A Reply to My Buddy Srinivasan
Alright, this was going to be a reply to a comment, but the reply got a bit long, so I am going to make it a post. Hey, I think a rant is worth a post of its own, ok?
Before you read on, check out the comments on this post about the Million Dollar Homepage and the hordes of imitators.
Alright, now that you have done that, here is the reply:
Thanks for the comments Srinivasan and Fantast. Sorry it has taken so long for me to post a reply.
Obviously, I tend to agree with Fantast on this one. I visited your site Srinivasan, and I must admit that I find it hard to agree with your assertion that the Million Dollar Homepage is a trend that will continue to grow and thrive – your page is a great example of this. I see that you have sold 3 pixel blocks – only 9,997 to go, eh?
I am curious to know what makes your Web site stand out from the clutter out there? What makes it better than the thousand of other sites just like yours? Is the “Web 2.0” thing? Do you think that name will take you further than all of the other imitators out there? I am curious, what makes your site so special?
The biggest challenge that marketers have right now is breaking through the all of the marketing clutter that they created. How do you make a remarkable TV ad, billboard, or print ad? It happens, but rarely. Your chance of success is low with traditional media, and oddly, traditional media keeps charging more and more for their diminishing returns.
Traditional media is clutter most of the time. I think the same thing can be said for all of the Million Dollar Homepages out there – all but the original is just clutter.
If that is the case, how did the original Million Dollar Homepage become such a success? I mean, isn’t it just a page of clutter? Yes, but the ads have nothing to do with the success of the page.
Alex Tew’s original Million Dollar Homepage was able to break out of the online ad clutter because the idea was remarkable. The “clutter” or “non-contextual” aspect of the advertisements on the site was not the reason why the site did so well. Actually, the ads had noting to do with the success. It was the concept that people found so remarkable.
Now, is there a way to duplicate the grand success of the Million Dollar Homepage? I say no – and the reason I say no is because, generally speaking, the remarkable nature of the concept has worn off. Now, is there still some money to be made by leveraging off of the concept? Maybe, but not likely a million bucks and not by sticking to the “pay for an ad” type model. Think a bit outside of the box Srinivasan – I can think of how your page can be remarkable, and ironically, it is using some of the fundamentals of Web 2.0.
Possibly more on that later.
One post I saw on your blog was about how you were trying to create a “Times Square” atmosphere on your blog. I find this quite interesting, as Times Square, in my opinion, is one of the most poignant symbols of traditional advertiser’s frustration with the clutter they have created.
Imagine the advertiser’s money that is being wasted with billboards in Times Square – but traditional Madison Avenue still feels that this is a way to make a “splash” in the world market. Why, because ads in Times Square used to work, and work well. Traditional companies know this, and ad agencies are quick to leverage off of this outdated belief. I mean hell, the agency gets a wicked commission when they buy a spot in Times Square.
Now if I ran a big corporation and my marketing team asked me to put a billboard up in Times Square to sell my product, I would have to fire them on the spot. If that is the best you can do to promote my product in 2006, you are not understanding the big picture.
Unfortunately for traditional ad agencies, they are traditional marketers operating a non-traditional world. It is like asking the Amish to build you a car – they can try, but there is not much of a chance of the damn thing getting built well or soon.
Anyway, I do appreciate the comment Srivivasan, and if you reply to this post I will put up a link to you without the rel=”nofollow” on it, so you can get a link to your site.
Like SmashMyViper, I want to be proven wrong on this. If anything, you are not destroying a nice car like the SMV crew. Those crazy bastards drilled a hole in the Viper – and have made less than $6,000. Ouch.
Ok, end of rant.
Happy new week!
Comments
Hi James,
The Reply (in the form of a post) came as a pleasant surprise. Thanks for the inputs!
Our answers:
Question 1. I am curious to know what makes your Web site stand out from the clutter out there?
If the competition space is not broad enough to make any sensible differentiation, the first guy wins. I learnt this from Bob Lycos' "Speed is Life". The tricky part of course is the definition of "first". There is a first Magazine. And then, there is a first Sports Magazine. And then, maybe there is a first Baseball Sports Magazine. But maybe at this point, you cant make any more sensible differentiations. Now, in the crowd of Baseball Sports Magazines, who wins? The first Baseball Sports Magazine wins, unless he does something seriously wrong, or, Larry and Sergey develop interest in Baseball Sports Magazines :)
So, the answer: Well, we are the first and only Web2.0 Million Dollar Homepage out there, and that is precisely why we will win. Come on, the Million Dollar Homepage is still too broad a concept: the game has just started.
