October 16th, 2009
Recent reports have shown social media sites to be female concentrated. What about the rest of the internet? Women may be using social networks more but that still doesn’t account for all the other types of websites.
While social networks may be big with females, internet usage in the United States seems to be split about 50/50 with men and women:
- News outlets are the primary focus with males.
- CNet, Reuters, IGN, Time, Drudgereport are all predominantly male.
- Shopping destinations are the primary focus with females.
- JCPenney, CBS, Pronto, Pogo, Overstock are all predominantly female.
*All stats from Quantcast except for MTV, BBC.co.uk, Simplyhired, Pronto, Newsweek and Fancast which come from Google Ad Planner.
Tags: analysis, analytics, bbc, cbs, demographics, drudgereport, fancast, females, gender demographics, Google, ign, internet women, jcpenney, meatsurement, men and women, mtv, newsweek, quantcast, reuters, shopping, simplyhired, statistical analysis, statistics, stats, using social networks
Posted in analysis, featured, technology | No Comments »
October 12th, 2009
Upon pulling demographics for a general analysis overview of the internet I realized that Google’s information in Google Ad Planner is very much different than Quantcast’s information. I tend to believe Quantcast a bit more because of the simple fact that certain sites can be “quantified”. What that entails is a website adds some code to their site so Quantcast can track all of their traffic and demographic data.
To test my theory that Google isn’t giving proper stats I took the gender demographics of the top 100 sites in traffic that were quantified and compared them with Google Ad Planner stats. The problem with Google vs. Quantcast is that there are limited stats that both agree on. Gender and children in household are the only two that sync up as there are ONLY two options, male & female and yes & no respectively. Other stats like household income, age range, and even college attended don’t quite match up, as both sites have chosen different division points for stats.
As you can see below Quantcast’s directly measured stats for males are in blue while the Google Ad Planner comparison stats are in red:
In the following table you can see the difference in percentages between Quantcast and Google Ad Planner. In almost all instances Google Ad Planner is shy of the actual target. Google is only equal with Quantcast once and is off as much as 13 percent:
The bottom line is this: don’t rely on just one source for your analytics and statistics. Google may be a reliable name to many but unless they’re actually measuring data on the company’s behalf then they’re just guessing at best. If ever in doubt use the wisdom of the crowd. Choose many sources and take the average of all of them. It may not be the best solution (the best would be direct measurement) but when you have no other option finding out the hidden wisdom of the crowd may be your best bet.
Tags: actualities, actuality, analysis, analysis overview, analytics, demographic data, demographics, gender demographics, Google, google ad planner, measurement, quantcast, quantified, statistical analysis, statistics, stats, sync, traffic
Posted in analysis, business, featured | No Comments »
May 22nd, 2009
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)
Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”
I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
- Create a maximum uniform height and width for logos.
- Separate into color groups according to what their primary service is (sharing, storage etc).
- Make each logo into an actual clickable image map that links out to each service.
- Show how the social networking services are linked together i.e. Twitter > Facebook > Friendfeed <->Twitter
- Repeat for a Web 3.0 (aka Semantic Web) map
- Tie both the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 map together in parallel linked maps
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »
Has the Web 2.0 bubble burst?
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)
Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”
I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Connect with me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »