Hive Blog

The dot-com bubble busting at the onset of the 21st century is an example of poor online business models going bust. It is no secret that we are living in a bubble economy, in fact, the younger generation have not known life without bubbles, and big ones at that. Bubbles are good and fun, until they burst. The dot-com bubble began in the late 90s with that bubble bursting in 2000. It was then that Silicon Valley saw a much higher need for mops – that bubble left a lot of water to soak up. Are we headed for another dot-com crash? Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes.

Just the other day I was looking to print up some new business cards. I was told about a site where I could get them for free. I thought I’d check the site out since what I am looking for in terms of business cards is very straightforward; simple but elegant will do. By the time I had selected the perfect “free” business cards, I realized that I could have gone to my local Staples Copy and Print Centre only to have purchased pretty much the same business cards for what it would cost me to order them online for “free”!

Was this false advertising? No. Will I name them? Not even going to bother. I will say that free does have a few catches. Do I want to be limited to their very strict layout which doesn’t quite fit my definition of elegance? No, add $. Do I want to have their advertising on the back of my card? No, add $. Do I want a heavier weight card? No, I’ll save $ there too. Do I want the more expensive finish? No, I can save $ there too. Do I want to add fridge magnets? How about a business card holder? Business card calendar? Appointment form on the back? Coffee mugs? Hats and T-shirts? $ $ $ No, no, no! Okay, now I just have to pay for the shipping and handling, after all, you can’t expect them to print and ship for free, can you? Next question, would I like to have the business cards sent quickly for an added expense or use the slow shipping and wait about a month for my free cards? Suddenly, these free business cards end up costing a nice dinner for two.

All I can say is, at least they are honest. Honest!? Yes. They promised free and they didn’t say it would be the way I want it to be. Plus, it’s painfully obvious how they make money. They offer a free product and up-sell the customizations they precociously predict customers will want.

Once someone is a customer, it’s much easier to convert them into a paying one even if they are free.

Someone in life has surely said to you, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”. Likely you’ve also heard the saying, “The most expensive things are often free”. There’s a simple reason for these sayings, they are completely true!

In business, free is always a loss leader. Always! There might be a few independently wealthy people doing something free out of sheer goodwill, but most wealthy people I know don’t stay wealthy by giving things away for free. Loss leaders are meant to entice customers into buying something else that does generate money for the business. Worse, these free loss leaders can end up having unintended consequences that make the receiver of the free product regret they ever touched it.

Online businesses that offer free services often do so by using advertising to support their business. Plenty of Fish is one such business. Google relies rather heavily on this as well. While they may not have their own products for sale, they rely on promoting other peoples’ goods who pay for the service indirectly. How these businesses make money is slightly obvious. Receiving advertising dollars isn’t always the most lucrative business in the world (unless you can keep your expenses very low or your target audience of such high value that advertising to this audience is of high value).

Other online businesses use the up-sell approach, just like my business card scenario. These can even be softer up-sell approaches where what the company is giving away is meant to generate leads and interest in their authentic regular business.

Another set of businesses give away a product and offer support on their free product. Proceed with caution! This is where free can become expensive. You can be certain the free product will need support. The free product is likely designed not to be the friendliest, most workable or worthwhile product it could be without that business’s help. These businesses wouldn’t be in business long if they were so inspired to pump out perfect products. Those poor MayTag repairmen should switch their business model.

Then there are the businesses who offer something for free with the chance hope they’ll be able to figure out how to make money one day. Even worse than this are the businesses that knew all along; they just didn’t tell those who bought into the free product first.

Companies like Digg and Twitter are scrambling to figure out how to make money. Digg decided to run a promotion to help their readers figure out their business model. Guess what was figured out in the end? The most obvious answer is, of course, advertising. Certain spots on Digg are of high value so Digg can milk that puppy! I wonder if Digg’s owners didn’t know that model all along (duh), but wanted to appear to their readers to be altruistic while they were growing like scum on pond.

This could have been a clever ploy by Digg all along. Adding in advertising one day without fanfare on their site could have made a huge base of their readers revolt against them. Many web surfers expect that everything on the Internet should be free – it’s the Internet after all! Is it any wonder why the Internet is filled with loss leaders? Don’t these evil companies know they should be paying to provide free services?

