eBooks, publishers would have to commit to publishing them. Will that really happen? Maybe the reading public will want to retain the admittedly old-fashioned but treasured tactile experience of leafing through printed books. Or maybe, as Amazon hopes, they will begin to see a book as one more searchable electronic document to be viewed on a screen.

——————
Barry Silverstein is a freelance writer/marketing consultant and co-author of the McGraw-Hill book, The Breakaway Brand.

See more here:
Kindling an Interest in eBooks

The Rocky Mountain News (Denver) just shut down after 150 years, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ceased print operations, and the Philadelphia Inquirer went bankrupt. Countless other printed newspapers, large and small, are on the skids.

All of them have been caught with their presses down. They missed or didn’t want to acknowledge the vast sea of change occurring around them. They took the punches from radio news, television network news, and CNN – but they couldn’t survive the Internet’s knockout blow.

Built on staffs of professional journalists working in news bureaus, newspapers have too much overhead. Publishing once each morning or evening used to be adequate, but news today is instant, via websites, email and mobile devices. The Internet encourages news sharing and informational socializing – the exact opposite of traditional one-way journalism.

The most serious blow dealt the newspapers is the Internet’s free information model. This makes it virtually impossible for a paid subscription print newspaper to successfully convert to a paid subscription online publication. Chances are only a small percentage of readers would be willing to pay to read a favorite columnist online or get news from a “trusted” source.

Can newspapers see a revenue rebirth online? A few early visionaries have done it. The Wall Street Journal reported that its online paid subscriptions increased 7.4 percent in 2008, and visitors to WSJ.com increased 137 percent (Editor & Publisher). At the same time, its print edition circulation was flat.

The Wall Street Journal is a specialized business newspaper, however; consumer papers have yet to make a go of paid online subscriptions. The New York Times tried paid subscriptions for premium content but dropped the service in September 2007.

Nowadays, there is a lot of buzz surrounding the “micropayment” concept: collecting small amounts of money for individual news stories, much like paying for an iTunes song. This model has more detractors than supporters. Critics don’t see it as a viable revenue-generator.

The only revenue alternative left for newspapers may be online ads. Newspapers used to think online help-wanted classifieds and real estate ads would pick up the slack, but that didn’t happen. There was too much online competition. Can newspapers attract enough eyeballs to their websites, and keep them there, to make for a worthwhile advertising investment?

If traditional newspapers are going to have a revenue rebirth, they will have to find a way to reinvent themselves online. More than that, they will have to prove there is still a place for newspapers in the new media world. Right now, no one seems to have come up with the magic bullet to keep them from extinction.

——————
Barry Silverstein is a freelance writer/marketing consultant and co-author of the McGraw-Hill book, The Breakaway Brand.

The rest is here:
Revenue Rebirth for Newspapers?

Over the last week I was part of a spirited private private debate about the death of banners and display advertising. Peter Figueredo even posted on this subject while I was composing this. It was all sparked by Procter & Gamble’s GM for interactive marketing and innovation, Ted McConnell saying  “I really don’t want to buy any more banner ads on Facebook.”  With CTRs around 0.35% and eCPM rates dropping like a rock, what are publishers to do?

Let’s look at the issues.  First, headlines are there to get people to read more. Did mine “get” you?  Second, journalists may even have a slant that they want to get across. Third (and I’ll stop numbering), people may be looking at a piece of the animal and not stepping back to see that it might make sense. eMarketer recently published some stats on display ads that notes that while they still can’t measure many of the ads on social media sites, Facebook has already claimed a 1.1% share of display ad views.  This is sure to increase as they find ways to measure new concepts such as Facebook’s Engagement Ads.

Friend, Jaffer Ali, does a guest post for Jack Meyers where he asks Has Online Advertising Lost Its “Schwerpunkt”? You really should read this whole article closely as it is pretty complex.  I think I read it three times.  He starts with an analogy, but moves into a generic “Online Advertising”discussion where he posits that we are allowing technology to drive too much and losing the relationships and creativity that are needed to really move forward and get into what is coming next.  I may not fully agree with hi, but there are places where he makes perfect sense. Coming from the performance marketing side, we never really did watch CTRs.

