“A lot of expectations are coming down in terms of monetizing social media” says Paul Verna, quoted by Daniel Lyons in his latest article debunking some of the myths around blogging. Most (99.99%) blogs don’t make money and at best create value in an indirect way (exposure, network, invitations).

I agree with the main point of the article: the business model for social media is yet to be found. It feels like 2002, when Google was still looking for a model while Overture was leading the way with a far from perfect offering. From the 2002 New York Times:

[...] while Google is the leader in searching Web pages, it is a tiny force in the rapidly growing market for selling advertising related to search. The dominant player there is Overture Services, which began life as GoTo.com, a search engine that let Web sites bid to be listed and ranked in searches. (Whoever pays most gets listed first, the runner-up is listed second, and so on.)

Users never warmed to GoTo, but advertisers, especially small ones, jumped on it. What better place to advertise your cozy inn than on a page where someone is searching for information about the Berkshires? So Overture regrouped, and it now offers to split revenue with sites that display its listings on their search results pages. Yahoo, MSN, America Online and all the other major sites — except Google — have agreed.

Link (thx Bruno)

There is money in social media because they are pretty good at captivating audiences, and there has always been money in attention. But nobody has found the perfect solution yet. Is there a new Google brewing somewhere, a new model that will storm the world of advertising?

Add-Art is a browser extension replacing online ads with Art.

Beside the obvious gains – freeing your saturated brain from more advertising – Add Art features curated exhibitions, and creates a new space of expression for artists. Win win right?

I was on TV yesterday (video here, be nice) talking about Google’s domination, and came up wondering who is still clicking on ads these days. Conventional wisdom used to say that “new users click on ads”, but now that we are all turning into savvy internet veterans with years of surfing under our belts, who still thinks that the results on the right ARE the non-sponsored results?

A new study released this morning came up with a few interesting findings about ads-clickers and tells us that “heavy clickers represent just 6% of the online population yet account for 50% of all display ad click”.

The study illustrates that heavy clickers represent just 6% of the online population yet account for 50% of all display ad clicks. While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000. Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers. Further preliminary Starcom data suggests [...] shows no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked.

Link

If the other 50% are indeed fake clicks then we are headed towards a nice crash of the current Internet monetization system.