Instead, by running a contest Digg was able to say, “Hey, it’s not our idea! We couldn’t keep going by offering a free service so we ran this contest and the answer was born by the readers of Digg!” A brilliant move! Too bad Digg isn’t profitable just yet even with advertising. Their expenses are still outstripping their advertising revenues. Although, perhaps Digg thought they would be bought out long before they ever had to make any real money.

Sure, some products are born out of pure passion and start off small only to take off like wildfire. These uncommon and albeit, exceptional products, end up becoming outrageously successful, leaving the owners with a paradox of how to extract money from what they were originally doing for free. Nothing lasts forever and free is no exception. Free simply can’t keep being free forever. But don’t be fooled, many businesses do know how they intend to make money, even if those plans aren’t very good.

So why do so many online companies have free products, yet don’t appear to be using them as loss leaders (not even with advertising)? Many of these businesses are trying to promote their product as the next “revolution” for the social web. If they can just get enough eyeballs using their product they will be able to figure out later how to make money from it. Sound familiar? Dot-com anyone?

During the real estate boom, before the housing bubble burst, this could be seen as a reasonable strategy. Simply having enough eyeballs would virtually guarantee some bigger business would come along and buy the business out. YouTube was a huge financial expense, but after being sold, the owners made out like Billy the Kid.

That’s not the reality of the market today. Digg and Twitter have been in talks about selling out. They either don’t make money or they don’t make enough money to be profitable. While they’ve had some good negotiations, I don’t see dry ink on paper just yet.

Even business giants like Google are cutting back and streamlining their business. Taking on more expenses in these times is like punching a few more holes in a leaky ship. Eventually those water pumps will be overrun. Even Google knows this!

Building a business on the hope of being bought out is a poor strategy (or a brilliant one if you are one of the few that do get bought out). It’s a big gamble. Most will fail. My advice, figure out how to turn your free business offering into a loss leader to be self supporting during these trying financial times.

The Titanic was a beautifully magnificent ship, but would you have chosen to take a ride on it if you knew you would literally sink in oceanic history for one such voyage?

I think I need a new mop.

Engineers and software developers are among the brightest people I know. Yet, they can also be the most uninsightful at times.

If you’ve ever watched the Angry Video Game Nerd (AVGN), you’ll find plenty of examples of “what were they thinking?”. James the Nintendo Nerd takes gamers back in time to look at the bad video games of the past, although expressed a lot more colourfully with how-to-say “artful language” spliced in. If you think engineers lacking insight is a new phenomenon then this demonstrates otherwise. In fact, if you look through history you’ll find tons of engineering’s biggest mistakes. Mistakes are one thing, lack of foresight is another.

Mistakes can range anywhere from failing to see the obvious flaw in the design to ignoring the behaviour of users or even completely missing the market altogether. I’m going to pick a few examples to illustrate.

SIP (Session Initiation Protocol), the leading Internet VoIP (Voice over IP) technology on the planet, was designed by some of the brightest people on earth. However, due to purists’ design principles, SIP missed the obvious flaw.

The Internet could be drawn to show every computer sitting at all ends of the network happily exchanging information with any other computer and sending data through the cloud in some kind of utopian model. Except, that model is fundamentally wrong. The only computers that can send information to any other computer are servers. The rest of those personal computers are sitting behind hardware or software firewalls and barriers that intentionally obstruct communication in the name of keeping us safe from Internet hackers and malware. Although there are a few brave souls who connect themselves directly to the Internet and ride out the storm, they are the exception to the rule (or they did so accidentally without realizing the danger).

In the real world, if you want to communicate P2P (peer-to-peer) you need to bootstrap the communication through an intermediary and sometimes, due to extreme protectionism, you’d have to tunnel the communication through an Internet relay.

So why am I picking on SIP? Because the SIP protocol intentionally ignores reality. “Firewalls” are not part of the protocol and are their issues they bring are not to be solved in the SIP protocol layer. Sure, SIP is an elegant protocol as a result. In fact, it’s very clean compared to other technologies, *cough* H.323 *cough*. Except, without taking into account firewalls, you have to add extensions and other protocols to make the entire thing work in real world situations. The initial solution was SBCs (Session Border Controllers). SBCs kludge the SIP protocol inserting themselves into the network path so they can ensure all traffic flows between peers correctly. Then engineers added on STUN, ICE, TURN, rport, outbound SIP, edge proxies, GRUU, broken SIPS (secure SIP), VPNs, SIP “friendly” firewalls (which are often opposite of friendly) and now we have ourselves a huge mess. If you aren’t familiar with all of these terms and their respective meanings, don’t worry because many people in the SIP industry don’t know either.