Dave Morgan has his version of this in MediaPost where he asks, Whither The Banner? Again, Dave is someone who knows this space better than most.  I guess where I disagree with his assessment is that “banner” is pretty generic and can mean different things. To me, “banner” is everything display and all sizes and formats.  Dave talks about Web video and Rich Media as separate entities from the banner.  I really don’t differentiate between a basic static banner and an expandable banner that shows a movie preview or allows interaction with the user.  These are just evolutionary aspects of the same banner that went from static images, to animated GIFs, to Flash, etc.  I’m not arguing that banners (my definition) will be here and strong forever. But I do think that they have quite a bit more staying power than they are being given credit for. Read the comments on this one as well, because you will see some great minds who also read this and left their thoughts.

Not to be left out, David Koretz’s MediaPost headline, Display Advertising Needs To Die, is a bit more inflammatory. I have zero experience in Brand advertising personally, but I have learned a bit about it through conferences and dealings with others who have made this their area of expertise.I think I do agree with what he is trying to say as the underlying message, but this does not meant that the other side of the coin can’t be the same thing.  His point is that building a brand should not be the goal of advertising, instead it should be building (measurable) sales. David is arguing for the CPA model quite strongly, and for that I am quite happy. It is very nice to see CPA move into the mainstream and even be used as an argument against display advertising. I do think that there is room for both brand and the more direct transactional related ads. The entire TV model (other than late night direct response and QVC type channels) is based on influence advertising.  I don’t see that going away too soon.  Though I would not mind seeing a few percent of it moving to online affiliate (CPA) sales.

AdWeek jumps on the bandwagon with their version, Is the End Near for Display Ads? My beef with this article is that again, there is no reason that measurable cost per action advertising needs to be excluded from the broad category of Display.  Citing sources such as Young-Bean Song and David Hallerman, it is hard to knock the data and research talked about in the story. It is the curse we caused ourselves by touting the measureability of online. By telling people how much better online is because we can measure just about everything, advertising runs into problems when we then go off and try to tell them how online is influencing offline behavior. This article does moderate the tone a bit noting that “the Web is miles ahead of print and TV when it comes to proving its worth.”

It’s not like we haven’t seen this before.

View post:
The Banner is Dead

Photos have power. They can entertain, document, convey emotion, and form opinion. Without context the person looking at the photo may come away with emotions unintended by the photographer. Thus the beauty of art. Given context, photos can put a face to a tragedy that might otherwise simply be a distant statistic. That’s the power of the medium. Seattle photographer Amanda Koster believes in the transformative ability of photos. It is that belief that fuels the business of her company with a quirky name: Salaam Garage.

Amanda represents the kind of grass roots type content that Gnomedex likes to showcase. I sat down with her to learn more about Salaam Garage.

How did you get started in photography?

I ended up in photography while studying anthropology. I thought that developing strong photo essays would enhance my anthropology research projects. As I took the courses I found myself falling completely and madly in love with photography. I did finish my anthropology degree but I had decided that photography was where I really wanted to get involved because I wanted to have hands-on direct interaction with people.

I remember when I was little I saw a commercial of a photojournalist on TV. What’s funny is that it was a Tide commercial where the actor was purposefully crouching on the side of the street taking pictures when a car drove by and drenched her in mud. Of course Tide got all the mud out. But I thought to myself, wow that looks like a really cool job.

What helped shape the tone of your photography?

Immediately after I graduated I took a trip to eastern Africa, heading to Tanzania, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. I took a bunch of pictures while I was there. It was really early in my photo career and I wasn’t very good since I was still learning the craft. When I returned home I showed people my photos. There was one specifically I keep thinking about, of an Ethiopian kid on the side of the road selling bananas. People kept looking at the picture and asking me if I was sure I was really in Ethiopia. Because the kid wasn’t starving to death and in the background there wasn’t a desert.

And I thought to myself, wow, how powerful photography can be and how powerful telling a story along with photography can be. What would’ve happened if I didn’t have those pictures when I tell a person about my trip? Maybe the only pictures they’ve seen to that point were those made famous by Sebastião Salgad of starving kids being weighed on grain scales in the desert during the famine in Ethiopia in the 80s. Are those the kids they would imagine I had seen on my trip? It was then I realized this is what I’m going to do, take pictures of what the world is really like versus all the pictures you see in various magazines.

