Comments on: Traffic Isn’t Revenue: Twitter and Ning Reach Different Crossroads

By: The Nature Network Implosion — Hmmm, This All Seems Awfully Familiar . . . « The Scholarly Kitchen

Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:30:13 +0000

[...] final stages, and more sober, serious business approaches are coming to the fore. The idea that traffic automatically equals revenue has repeatedly been disproven, and newspapers and television networks are pulling back their free [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:01:20 +0000

Twitter doesn’t do enough for me, I still use it to try and get more traffic. I’m not updating people on bathroom breaks or anything like that, but it seems like people like that get more followers.

By: James

James — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:09:34 +0000

Great read. I agree that traffic isn’t really a revenue. Quantity doesn’t really prove to give more revenue that’s why quality is still the best way to get revenue.

By: Misused Quotes We Live By: When Rules of Thumb Get Bent or Amputated « The Scholarly Kitchen

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:26:02 +0000

[...] David Crotty explored a misquote from Field of Dreams: the oft-quoted, “Build it, and they will come.” Let’s start [...]

By: Zack

Zack — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:50:38 +0000

Crazy that all these folks are left with the option to pay or leave. I noticed there are some free options out there. Zerista is one that is a free and lets you take your group to your mobile phone.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:41:50 +0000

I think there are some free statistical software packages as well, but professionals still primarily use the expensive stuff like STATA and SAS.

As for content, I don’t know. I think that’s always going to be a power law area where a tiny minority comprises the majority of those that can make a living off of it; and if you’re in that minority the amount of attention you can command will probably be sufficient to pay for your stuff through advertising and other indirect means.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:38:17 +0000

You're right, and that's a big problem for a lot of online businesses, but not an insurmountable one. There are pieces of software that sell because of their high quality. Papers is one example, which is very popular with Mac-using scientists despite a variety of free but clunkier alternatives. For content producers, like Rupert Murdoch or the scholarly publishers who read this blog though, quality original content is one way to make your product irreplaceable. If you offer readers something valuable yet unique that can't be found elsewhere, it's easier to get them to pay and be loyal.

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:22:12 +0000

Talking about quality misses the point, I think. There is no service in the same category as Ning that is of high enough quality that anyone will pay for it.

How good would a social network have to be in order for users to pay for it? The answer is, it doesn’t matter how good it is, no one is going to pay for a social network.