Question 2. What makes it better than the thousand of other sites just like yours? Is the “Web 2.0” thing? Do you think that name will take you further than all of the other imitators out there? I am curious, what makes your site so special?
As a Web2.0 enthusiast, today, I goto TechCrunch, Ajaxan, Emily Chang, or many more in the Web2.0 workgroup out there. Now, to me, what drives me to Techcrunch (Sorry Mike) is NOT the way he profiles companies - but the curiousity of WHAT he has profiled. Now, this is a very qualitative thing. I go there to see "Oh,there is a company that recommends music scientifically? cool. Oh - wait - an rss reader that 'learns'? terrific". We envision our page to be full of such pleasant surprises to a Web2.0 enthusiast.
So, the answer:"The Web2.0 thing" is not just a name. There is a concept behind it, what we call "Focussed Curiosity". And that, the fact that you can click anywhere on the Web20MDHP page and a SOLID WEB2.0 Concept opens on your click - is the point that is special about our site. Think about this for a minute - would you not want a page like that - a page with thousands of Web2.0 surprises?
The best part:
We have Web2.0 companies, and we have visitors interested in Web2.0. Who knows, your next enterprise customer or a potential investor is one of them, just checkng out whats happening in the Web2.0 world. We are sure this will scale, upto a million pixels!
James, Buy Your Piece of Web2.0 History!
And, dont forget the link you promised :)
Posted by: Srinivasan | January 29, 2006 10:36 PM
James, I'm posting a comment here because "Srinivasan & Vinay" posted a comment to my blog referencing this post on your blog.
Srinivasan, your concept of a million dollar home page for web 2.0 will not work. You mention that you frequent sites like TechCrunch. Have you seen the TechCrunch Index? That's the web 2.0 million dollar home page already in the sense that someone can browse through that list to explore web 2.0 companies. Why would they prefer to do so in pixel format?
A web 2.0 company can get reviewed by sites like TechCrunch for free. Why would they pay to list on your site? Think about this from a potential advertiser's point of view. What special value do you offer?
Also, I'll repeat the questions I asked you on my blog:
A web 2.0 MDHP would only work if all of these conditions were true:
1) The site clearly defined web 2.0 and how advertisers would meet the criteria
2) The site has some web 2.0 aspect itself
3) Was less than $1/pixel. How can a MDHP imitation expect to be valued at the same level?
Good luck with your site but I don't think it'll fly. Certainly not as is.
Posted by: Richard | February 4, 2006 09:58 PM
James,
I am replying to Richard's comments above.
Richard,
Good Questions. We will try and answer them below.
Question 1: Have you seen the TechCrunch Index? That's the web 2.0 million dollar home page already in the sense that someone can browse through that list to explore web 2.0 companies. Why would they prefer to do so in pixel format?
There are Web2.0 Companies of all levels. Definitely, Mike at Techcrunch profiles a good number of them. However, the list there is definitelt not the complete list of Web2.0 companies. We need to ask Mike how many "Profile Requests" he gets per day. TechCrunch definitely has more valuable real estate than web20milliondollarhomepage. But this will change as the Web20MDHP gains popularity.
So, the answer: Web2.0 Companies that have probably not been profiled by the Mikes of the Web2.0 world, and who need to connect with the right Web2.0 audience will prefer to advertise in Pixel format.
Question 2. A web 2.0 company can get reviewed by sites like TechCrunch for free. Why would they pay to list on your site? Think about this from a potential advertiser's point of view. What special value do you offer?
"Sites like" - thats the whole point. How many do we have? All of them are inherently limited in "production capacity" because of the way these sites profile companies. It will soon become like this: After I am through with my daily round of Web2.0 browsing, I will spend 5-10 minutes on the Web20MDHP to see if there is something small thats interesting - small in the sense that, it has not been picked up by the Web2.0 Profilers.
So, the answer: The value we provide is focussed curiosity . That is the value add. Also, if you buy pixels at the Web2.0MDHP, you stay there, right on the homepage, forever, unlike TechCrunch where u get buried the day after you are profiled. With Web20MDHP, the idea is simple: Come, Click, See a Web2.0 Concept open!
Regarding the other three questions you have raised, we will soon post a reply in our blog
Thanks
Srinivasan & Vinay
Posted by: Srinivasan | February 4, 2006 11:02 PM
Thanks for the posts guys. As you know I am on Richards side, but I like the determination of Srinivasan.
Good luck to us all.
Posted by: Marketing Punk | February 6, 2006 09:09 PM