Yeah, So What?
I was reading as tech article in the New York Times, Editor’s Pick (Boo! Put all the news in there) on my iPad that contained a blurb from CNET about whether Foursquare’s growth is boxed in. Before even reading the source article I came this conclusion;
So what if it is?
After reading the article, I remained resolute in my knee-jerk reaction to what I had already assumed was the point the writer was going to make in that Foursquare currently appeals mostly to people in cities, who have more check in opportunities.
So what if it is?
One of the cornerstones of Foursquare is about going out to new places and checking in, thereby earning points, badges and mayorships. Just because your town is tiny doesn’t mean that you can’t become the mayor of A & B Pizza? Plus with a lower population density, you can lock that shit down.
The population of New York City according to the 2008 US Census Bureau is 8,363,710. The population for the entire state of North Dakota: 641,481.
So even if only people in major cities use it, that is still a huge userbase for Foursquare to be “locked in” to. Hell, if only 10% of New Yorkers use it that is still all good.
Sorry, North Dakota…
Dear Foursquare: This Is Not the Right Time to Sell
via Mashable
Start Small to Make Tweet Money
BBC News ran an article on Twitter finally pursuing a means of gaining revenue through advertising.
The idea is to promote sponsored tweets to the top of search queues. Twitter’s caveat is that promoted tweets cannot be some banal “BUY THIS” message, but an actual tweet, that is part of the conversation.
Twitter’s been cautious about pursuing money versus strengthening an innovative service, but they don’t currently generate revenue, so at some point you have to imagine their investors have or will start asking questions. Fortunately, the zeitgeist behind their product gives them the leverage to direct that conversation, which is apparent from what BBC reports the company’s take on their approach is;
Stubborn insistence on a slow and thoughtful approach to monetization.
This line of thinking would seem the best way to approach monetization of an online product, as most of the online and digital services that we blather on about start small and build on the foundation of a solid product and service.
- Google started with an algorithm.
- Facebook started with college student-only profiles.
- YouTube started with a random person’s video.
- Digg started with a user-generated news feed.
The business model of online is vastly different in that one doesn’t need to build a battleship to compete. It is actually smarter, more practical and flexible to start with one small ship and build a fleet of them.
It is part of the reason why sites like Mashable and Foursquare can seemingly come out of nowhere by focusing on the relevancy and value of their product rather than try to come out of the gate with an ill-conceived monolith like Google Buzz or try to shoehorn a brick & mortar model into the paradigm like the NYTimes did briefly with a pay wall to their content.
After so many successful examples, it stops being rocket science and becomes basic math.
I wear this badge with PRIDE!