At the end of the day, you end up with competing interests between all these solutions with each having their place at the table when it comes to future designs and protocols to ensure technologies remain backward compatible to their solutions and protect their market. From here on out, the problem cascades deeper and deeper. If you factor in bleeding edge companies implementing protocols still in an early draft state (because these companies need solutions to problems now and not years from now) that just ads salt to the already blistering wound.

Suddenly, what was an elegant solution is a complete and total mess. Trust me! I know firsthand having worked in this domain for many years. Still, SIP is infinitely better than the alternatives (unfortunately that doesn’t say much). And moreover, it works. Well, most times.

For an easy picking, and perhaps lazy blogging, I’m going to pick on Microsoft next. What were they thinking when they developed the Surface PC? I mean, it’s wonderful to have a huge table computer that can display pictures, video, maps and email. But at $10,000, it’s a high end gimmick at best. There is only one reason for this technology and that is to look cool and get a bunch of reporters together to marvel at its wonder.

The old fashioned favourite lame product is Microsoft Bob. Released in 1995, this was Microsoft’s attempt to win over those too challenged to use a computer by making cute little cartoon characters to help guide you through using a computer. The solution is not to make cartoons for grownups and help ensure that a computer gets thrown out the window! The real solution is to make the operating system easy by being genuinely easy to use! Although, I’m not sure I’m proving a point since I doubt that an engineer came up with this flightless turkey.

The entire dot com era was proliferated with engineering ideas and big money. Anyone with an idea and with a dot com extension would find themselves funded. Born out of that era came ideas like Flooz and Beenz. For some reason, having real currency wasn’t good. As a result, an online currency was born and seemingly just as quickly, disappeared from history. I guess credit cards, having been the standard through time, were not good enough!

Another failure was Microsoft Passport. The idea is sound and frankly, needed; create a single login account and use that for all your services online. The trouble is pretty obvious though if you think about it for a few moments. Who do you trust to be that single login? Microsoft is not the best liked or trusted company in the industry and they have a reputation, for right or wrong, that they want to own everything. Microsoft introducing this service is a bad idea. Again, engineers missed the obvious right from the start.

So what does this have to do with dinosaurs and engineered steak knives? Sometimes a tool is just completely wrong no matter how good the design. Moreover, dinosaurs are long gone so there isn’t much need for killing them in the first place, thus engineering a better steak knife is a bit pointless. The meat lover in me does wonder however, what dinosaur steak would have tasted like? Surely, it would take a well engineered steak knife to cut through the shank of a tyrannosaurus rex!

Cloud computing is the new buzz word of the day. Some, like Oracle’s CEO, are claiming that it’s just a new buzz word for what is already being done in the computer industry while others, like Dell and Google, think it’s the way of the future. Microsoft wants to own it or kill it as it threatens their operating system dominance. Still others, like Richard Stallman (founder of GNU), would like to put on a placard and ring a bell warning the world of the dangers of cloud computing, much like a delusional person proclaiming the end is near on the street corner. In this case, they might all be right.

If you aren’t familiar with the term cloud computing, it is the concept of storing and managing your data “out there”, i.e. in the cloud that is the Internet. Whenever us ‘ techies’ represent the Internet, it is always depicted as a big cloud, hence, cloud computing invokes the appropriate symbolism of your data and information being out there in that cloud.

The cloud is both a thing of beauty and concern.

First, let’s address the beauty of cloud computing. With cloud computing you can access your data anywhere at anytime on the Internet. The location of your computer is not important and all your data is typically stored in a well managed system with plenty of backups. You don’t have to worry about your hard disk crashing or some kind of hijacking of your system deleting all your files. Plus, you get the economy of scale. A service offering can be cheaper since the system is running with thousands of concurrent users all on the same specially designed system. One of the best features of cloud computing is the ability to share files and information with other users.

Now, let’s address the drawbacks as they are plentiful. While not everyone might agree with Richard Stallman’s political and free software views, he does have a point when he warns, “It’s stupidity. It’s worse than stupidity: it’s a marketing hype campaign.”

