| |
Panic on 43rd Street | Vanity Fair
by possibly noteworthy at 10:45 pm EDT, Aug 28, 2006 |
The New York Times, in newsprint form, with its daily 1.1 million circulation, and Sunday 1.7 million, makes between $1.5 and $1.7 billion a year (the company does not break out the exact figure). Times.com, with its 40 million unique online users a month, likely makes less than $200 million a year. Cruelly, an online user is worth much less -- because his or her value can be so easily measured -- than a traditional reader. To replace its $1.5 to $1.7 billion traditional business with its online business ... it could look to MySpace: while the Times's 40 million monthly users generated, in May, 489 million page views -- this is the number that interests advertisers -- MySpace's 50 million monthly users, deeply entertained by its user-created content, generated 29 billion page views.
That's a whopping 580 monthly page views per user for MySpace, versus a measly twelve for NYT. Judging by the statistics for 2005, MemeStreams is more in the range of NYT than of MySpace. Why isn't MemeStreams stickier? What will it take to get every registered user to visit the site daily and generate 20 page views? There ought to be a plan! |
| |
RE: Panic on 43rd Street | Vanity Fair
by dmv at 8:13 am EDT, Aug 29, 2006 |
Why isn't MemeStreams stickier? What will it take to get every registered user to visit the site daily and generate 20 page views? There ought to be a plan!
* Communication Function: MySpace replaces email; Memestream messaging does not.
* Demographics: Memestreams users, on average, seem to have lives and professions.
* Content: I read the RSS feed... through livejournal... with the exception of the links I follow through, most of my reading is likely untrackable. If I couldn't, I would read Memestreams less.
* Content navigation: Banging on the folksonomy drum again -- I read the front page. I read my recommendation page. But outside the cover articles, I have little inclination to "dive deeper". Except when entries link to other entries, or when I remember an article that I wish to recall, I don't go through the bulk of the site. If there were tags or other automatically generated clustering content links, I probably would. |
|
| | |
RE: Panic on 43rd Street | Vanity Fair
by Catonic at 11:08 am EDT, Aug 29, 2006 |
dmv wrote: Why isn't MemeStreams stickier? What will it take to get every registered user to visit the site daily and generate 20 page views? There ought to be a plan!
* Communication Function: MySpace replaces email; Memestream messaging does not.
* Demographics: Memestreams users, on average, seem to have lives and professions.
* Content: I read the RSS feed... through livejournal... with the exception of the links I follow through, most of my reading is likely untrackable. If I couldn't, I would read Memestreams less.
* Content navigation: Banging on the folksonomy drum again -- I read the front page. I read my recommendation page. But outside the cover articles, I have little inclination to "dive deeper". Except when entries link to other entries, or when I remember an article that I wish to recall, I don't go through the bulk of the site. If there were tags or other automatically generated clustering content links, I probably would.
I use an RSS reader. I still make an effort to clickthrough on occasion though. |
|
| |
RE: Panic on 43rd Street | Vanity Fair
by ubernoir at 10:26 am EDT, Aug 29, 2006 |
Why isn't MemeStreams stickier? What will it take to get every registered user to visit the site daily and generate 20 page views? There ought to be a plan!
* Communication Function: MySpace replaces email; Memestream messaging does not.
* Demographics: Memestreams users, on average, seem to have lives and professions.
* Content: I read the RSS feed... through livejournal... with the exception of the links I follow through, most of my reading is likely untrackable. If I couldn't, I would read Memestreams less.
* Content navigation: Banging on the folksonomy drum again -- I read the front page. I read my recommendation page. But outside the cover articles, I have little inclination to "dive deeper". Except when entries link to other entries, or when I remember an article that I wish to recall, I don't go through the bulk of the site. If there were tags or other automatically generated clustering content links, I probably would. |
|
|
|
