 |
 |
 |
| A
Google/YouTube Perspective |
 Watch
out Yahoo and I mean " Watch, View, Entertain, Brand". Google not only bought
100 Million video views a day but they just bought something they were lacking,
entertainment value and what comes along with that ... youth. Youth is a great
demographic, money, money, money.
Of course everybody uses Google for search, but who uses Google for entertainment
and recreation? You won't catch my kid using gmail or searching Google unless
she's doing her homework (she knows the value of a good search). On the weekend
for her it's MySpace, AIM, Yahoo... Continue
Reading
|
|
Tuesday October 10, 2006 |
With a lot of attention paid to the big number, $1.65 billion, there are some
other numbers that illustrate Google's interest in YouTube much better than the
price tag. Google CEO Eric Schmidt probably isn't having second thoughts about
the acquisition of YouTube.
Editor's Note: As the next day dawns after the Google and YouTube
deal, everyone has one question on their minds: can Google monetize YouTube? Will
video ads succeed, or will they fail to match the success of text ads in the online
world? Let us know at WebProWorld.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, when he said, "I drank what?"
-- Chris Knight on self realization, in 1985's Real Genius
More Google/YouTube Coverage
|
|
The company gained some significant traffic with video, and more importantly picked
up a massive playground for testing video advertising.
"In acquiring YouTube, Google has, in one fell swoop, increased their number of video streams - and potential ad revenue from streaming - tenfold," said Gian Fulgoni, comScore chairman. ComScore claimed it measures actual video streaming activity, as opposed to market share of sites, and can better assess the online video arena.
By the comScore numbers, Google will see a huge jump in the video streams people in the US view from their sites. In July 2006, Google delivered some 60 million streams to visitors. YouTube dished out 649 million in the same period. More than 106.5 mil US visitors viewed video content for the month.
Plenty of promise for Google's video advertising aspirations, whatever they may be, exists. The importance of online video has reached a point where online content providers from big media companies to individual media netcasters have embraced it in various forms.
The concept of "media company" may be the context in which Google should be considered. Publishing 2.0 blogger Scott Karp wrote that the YouTube acquisition "solidifies Google's position at the center of media."
"Google is now the archetypal media company - online video is just the next step
in their quest to monetize the world's content through advertising," said Karp.
"You supply the content - Google will take care of the rest."
About
the Author:
David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. |
|
Hit
Counter 2.0, Or "Web 2.0 Metrics"
 By
Jeremy D. Zawodny
Way back in the early days of the Web (you know, before AdSense, blog spam, web mail, and dynamic HTML) were these things called hit counters.
The Wikipedia article says a few things that I'll just quote outright.
On Popularity:
At one time it was common to see a hit counter on every page, but this is
no longer the case for several reasons:
• They have been replaced (or
augmented) by more complicated web analytics methodologies that give the webmaster
a better overall picture of site traffic besides a simple, perpetually increasing
number.
• As style elements, they are no longer associated with the impression of
professional web design--some people consider web counters to be a "gimmicky"
feature and they are thus typically found on personal pages created by individuals.
•The number of visitors to a site may be a trade secret
•Too small a number might indicate the page's lack of popularity. Removing
the counter thus levels the playing field.
On Trust:
Web counters are not necessarily trustworthy. A webmaster could start the counter
at a high number to give the impression that the site is more popular than it
actually is.
Heh. You think?
|
To Integrate Or Not To Integrate
Under what circumstances should you integrate sites and at what point should you
keep them separate from others? The reason I ask is because this subject is being
discussed on our forum and the original poster could use some further advice.
He is currently in the process of trying to establish his site offering legal
services for environmental issues and was wondering if this site should be integrated
with his previous sites. Take a look at what's going on below for a much better
description and see if you can provide some insight.
Subscribe
to the WebProWorld Feed 
|| Chris||
How
To Integrate My Three Sites, Should I Have Three Sites?
... If that does not work, however, I am prepared to start my own 501(c)(3) charitable
organization and look for funding. The beginnings of this are at www.BlueEco.org
(forwards to ecoesq.com). But now I am thinking that if I go this route I will
also become, by default, a solo legal practitioner and will be free to take on
other types of work like toxic tort, plaintiffs class action, consumer insurance
coverage representation, family law or whatever else I enjoy and comes my way.
So I am probably going to need to set up a website for this practice as well at
www.EcoEsq.com or www.EcoEsquire.com
My question is if it is good practice to segregate these areas into three separate websites or if there is some more effective way to do this.
|
| ::
WebPro Question: |
I've heard that Google only reads page titles up to 63 characters. Does it just
not read what is over the 63, or are you punished for writing over 63?
- realbeard
Comment
|
| ::
Meet the Members: |
 User:
jdcexp
Rating: Member
Joined:
10.06.06
Location: India
|
|
|
|
View
Profile
,
Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509