Caxton Odhiambo. Photo by Amanda Koster.

How did dealing with cultural stereotypes impact your work?

I had a friend who is Ethiopian and I worked at her family’s Ethiopian restaurant as a waitress. The dumb joke I heard over and over again was, “Oh, Ethiopian restaurant? Better go there full.”

Those attitudes frustrated me. In my photography I want to show what the real place is like. I’ve never had much of an interest in bringing back pictures solely of horror stories, the kind people have seen over and over again. Because I feel that no one sees that anymore. We’ve grown immune to it. Numb to it. I mean with those stereotypes what good would it do to bring back photos of starving kids in Ethiopia? Let me bring back something that people haven’t seen before.

Why did you start Salaam Garage?

The reason I started Salaam Garage is because I had been doing photography work with NGOs for about a decade on different kinds of human rights and women’s rights projects. People kept asking me when they heard about my international projects, “Can I come with you?” Eventually I decided to put together a tour as a total experiment.

I identified an NGO called Vatsalya, who was doing work getting kids off the streets in India. These efforts involve child prostitutes or those at high risk for HIV infection. Vatsalya helps by placing them into an orphanage where they can learn various vocational skills in a safe environment. Vatsalya is Indian run and Indian founded, which was very important to me because I wanted to support a local group that understood the culture. I contacted the founder, Jaimala, who thought it was a great idea and helped organize things.

What I didn’t want was to be the tour guide with the visor and the whistle and the white sneakers. Instead we just quietly worked around Rajasthan India, a small group of people traveling the neighborhoods and back alleys. That’s what I want to see and that’s the way I work as a photographer. I don’t want to just see the market. I want to see the farm where they grow food; I want to see the alleys where they make stuff. I want to see where the people live.

What do you hope to accomplish with the content generated by Salaam Garage?

People are creating content all the time, literally vomiting content everywhere online in the form of blogs, podcasts, and viral video. What would happen if all that content creation was harnessed? What would happen if some of that content is actually out there to help make a positive impact in this world?

What if instead of some viral video of someone dancing in their underwear, people were posting interviews from the streets in India. Show a kid who is making it; an orphan who is now learning spelling and has a new outlook on life. There are people out there surviving homelessness, HIV-AIDS, child prostitution. Why not let some of those positive survival stories slide into all the content creation you see in places like Myspace.

What about people who want to create content but are concerned they are not professionals?

I see it as a mystic, but I don’t think being a professional makes any difference. Lots of people read magazines like National Geographic that are so over produced that people don’t find any kind of personal connection to the stories. The highly over produced content traditional media creates is so many layers removed from reality that it makes people feel they are unable to do anything about the subjects covered. And it’s simply not true.

Much like that first picture of the Ethiopian boy I mentioned earlier, anybody can go take a picture, show it and have it have a huge impact on the audience. When I took that picture I was not a good photographer. At that point like 80% of my pictures did not come out. Yet that photo still made an impact on my family and community.

Are viewers interested in news or socially conscious pieces in a setting like MySpace?

I think people are interested in personal connections. People are really hungry for an unedited personal connection and raw content. There might be a lot of problems with the grammar, and spelling may be wrong, but if it’s real and it’s raw it’s what people are hungry for.

How does the kind of content you want to create differ from mainstream media?

If you search mainstream media and try to find out information on India, aside from tourism you will find two main topics: articles about the booming economy focusing on the IT and a growing middle-class; or articles about the poverty, disease, and the homeless children. Rarely will you find stories about people overcoming these challenges facing them.

For example I went to Kenya and I did a project called AIDS is Knocking. It was conceived as a documentary about AIDS orphans and widows. I worked with a NGO in a community with a 38% infection rate, one highest infection rates of AIDS in the world. The problem with statistics is that they don’t have a face. During my work on AIDS is Knocking I kept hearing the statistic that 11 million children were orphaned due to the AIDS epidemic. What do 11 million orphans look like? Statistics don’t help people wrap their heads around the reality of a problem. I thought to myself let me find just one of those 11 million orphans, get to know them and tell their story.