Stallman warns of the dangers of cloud computing, including being locked into closed proprietary systems. Companies have been battling against having their information locked into proprietary systems for years. Now that the cloud holds all the information, the data is inaccessible to the end user unless the holder of the information provides an export, transfer or backup service to get the data out. Most would never want to release your data as that would make it all too easy to move to a competitor and obviously, that’s not in their best interest. Eventually, proprietary locked- in sites will change their attitude as competitors will use openness as a competitive edge against those who would hoard the information.

Some systems like Gmail provide POP3/SMTP backup of email. If you can get all your emails out of Google’s system, it basically means they aren’t a closed system, right? Wrong! Gmail offers “meta” information that allows users to organize and sort emails accordingly, most importantly with tags. If you export your Gmail account, you have your raw emails but you lose the meta information. The organization makes the data useful and valuable however, without it, the information is unmanageable.

The entire trust issue is something that is far more concerning. When you entrust your data to the cloud, you have to rely on blind faith that those holding the data will not mine your information, sell it or do even worse things with it. Fortunately, most businesses tend to behave honestly as they know the consequence of dishonesty would be financial ruin if they were to be exposed. However, that’s not entirely the full scope of the threat.

Remember the good ol’ Wild West movies? You had two choices in those days, stuff your money into your mattress or put it into the bank. If you put it into a mattress and someone found out, then your money was gone in less time than it took you to recover from the heartburn of last night’s bean burrito!  If that money was pooled into a bank with everyone else’s, then out came Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. When Willie Sutton was asked to explain why he robbed banks, he provided the simple answer, “Because that’s where the money is.” This analogy rings true of your information; if all the data is located in one spot with everyone else’s, it invites thieves and criminals.

An assumption should be made however. If you concentrate valuable information from many users into a central spot accessible via the Internet, someone will take the time to hack the information. Granted, most of the threat that your personal data faces is on your own machine, given the amount of malware that exists that targets the desktop. Fortunately, most desktop hackers aren’t interested in stealing information or boring emails. The information from a single person is much less valuable than concentrating all that confidential information into a single service where thousands of users hold their data. Some of that data no doubt, will be highly valuable. They tend to turn desktop computers into spam relays, attack relays or porn servers of the extremely non-legal kind!

If hackers aren’t scary enough for the paranoid, there is the threat of government who can legislate your data into their hands. At least when the FBI ransacks your house, they give you a warrant, but with your data in the cloud you may never even know you’ve been taken.

Finally, you have the denial of service threat where you can’t get access to your data. This can come in many forms including a coordinated attack, an accidental system error, or even an account closure because someone at a company decides you aren’t conforming to the terms of service as they see it. Good luck getting your account  reopened.

With so many threats, does that mean that cloud computing is dead on arrival? Oh heck no! For many, they just don’t see the data they are putting into these systems as being all that valuable. Many users just don’t care enough to bother. I would even say that most of the data wouldn’t be worth hacking if someone even bothered.

It’s all a matter of how important the data is and whom you trust to hold it.

I was sent an article in the New York Times about Markus Frind, profiling his success in creating a free dating website Plenty of Fish.

Markus took the formula “find a service which every competitor is charging money for use and give the service away for free and display advertising to pay for the service” and made it work in a big way for Plenty of Fish. The site boasts over 1.7 billion page views and 70 million visitors per month. That’s pretty good for an operation whose entire staff count can fit in a broom closet.

If you don’t know by now how the big fish makes his money, it’s really quite simple: advertising while keeping expenses low. He can get away with advertising on his site since all the other competitors charge money for the same service.  Users of Plenty of Fish tolerate the ads because they are offered a service they would  have to pay real money for elsewhere.

In fact, I would say the users tolerate a lot more than just advertising. They tolerate a poor layout, bad asthetics, confusing linkage and a few features that don’t quite work as well as they could.

I’m not trying to hammer Markus for these defects. I’d go so far as to say that he’d be the first to acknowledge them.

In fact, he has little incentive to fix these issues. The advertising is cleverly inserted into the site everywhere. In fact, it’s hard to distinguish where an ad begins and where the site continues. That’s bonus for Markus since users are more likely to click his advertising links by accident, thinking they are part of the site, especially when you factor in that knowing where to click is confusing at times. Not that I should need to spell this out, but increased click through rates equals increased revenues from advertising.

Markus has to keep his costs down, so spending money on making the website pretty and perfect cut into his profits. Make no mistake, Markus is a true businessman and he’s there to make money. Since the users will tolerate lower standards (and free dating does often require lowering standards), why should he raise them only to raise their expectations?

