A few years ago, I was running my site, RateItAll,
out of a coffee shop. It was profitable, and had about 600K users but
I was having a really hard time keeping the site up. Despite the help
of some very good contract developers, and an affordable host who was
trying their best to help me, I just didn't have - or know people who
had - the technical skills to scale the site.
I had reached a plateau.
So I went out to try and raise some money and get some help. I got meetings with a bunch of big name venture capitalists - Sequoia, Battery, MDV, Hummer Winblad, Trinity, etc, and got to hear feedback on my site from a lot of smart folks, some of whom had built web businesses.
The feedback that I heard repeatedly was that RateItAll shouldn't try and do consumer reviews for everything. That I should pick one vertical like Digital Cameras, do a really good job with it, and then consider moving on to other verticals.
I would always fire back with "yeah, but we are Rate It ALL, and our site has unlimited shelf space, and 'look at Wikipedia!', and the costs are almost negligible to add more coverage, and people / users think horizontally, not vertically, etc, etc, etc."
They weren't buying it. It just didn't make sense to them to cover everything, to be so radically horizontal that your target market was "people who had or were looking for opinions."
Things ended up working out for RateItAll - I hired a killer CTO, and together, we were able to raise some funding and get the site growing again. But it was more despite our horizontal focus than because of it.
Flash forward a few years, and there seems to be a bit of a shift in conventional wisdom around horizontal Web businesses.
The horizontal content companies that I have been tracking for a while: Hubpages, Squidoo, Wikia, Associated Content, and of course RateItAll - we are ALL growing.
Perhaps the most aggressively horizontal content play of all is Demand Media. In a recent (and brilliant) article by Wired (The Answer Factory: Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell), author Daniel Roth describes Demand's methodical answer content generation business as follows:
And then there is AOL. In a recent TechCrunch article called "Tim Armstrong's Secret Project is to Turn AOL into a Low Cost Content Machine," writer Erick Schonfeld details AOL's methodical snapping up of journalists to create content about everything on AOL's vast array of content properties.
Prior to AOL, and in addition to running Google's ad business, Tim Armstrong co-founded Associated Content - a huge network of amateur content on any topic, created by anyone. To me it sounds like Armstrong is trying to replicate this model on a much larger scale with AOL, but with better domains, and better writers.
Critical to the horizontal content business is the ability to keep content production and distribution costs down. There are different ways to do this - on the production side, UGC, revenue sharing / pay for performance, aggregation, and assembly line content production are all tactics that are in play. On the distribution side, it's still all about Google organic search.
Can you go horizontal and keep content quality high, or is it a race to the bottom? I'll save this discussion for another day.
For now, let's just say that there is growing, compelling evidence that "Go Big, Go Horizontal" is not bad advice.
I had reached a plateau.
So I went out to try and raise some money and get some help. I got meetings with a bunch of big name venture capitalists - Sequoia, Battery, MDV, Hummer Winblad, Trinity, etc, and got to hear feedback on my site from a lot of smart folks, some of whom had built web businesses.
The feedback that I heard repeatedly was that RateItAll shouldn't try and do consumer reviews for everything. That I should pick one vertical like Digital Cameras, do a really good job with it, and then consider moving on to other verticals.
I would always fire back with "yeah, but we are Rate It ALL, and our site has unlimited shelf space, and 'look at Wikipedia!', and the costs are almost negligible to add more coverage, and people / users think horizontally, not vertically, etc, etc, etc."
They weren't buying it. It just didn't make sense to them to cover everything, to be so radically horizontal that your target market was "people who had or were looking for opinions."
Things ended up working out for RateItAll - I hired a killer CTO, and together, we were able to raise some funding and get the site growing again. But it was more despite our horizontal focus than because of it.
Flash forward a few years, and there seems to be a bit of a shift in conventional wisdom around horizontal Web businesses.
The horizontal content companies that I have been tracking for a while: Hubpages, Squidoo, Wikia, Associated Content, and of course RateItAll - we are ALL growing.
Perhaps the most aggressively horizontal content play of all is Demand Media. In a recent (and brilliant) article by Wired (The Answer Factory: Fast, Disposable, and Profitable as Hell), author Daniel Roth describes Demand's methodical answer content generation business as follows:
The process is automatic, random, and endless, a Stirling engine fueled
by the world’s unceasing desire to know how to grow avocado trees from
pits or how to throw an Atlanta Braves-themed birthday party. It is a
database of human needs, and if you haven’t stumbled on a Demand video
or article yet, you soon will. By next summer, according to founder and
CEO Richard Rosenblatt, Demand will be publishing 1 million items a
month, the equivalent of four English-language Wikipedias a year.
How is this working out for them? Demand is apparently profitable with $200M in revenue, reaching 80M monthly uniques, and considering an IPO.And then there is AOL. In a recent TechCrunch article called "Tim Armstrong's Secret Project is to Turn AOL into a Low Cost Content Machine," writer Erick Schonfeld details AOL's methodical snapping up of journalists to create content about everything on AOL's vast array of content properties.
Prior to AOL, and in addition to running Google's ad business, Tim Armstrong co-founded Associated Content - a huge network of amateur content on any topic, created by anyone. To me it sounds like Armstrong is trying to replicate this model on a much larger scale with AOL, but with better domains, and better writers.
Critical to the horizontal content business is the ability to keep content production and distribution costs down. There are different ways to do this - on the production side, UGC, revenue sharing / pay for performance, aggregation, and assembly line content production are all tactics that are in play. On the distribution side, it's still all about Google organic search.
Can you go horizontal and keep content quality high, or is it a race to the bottom? I'll save this discussion for another day.
For now, let's just say that there is growing, compelling evidence that "Go Big, Go Horizontal" is not bad advice.
Can i use this blog as reference in my college report
Posted by: gamecube repair | November 11, 2009 at 01:51 AM