In my case I found Caxton (pictured above) who was the oldest person in his family at 15 years old. Every day he worked on the farm growing his maze and his millet and he went to school. The next day he goes out and does it again. And you know, he is making it. For me the goal is to get to know one person, one story, hear the real story of their life, where they live, what they dream about, what they look like. These orphans do normal things in their daily life. They play, go to school and do their freakin’ homework. A life profile has far more of an impact on the audience than just saying the statistics of 11 million orphans over and over again.

Once I was asked to speak at Harborview Medical Center for this big conference on infectious disease. When I was first asked to present AIDS is Knocking, my first thought was I don’t know anything about infectious disease, I am a photographer. The conference featured PowerPoint after PowerPoint with lines going up and lines going down, numbers everywhere. When at last it was my turn everybody in the room was totally exhausted, hungry, and eager to go to the bar. I played the video to audience of Caxton and everybody was really quiet. Then I showed some photo slides when suddenly the conference organizer interrupted me, stood up and said to everybody, “Do you realize this is the first picture of a person we’ve seen all weekend?” There was dead silence. I mean, this is an infectious disease conference and all they were looking at were numbers and pictures of the disease but not of the people. They were that far removed. I thought that was a powerful lesson.

Do you ever have the desire to follow up with people you’ve profiled to see how they’re doing?

Oh yeah. I personally do want to go back and see Caxton. And there’s others, like some of the kids I worked with in Brazil when I worked with Doctors without Borders. So absolutely I have that desire.

What is the future Salaam Garage?

I’m taking my time setting up more trips. I want to do it right. I’m not in any hurry for rapid growth. What I would like to see happen is for us to coordinate with schools in order to provide scholarships for people to go on these trips who otherwise couldn’t afford to participate. I would like to get some kind of corporate responsibility sponsorship as well.

I am also releasing a new book about my experiences called Can I Come with You? It will be released on September 18 of this year.

The various photography geeks who read Revenews would never forgive me if I didn’t ask about the equipment. What equipment do you use?

For my digital work I have a Canon GL-1 video camera, a Canon 1-d Mark III digital camera that’s my hi-end, and a Cannon Powershot G9 which is my point and shoot. I always struggle over what gear to take, especially now with all the baggage restraints on airlines. And of course, with digital work, I always take backups for the cameras including backup hard drives.

What advice would you give travelers who are thinking about doing this on their own?

I would say do as much preproduction as you can. In essence that is a big component of what Salaam Garage takes care of. Connect with people in the country you are visiting and try to let them know your intentions.

That’s the most important thing to me is to be absolutely transparent with your intentions. Do not go in there with ulterior motives. Do exactly what you said you were going to do. Be honest and realistic with yourself. Don’t think you’ll have an exhibit that’s going to travel the world the next day after you return. Expect when you show up things not to happen way you thought they were going to go. Be patient. In this country we’re used to having an Internet connection 24/7 and used to being in constant communication. There may be places where it might take a week to get information you really need. So well be prepared.

If you’re really there to make a difference, listen to what the people tell you, to what they need and to what will make a difference in their lives. Don’t make the trip about yourself; just be the medium for their story.

See the original post here:
Altered Vision: Salaam Garage gives voice to positive content on developing nations

We live in a world of quiet wars. A world where affiliates are assaulted by merchants, cut out of innovative deals with portals by networks. These are just a few examples. There are many other similar wars going on and many are being fought quietly. Being an affiliate (value added pre-seller) or a retailer isn’t easy. In either case you’re pushing someone else’s product and you’ve got all kinds of competition coming at you!

So how to be different, stand out, earn customers’ attention and ultimately their trust? Simple: Be authentic.

Recently, I suggested most marketers are quite content to be less experimental when it comes to reinventing their business model. Duh. Yet I also believe that re-invention is NOT necessary in most cases. One can still transform his or her business without gutting it. All it takes, in many cases, is a shot in the arm. Never underestimate the power of being perceived as authentic.