Further, glitches like distorted thumbnails cause people to click through to the real profiles, increasing page views and presenting more advertising. Why would he ever want to fix that issue? He would surely rather his fishies swim quickly than drown slowly.

Somehow, I don’t peg Markus as a dumb guy, in fact from what I read he seems refreshingly smart and remarkably candid which makes me discount the accusations that he is a liar when it comes to his revenues. Besides, you can confirm his stats yourself. If you haven’t installed Alexa toolbar, go do it now. On Firefox, it installs itself in the status bar which is wasted space anyway.

It’s not in any dating site’s interest to actually find most people a match. Yes, they do have incentives to find some matches for the referral factor, e.g. “my friend tried the Plenty of Frogs site and found her prince charming, you should give it a try too!” It’s good to have a few testimonials but bad if the site is so effective that everyone hooks up quickly. Besides, there is plenty of advice from youtube users on how to increase your dating chances, so don’t blame Markus entirely.

The success of such a free site comes as a double edged sword for Markus. The Plenty of Fish founder is discussing how he is letting millions of dollars in paid dating revenue slip through his fingers.

This is where his own perverse incentives will come back to bite him and his users like a Purana. Given that he has a good business mind, I doubt he will fail, but I think it’s important to understand incentives and the human animal to avoid the pitfalls.

What else drives up the ad hit rate for Plenty of Fish? For one, failure to find a good fish. Most users who are finding success won’t have much incentive to try other paid sites. The barrier to entry for new users on Plenty of Fish is pretty low and standards are kept down.

With the announcement that Match.com is abandoning paid dating in favour of free dating, Markus will face new competition and he acknowledges the likelihood of others to follow. A good deal of his advertising revenue comes from other online dating sites. If he improves the quality of his site,  advertising hit rates will drop. If he fails to improve on quality, competitors could be eating some tasty catfish. Although being the biggest does offer some protection, there is nothing preventing users from creating joint profiles using other free services. After all, there are plenty of fish in the sea.

If Markus promotes his own service from Plenty of Fish, he will lose advertising revenue. The more he promotes his site, the more revenue he loses. Additionally, advertisers might become less willing to advertise with him once he has a competing paid site promoted on his own site. This may not be an issue if he makes more money off his paid site than he loses in a free site.

Markus may face revolt from his user base who will be plenty aware of his incentive not to deliver the best free site in hopes of promoting his paid service and these users may end up swimming upstream to other competing free services.

If Markus sees a competitive advantage for a feature, he can add it to Plenty of Fish right now. He can do so and kill off his competition. He can improve Plenty of Fish to compete against other free sites. With a paid site, he will have to debate adding the feature or improving his free service to kill competition or risk leaving the competition alive to fight another day in favour of keeping the improvements in his paid site.

Markus likely has money in the bank and maybe his best bet would be to lose his advertising revenue and promote his own site exclusively for a short term loss with a long term gain. This is a big risk strategy though; once advertising is gone from his site, his users won’t tolerate it coming back, so he has to make sure that his own advertising is as annoying as the advertising his users already tolerate.

Finally, Markus may suffer a  lifestyle change. He is used to a small staff. Running a big staff is far different than running a small staff. If he goes down this path, I recommend he find someone who has experience to run such a team and allow himself to concentrate on what he does best: business.

Why in the world would I call Twitter, who just turned down  half a billion dollars ( in mostly stock from Facebook ), a worthless idea? Simple, because that’s exactly what most of us would have thought if we had come up with the idea ourselves.

Confession time: I don’t use Twitter (yet). In fact, until recently I didn’t truly understand what all the hype regarding Twitter was about. Sometimes products like this sound so fanciful that it’s hard to separate hype from reality and I have a knee jerk reaction to fads. Twitter has the hallmark signs of a fad if you listen to only the hype.

Every generation has its fads and seemingly crazy fixation with such fads and the 80s seemed to bring out the worst and cheesiest of them all; leg warmers over jeans, big hair, early-electric pop music and Atari. On second thought, I liked the Atari.

The 2000s saw the onslaught of reality TV (and coincidentally coincided at the same time I pretty much stopped watching TV). There is nothing realistic about this fad where ordinary people make public buffoons of themselves when put into completely unrealistic environments. Yet, people watch reality TV with an almost strange obsession and loyal dedication.

The success of Twitter and reality TV have much in common if you understand the twisted psychology behind the mystery.

