The market for attention is more valuable than the market for consumption.

February 20th, 2009  Comments

I aggregated my blogs to discontinue this blog and create a single Taylor Davidson: Photography, Travel, Innovation and Entrepreneurship blog in May 2009; if you liked this post, click here for the options to follow the blog by RSS, Twitter and email and click here to follow me on Twitter.

Alan Patrick and Nic Brisbourne both picked up on McKinsey’s recent report, Six ways to make Web 2.0 work.

Pretty interesting to see McKinsey’s take on the variety of Web tools and services; Alan’s commentary is particularly insightful.

Nic picked up on McKinsey’s estimate on the market size, and his opinion (“paltry”) and questioning of what the USD $1 billion comprises begs many more questions. Expanding on the market size estimate, my comment:

Nic, the market size estimate really jumped out at me. While spending may be only USD $1 billion, the value of the time invested by employees in using these web tools (for personal, official corporate and informal corporate use) must be far, far larger. Adoption (and moreso, attention) have far outstripped spending.

And that shift may have a far larger impact on companies than the levels of spending might suggest.

Which is more important? Attention or spending? Time or money? Connections or consumption?

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

By Taylor Davidson. Posted February 20th, 2009. Category: Creating Strategy using Design Methodology   Comments

SIMILAR THOUGHTS

  • I strongly stand by point 4:
    Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs—not just their wallets; this is analogous to The Pain and Pleasure Principle. People are largely motivated by avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. Hence, if your site offers services that help your users achieve either of those, you should have substantial success.

    However, there’s always a gap between your assumption and the reality. Many startups don’t understand why their “engaging” site did not pick up. Well, they just have to accept the fact that their definition of “engagement” is just not relevant to their users.
  • Many startups fail by getting lost in the technology their company creates rather than the uses / interactions they empower. Users, users, users...

    One serious addition though: avoiding pain or seeking pleasure can come from changing or shifting behaviour; fundamentally changing behaviour, no matter how beneficial, is a pretty difficult thing for any company to depend on for success.
  • >> Many startups fail by getting lost in the technology their company creates rather than the uses / interactions they empower. Users, users, users...

    Can't agree more with you. I'm starting up my own startup, and many times, got suck into the my own "technology". That's why I constantly get friends or potential users to give feedback along the development process, to help steer me back to track. Can't wait to show you my application. Am targeting to launch by end of April.
  • Looking forward, would love to see it...
blog comments powered by Disqus