Elements of new models (i.e. crowdsourcing) are powerful enough to be blended with existing marketing models to create a one-two “authenticity” punch. I’m not alone in seeing things this way.

According to media analyst and blogger Jeff Jarvis (Buzzmachine.com), the kind of entrepreneurial happenstance that crowdsourcing feeds on is what marketers should be noticing. As media companies and marketers debate over whether it’s content or distribution that is king, Jarvis points to the real issue:

“Trust is king in the kingdom of conversation. You want to participate in what people want to do on their own. You don’t want to extract value, you want to add value. You don’t want to build walls, fences or gardens to keep people from doing what they want to do without you. You want to enable them to do it. You want to join in. And once you get your head around that, you’ll see that you can grow so much bigger so much faster with so much less cost and risk.”

It’s all about authenticity and creating “real” experiences that serve real purposes (those which customers WANT and WILL do with or without your help!).

Let’s look at how one big company does this. As much as it probably would like to, auto insurer Progressive Corp. doesn’t ask its customers and prospects to stop comparing policies and prices. Rather, it boldly offers them assistance in doing so on its Web site. Progressive’s executives realize that prospects WILL shop around no matter what. In accepting this fact Progressive is able to enter a new, innovation friendly mindset. They’re less afraid of being authentic. They’re given more confidence in their product/service. In fact, it lites a fire under the rears of product development staff!

Bottom line: if price-shopping is the goal of their target market — if it’s “how they shop” by nature — then why not take action to help them achieve it? Indeed.

Kelly Mooney, president and CEO of Resource Interactive, an interactive marketing and technology firm, and author of Open Brands and The Ten Demandments: Rules to Live by in the Age of the Demanding Customer, is a proponent of keeping customers loyal through winning their hearts. She says:

“With the rise of the Internet-empowered consumer, brands are increasingly co-created with consumers, whether brands are on board or not. So it’s best to begin engaging your consumers and their communities.”

In the end, helpful acts earn both trust and increased purchase consideration. They’re remarkably authentic and breed good experiences. Participating, in an authentic way bonds otherwise fickle customers to your brand.

View original post here:
Authenticity: The Future for Marketers & Affiliates

As more people learn about the tactics of NebuAd, more groups come out against them and they are organizing. ClickZ is reporting that six advocacy groups have formed a loose coalition to fight NebuAd. The groups so far are: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), Public Knowledge, and Free Press.

They will be sharing resources and information in order to come together and provide information to the government watchdogs. One of the more interesting facts in the article talks about one other ISP who is still planning to conduct tests of NebuAd that is a DSL provider.  They seem to think that since everyone hates the cable companies that they will be OK in doing the same thing that Charter just backed out of (or at least delayed until the hubbub blows over). The ISP, CenturyTel, completed a test run of this and are stating that they are still evaluating the results.

They are separating themselves because the legal issues have been linked to the Cable Communications Policy Act, and that “Charter is a cable company and we are not,” according to a CenturyTel spokesperson. That may be, but privacy laws are still out there – and so are the possibilities of Intellectual Property lawsuits as mentioned in my previous post.

Go here to read the rest:
Coalitions Formed to Fight NebuAd

When all is said and done, the so-called Amazon Tax that has everyone so concerned about old-style affiliate marketing’s future spells nothing but opportunity to those (like Brad) who think outside of the box. The old affiliate model’s walls are crumbling and have been for years now. Yes, many will fight this misguided tax — and I believe they SHOULD fight it — but the tax is just speeding up something inevitable: Change. It’s just another sign of the times.

So what’s next? I believe there are a bevy of options for CPA-lovin’ publishers that are being overlooked. Let’s have a look…

First, the facts:

1. Affiliate networks are buying up publishers/affiliates, lead generation companies, advertisers (Valueclick+eBablyon) etc.
2. Large publishers themselves (think Fatwallet and eBates) are working directly with advertisers to wrap value-added services (non-CPA media placements, creative support, etc.) around their valued communities of buyers — bypassing networks. I say again, bypassing networks. Hence, #1.
3. Search Engines: Yahoo and Google are distributing deals & coupons (moving in on CPA affiliates and affiliate networks’ turf) and MSN is buying up performance-based innovators (publishers like Jellyfish.com). Are companies like Linkshare standing idly by? Hell no! They’re getting in bed with Redmond. But wait… MSN is stepping up the pace on competing dead-on with traditional affiliates and networks. I find this to be of more danger to networks, NOT affiliates who maintain user loyalty.
4. Advertisers (note: Amazon is not one of them) are cutting and running from affiliate programs… rather than face a more complicated tax scheme. This is reflective of their overall mood/attitude and value perceptions of their affiliates. Write or wrong, knee-jerk or not, some marketers who have pre-conceived notions and/or legitimate concerns about affiliate programs are bailing. Bad in every way for “affiliate marketing” — once again.

Regarding this new “Amazon tax” law…

“The law also states that a merchant needs to have $10,000 a year in affiliate sales from NYS affiliates to NYS customers,” says Deborah Carney of Team Loxley.

“Networks can’t provide this information without breaking privacy rules, so how will this be enforced? Plus networks don’t collect location information from the sales themselves. ”

It’s enough to make your head spin and these are just a few examples! What’s going on here? What’s next? Where’s the good news? A sense of stability?

We’ve been hearing about mobile and video for years now. I’ve been scouring the globe for good examples of innovation in this space — BEYOND NEW TOOLS (ie. ROI experienced by marketers). Where’s the beef on that front?

Affiliate 1.0
Despite what Michael Singer and a good number of my colleagues say (and they make some seriously unsubstantiated claims) about how Web 2.0 is super-charging affiliate marketing there is virtually no evidence that CPA affiliates are monetizing social spaces. It’s a lot of fun to talk about but it’s flatly not happening to the degree that it registers a revenue blip rivaling the status quo.

“Affiliate marketing has evolved and it’s difficult for newcomers to jump in without any capital and start making money,” says Chris Finken, of affiliate marketer OrangeSoda.com.

“Blogs remain a popular tool for affiliate marketing ‘on the cheap,’ but successful affiliates are still making great money without experimenting with video and mobile.”

Humph. ‘Nuf said perhaps. Finken also believes many marketers are turning backs on affiliates, viewing them as expendable. He warns that this practice may bite them in the rump. He believes some marketers will be back when they miss risk-averse affiliates who tend to pioneer (as they did in paid/PPC search).

“It’s hard to go back to the affiliates you’ve dismissed and say ‘Please be innovative and if it works I promise we’ll pay you’,” he says.

So what’s next?

Drop Shipping
Although the sector also (like affiliate marketing) suffers from an image problem, drop-shipping models are beginning to come back. Remember NexChange, ePods and the like of the dot-bomb days? Drop shipping (where the “affiliate” is actually a “retailer”) is a great idea but was a premature one. It was too early and affiliate marketing was just too easy for publishers and advertisers to implement back in the late ’90s. Aaah, yes… the Golden Age of media arbitrage.

Specifically, affiliates didn’t want or need “storefronts” or stores to succeed. They also didn’t need the headaches that go along with being the retailer (”merchant of record”). They didn’t need or want to facilitate the transaction nor handle customer service or shipping.

More importantly, the middle-men involved didn’t have the reputation piece figured out… that is, the reliability of drop-ship product suppliers. Would they actually ship? On time? Handle back-orders and returned items well enough to satisfy customers? The answer was no — but that was then. Today, companies like Shopster.com have emerged as leaders in the field of full service drop-ship solutions for advertisers.

These providers give publishers everything from storefront creation to managing suppliers, returns/cancels, back orders, etc. They do the heavy lifting involved in retailing so publisher’s can focus on what they do best — acquire traffic/visitors. More importantly these companies are negotiating product discounts on behalf of retailers (many of whom are old-style “affiliates”) and allowing them to set their own profit margins. Not at all like affiliate marketing of old days. Yes, supplier reputation is still a sticky subject and is difficult to manage — just ask eBay. That stated, drop shipping is catching on and is a viable option for publishers with valuable traffic.

Widgets, 2.0 Media, Affiliate Education & Subsidies!
Now before you roll your eyes, please hear me out. There IS progress being made on monetizing via widgets. As I said, it’s no way rivaling traditional CPA affiliate revenue generation and it isn’t worth the hype it’s getting at conferences. BUT… pay close attention to Facebook’s Radical Buy program. The program turns Facebook-ers into eBay style affiliates.

“… I think the Radical Buy application on Facebook is one of the most sophisticated application online. It also serves a very practical purpose — helping people sell their unwanted stuff and make a few bucks along the way.” says Rodney Rumford of FaceReviews.com.

“The one radical concept worth mentioning again here is that users can make a ‘commission’ by selling other peoples stuff simply by listing it on their profile page.”

Radical! What’s more, this isn’t just about one area of potential monetization. Facebook is expanding the program — with hopes of growing it outside of Facebook.com proper. Now THAT’S radical for sure.

Also… I’ve discovered serious investments being made both here in the States and overseas that aim to super-charge traditional (ie. search marketing) — and other innovative, 2.0 type monetization — by publishers:

1. Investments are being made by marketers themselves. Companies like Insurance.com are subsidizing affiliate /publisher education and even their search marketing costs. That’s right — marketers are funding affiliates’ marketing efforts and successfully so!
2. European networks and advertisers are banding together to invest in affiliate/publisher education (I’ll be traveling to London next month to participate in one such University for a large media company)
3. Overseas affiliate marketing networks like Zanox are making tremendous investments in “going open” (read more about Zanox GAP Campus) — what about U.S. based networks?!

I’ve given the community quite a bit to chew on here… so what say you?!

See the original post here:
Affiliate 2.0: Fact, Fiction & New Innovators

When all is said and done, the so-called Amazon Tax that has everyone so concerned about old-style affiliate marketing’s future spells nothing but opportunity to those (like Brad) who think outside of the box. The old affiliate model’s walls are crumbling and have been for years now. Yes, many will fight this misguided tax — and I believe they SHOULD fight it — but the tax is just speeding up something inevitable: Change. It’s just another sign of the times.

So what’s next? I believe there are a bevy of options for CPA-lovin’ publishers that are being overlooked. Let’s have a look…

First, the facts:

1. Affiliate networks are buying up publishers/affiliates, lead generation companies, advertisers (Valueclick+eBablyon) etc.
2. Large publishers themselves (think Fatwallet and eBates) are working directly with advertisers to wrap value-added services (non-CPA media placements, creative support, etc.) around their valued communities of buyers — bypassing networks. I say again, bypassing networks. Hence, #1.
3. Search Engines: Yahoo and Google are distributing deals & coupons (moving in on CPA affiliates and affiliate networks’ turf) and MSN is buying up performance-based innovators (publishers like Jellyfish.com). Are companies like Linkshare standing idly by? Hell no! They’re getting in bed with Redmond. But wait… MSN is stepping up the pace on competing dead-on with traditional affiliates and networks. I find this to be of more danger to networks, NOT affiliates who maintain user loyalty.
4. Advertisers (note: Amazon is not one of them) are cutting and running from affiliate programs… rather than face a more complicated tax scheme. This is reflective of their overall mood/attitude and value perceptions of their affiliates. Write or wrong, knee-jerk or not, some marketers who have pre-conceived notions and/or legitimate concerns about affiliate programs are bailing. Bad in every way for “affiliate marketing” — once again.

Regarding this new “Amazon tax” law…

“The law also states that a merchant needs to have $10,000 a year in affiliate sales from NYS affiliates to NYS customers,” says Deborah Carney of Team Loxley.

“Networks can’t provide this information without breaking privacy rules, so how will this be enforced? Plus networks don’t collect location information from the sales themselves. ”

It’s enough to make your head spin and these are just a few examples! What’s going on here? What’s next? Where’s the good news? A sense of stability?

We’ve been hearing about mobile and video for years now. I’ve been scouring the globe for good examples of innovation in this space — BEYOND NEW TOOLS (ie. ROI experienced by marketers). Where’s the beef on that front?

Affiliate 1.0
Despite what Michael Singer and a good number of my colleagues say (and they make some seriously unsubstantiated claims) about how Web 2.0 is super-charging affiliate marketing there is virtually no evidence that CPA affiliates are monetizing social spaces. It’s a lot of fun to talk about but it’s flatly not happening to the degree that it registers a revenue blip rivaling the status quo.

