In this post I will link you to yet another article from Slate Magazine. In this article, which was written by Farhad Manjoo, you will find more references to struggling publishing companies as well as apparently successful web businesses. You will probably realize that you could just subscribe to Slate’s RSS feed and stop reading my blog altogether.
I hope you don’t actually do that last thing. I promise that I’m not deliberately sponging off better writers just so I can say that I publish a blog. I know it’s frustrating to always navigate to some other article in order to understand a post. In light of that I’ll try to provide more self-contained content as a balance.
Whether you read the article, in this case, is almost irrelevant. Manjoo presents a provoking fact: YouTube doesn’t make money. That’s right, based on current projections YouTube is losing almost half a billion dollars a year.
Let’s talk about that from a web-business perspective. I just assumed that YouTube was making bank. How could you have that many users and visitors without hauling in cash by the barrel-ful? Relatively speaking they are, 240 mil. USD is not insignificant, but they’re also paying it out by the boatload, accounting for the net loss.
Here’s what that means to me, especially when conflated with the plight of newspapers: web business needs quality standards. Actually, what I’m thinking is more complex than that. The larger context for this discussion is the principle that there is already such an expansive body of information posted to the web that people don’t really need more options, they need new ways to sort and access that information.
Google already plays the largest role in this respect. The importance of being the top hit on a Google search cannot be overestimated. But Google doesn’t provide reliable exposure to new things. Google is also a neutral player, allowing popularity to dictate relevance.
Frankly, popularity is a fickle way to judge quality. Understand that I am not hopping on the anti-pop band wagon, I’m just saying that at one point it was popular to paint your house with lead-base paint, or to bleed people in hopes of curing disease. Thus popularity is a function, not an independent force, it is inherently quantitative not qualitative.
There is a great deal of opportunity for businesses to provide qualitative services. Think about iTunes. That’s not a browser-based business the way Google is, but it’s still a business that depends wholly on the internet. They do two things, make a wide variety of music widely accessible and they also make recommendations on what they think is good. Netflix operates on a similar idea, recommendation is a primary tenet of successful sales, remember word-of-mouth? The internet has simplified word-of-mouth into a combination of five-stars and relevance algorithms.
I suspect that this aspect of web-based interaction will change as our needs and desires change. But the real question for dotcom entreprenuers is how to develop an audience that trusts you. Who do you trust? Why?
Popularity isn’t exclusive to quality, I’m just suggesting that it’s worth thinking about who you trust for your information and your entertainment.