What makes this kind of viewing so popular? People!

There is something ingrained in humans as social animals to want to watch people, follow them, talk about people’s lives, sometimes live through them and tie our association to them. Why is gossip popular? Because we love to know what goes on in other people’s lives and talk about it. Why do people refer to sports teams when they win as “our team won” and when they lose “they lost – those losers”? Because people associate themselves with winners and distance themselves from losers! Why do people follow celebrities? Because they associate themselves with whom they see as winners, at least as status symbols. People love to boast and brag about what they have, what they do and who they know. People  love to seek attention.

Twitter has all of these aspects. Twitter lets people know what other people are up to all the time and receive that need for gossip directly. Twitter allows people to voyeur the lives of others. Twitter has social status and allows people to associate themselves with those of status, i.e. the winners. Twitter permits people to follow the lives of other people, including beloved celebrities and sports icons. Twitter makes it possible for people to gain status by gaining a following. Twitter allows for bragging rights like “kids had fun at Whistler today.” Twitter allows for attention seeking, e.g. “bad hangover - rough night!”

Reality TV instantly gives those on the show a form of celebrity status (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad) and allows viewers to associate  with the winners and distance themselves from the losers as people follow their lives in a most unreal situation. It also permits the most softhearted of reality watchers to cheer for the underdog and take a certain form of pleasure in seeing an unlikely person promoted to a social status on a TV show that they might not have been able to achieve in “real life”. These people become the new gossip point amongst people watchers and a way for some to live beyond their own lives.

Obviously, Twitter is not without its legitimate uses. Rather than send out a message one at a time to everyone you know in your family or social group, you can send a broadcast message, for example “I arrived in Hawaii today. Plane ride was bumpy!” Twitter is an instant message broadcast system. Rather than annoy people with a message that pops up in their face as an instant message would, Twitter permits people to choose to monitor these messages, thus the system is completely voluntary and non-intrusive.

Why only 140 characters? Because that’s probably all that is actually required to get information across and more importantly, grab attention as a headline would, inspiring people to want to know more.

So, why is Twitter an insane worthless idea? Because Twitter is not a solution to an obvious need and won’t make money directly. Needs like “online dating services” or “sport score tracking” are much more obvious than “people watching, family and friend gossip, association, attention seeking and bragging rights”. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m not implying anyone who uses Twitter does so for only those reasons. Everyone has their own reason for using Twitter, but in my opinion, the social animal reasons are a huge driving force as to why the site is popular.

If I were to have sat down with my business partner or colleagues only to have come up with “Twitter”, I’m not sure I would have pursued the idea. Surely someone would have suggested it to be a dumb bird of an idea. Even if I did think up the human need for Twitter, as a business model, it’s not exactly the best model. Produce a free site… ???… huge profits. That’s something even Twitter hasn’t managed to figure out; how to make revenue – not yet at least. If Twitter had charged for the service, nobody would have paid. If Twitter had put advertising on the site, it would have been their downfall because someone else would have produced an ad-free Twitter in a month which would have made them dead dumb birds.

Why are they worth $500 million in mostly Facebook stock? Simple, they have huge popularity. Internet companies will pay big bucks for companies with wide audiences. Wide audiences make free services valuable as loss leaders and as a method to promote services which earn revenue. The problem is often over-inflation of valuation placed on popularity. Will popular sites translate into money earned? Will they end up being a huge expense? Worse, will the transfer in ownership and changes to the site drive the users that made the site valuable away?

Twitter will have to figure out how to make their site a loss leader for those who can make money from their users. Advertising and paid placement might be one way but they have to be very careful not to drive away their user base in the process. In fact, advertising might be so delicate a subject that it might be unworkable. Imagine ads showing up in RSS feeds mixed in with messages? Revolt! When sites start off with ads, it’s easier to maintain and explain them but when sites add ads in after, often users will rebel. The only way Twitter might be able to do so is through voluntary methods, much like YouTube or if they pleaded on the humanity of people to forgive them for needing revenue to stay a flight or force them to shut their doors.

Would anyone go into business with a service with zero revenue potential in the hopes that the user base will be large enough to be bought out by a big company one day? Or do so in blind faith believing that some magic process will suddenly show up to turn users into revenue? Well, the Twitter people did! Would most of us have done so? Probably not. Most of us would have thought the idea completely insane, worthless and without wings, unless we knew the magic solution of how to turn it into a loss leader for something else.