“Affiliate marketing has evolved and it’s difficult for newcomers to jump in without any capital and start making money,” says Chris Finken, of affiliate marketer OrangeSoda.com.

“Blogs remain a popular tool for affiliate marketing ‘on the cheap,’ but successful affiliates are still making great money without experimenting with video and mobile.”

Humph. ‘Nuf said perhaps. Finken also believes many marketers are turning backs on affiliates, viewing them as expendable. He warns that this practice may bite them in the rump. He believes some marketers will be back when they miss risk-averse affiliates who tend to pioneer (as they did in paid/PPC search).

“It’s hard to go back to the affiliates you’ve dismissed and say ‘Please be innovative and if it works I promise we’ll pay you’,” he says.

So what’s next?

Drop Shipping
Although the sector also (like affiliate marketing) suffers from an image problem, drop-shipping models are beginning to come back. Remember NexChange, ePods and the like of the dot-bomb days? Drop shipping (where the “affiliate” is actually a “retailer”) is a great idea but was a premature one. It was too early and affiliate marketing was just too easy for publishers and advertisers to implement back in the late ’90s. Aaah, yes… the Golden Age of media arbitrage.

Specifically, affiliates didn’t want or need “storefronts” or stores to succeed. They also didn’t need the headaches that go along with being the retailer (”merchant of record”). They didn’t need or want to facilitate the transaction nor handle customer service or shipping.

More importantly, the middle-men involved didn’t have the reputation piece figured out… that is, the reliability of drop-ship product suppliers. Would they actually ship? On time? Handle back-orders and returned items well enough to satisfy customers? The answer was no — but that was then. Today, companies like Shopster.com have emerged as leaders in the field of full service drop-ship solutions for advertisers.

These providers give publishers everything from storefront creation to managing suppliers, returns/cancels, back orders, etc. They do the heavy lifting involved in retailing so publisher’s can focus on what they do best — acquire traffic/visitors. More importantly these companies are negotiating product discounts on behalf of retailers (many of whom are old-style “affiliates”) and allowing them to set their own profit margins. Not at all like affiliate marketing of old days. Yes, supplier reputation is still a sticky subject and is difficult to manage — just ask eBay. That stated, drop shipping is catching on and is a viable option for publishers with valuable traffic.

Widgets, 2.0 Media, Affiliate Education & Subsidies!
Now before you roll your eyes, please hear me out. There IS progress being made on monetizing via widgets. As I said, it’s no way rivaling traditional CPA affiliate revenue generation and it isn’t worth the hype it’s getting at conferences. BUT… pay close attention to Facebook’s Radical Buy program. The program turns Facebook-ers into eBay style affiliates.

“… I think the Radical Buy application on Facebook is one of the most sophisticated application online. It also serves a very practical purpose — helping people sell their unwanted stuff and make a few bucks along the way.” says Rodney Rumford of FaceReviews.com.

“The one radical concept worth mentioning again here is that users can make a ‘commission’ by selling other peoples stuff simply by listing it on their profile page.”

Radical! What’s more, this isn’t just about one area of potential monetization. Facebook is expanding the program — with hopes of growing it outside of Facebook.com proper. Now THAT’S radical for sure.

Also… I’ve discovered serious investments being made both here in the States and overseas that aim to super-charge traditional (ie. search marketing) — and other innovative, 2.0 type monetization — by publishers:

1. Investments are being made by marketers themselves. Companies like Insurance.com are subsidizing affiliate /publisher education and even their search marketing costs. That’s right — marketers are funding affiliates’ marketing efforts and successfully so!
2. European networks and advertisers are banding together to invest in affiliate/publisher education (I’ll be traveling to London next month to participate in one such University for a large media company)
3. Overseas affiliate marketing networks like Zanox are making tremendous investments in “going open” (read more about Zanox GAP Campus) — what about U.S. based networks?!

I’ve given the community quite a bit to chew on here… so what say you?!

More:
Affiliate 2.0: Fact, Fiction & New Innovators