people

How to Architect a Web 2.0 Revenue Sharing Empire – Part 4

Now that we know what particular benefits and criticisms exist for both the owners, and the users, of Web 2.0 revenue sharing websites, we can begin to look at the specific arrangements and business models that exist in the online world. Whether you utilize these sites for the online promotion of your website, blog, or business, or for pure recreational or revenue share purposes, these sites are so useful yet dynamic and ever-changing. The reason this is so is because, just as Google is continually attempting to serve online users the best most accurate individualized search results, so also are these Web 2.0 sites attempting to predict what search engines want in order to best maximize their revenue.

Just like a business (which they are), you will encounter these sites in varying stages of growth and development. Some, by virtue of simply having been around longer, will present with a much greater matured database of content along with a high search engine authority that has been catapulted by the collective userbases’ contribution of content and backlinking. In this industry, this is exactly why an owner’s success in architecting their own Web 2.0 platform will be directly related to their ability to leverage and motivate their community with clear goals, guidelines, and incentives. Even still, motivating does little good if a solid, yet workable, incentivized business model infrastructure is not in existence.

Great headway can be made by owner’s by simply analyzing, researching, and understanding the current business models and revenue share arrangements that exist online. Know these well, and you will be better prepared to lay a solid game plan for the execution and success of your own Web 2.0 revenue sharing website.

  • 1) Simple Revenue Share — In this revenue sharing model, owners of Web 2.0 sites essentially establish and implement a revenue share arrangement that will place content provider’s advertisement network ID# into an impression based system. If a website claims to share 50% of it’s revenue, a user will have their advertisement network ID#’s placed into a rotation where, if their advertisements are clicked on while they are being displayed for 50% of the impressions, users will earn a 100% revenue share. Bear in mind, in this model, users do not earn 50% of the revenue, but, rather, they earn 100% of the revenue (for the ‘click’) when their advertisements are displayed up to 50% of the time.
  • 2) Tiered Model Payment Scheme Hybrid — These revenue sharing model can become rather complex, complicated, and convoluted. Essentially, the fundamental premise underlying this particular Web 2.0 revenue sharing model is the deep-founded belief that Google values continually updated content. On many sites, users will simply submit content, only to never return and update it. In this model, a system is devised that essentially monetarily incentivizes content providers to continually update their content. An internal ranking system, which allocates payment in accordance with structured and pre-determined tiers, can be created which inherently encourages continually updated content (in order to qualify for the monthly structured tiered payment).
  • 3) Escalating Revenue Sharing Model — Rather than provide a simple percentage share of revenue with content providers, this revenue sharing arrangement inherently embeds incentivization of quality content production within an escalating revenue sharing arrangement. For each given month, a content provider can be afforded the opportunity to earn a greater revenue share, from a baseline revenue share, by making some sort of internal achievement. A points system could be devised which could incentivize users to produce longer articles, and therefore be tied into an escalating revenue sharing arrangement.

Comments (5)

How much of a role do you think the service/content being offered plays in dictating which revenue sharing model is chosen?

I know you could arbitrarily choose one regardless of the content/service but it seems to me some revenue share models might lend themselves better to one form of content over another thereby influencing the decision of which model to choose.

Also, what role do you think Mobile (smart phones and devices) will play in the future of this model? I know if I was going to setup a new revenue sharing empire – I’d (personally) be thinking hard in that direction (Mobile Web Real Estate w/Revenue Sharing).

Admittedly, I have no clue what – but it seems like a largely untapped market where SEO is a whole different ball game (people search differently from mobile than they do from desktop and google and other search engines index mobile sites differently than non-mobile).

I’m sure this will make it difficult and challenging to break into and gain traction, but… given the low(er) competition and general lack of Mobile/SEO understanding – that levels the playing field and puts guru’s and noobs alike (generally speaking) back on the same playing field (for now).

Thoughts?

@Kevin, is Mobile actually anything more than scaled down apps of internet websites for Mobile phones?
@Howie, lovely job, please keep posting!

Adwello,
The short answer’s not anymore. It used to be (back in the day) that if you wanted to cater to mobile browsing you had 2 sites (.com and .mobi).

There was a huge landrush of people trying to get .mobi copies for their sites when the powers that be developed a method of simply re-rendering a .com page to satisfy mobile requires and just like that the “need” for .mobi vaporized overnight.

Today (with the right utilities) your .com website can detect the requesting device and if it’s a PC render it in full scale and if it’s mobile re-render it to fit the mobile device.

One thing to bear in mind though, is I believe Google provides search results differently for mobile searches than they do for desktop searches (more geotargeted).

The same is true between a “standard” search and on that would be a map-based search. SEO for each of these is somewhat different and while I don’t know for sure – I suspect the same may be true for mobile searches vs. desktop searches.

I’d be curious to hear someone elses input on that.

Kevin

Thank you for your comment, Kevin, as always! I hate to admit this, but for as passionate I am about this blog, I had to step away for awhile–as a result, it was neglected quite a bit with comment approvals/spam control/etc. Of over 160+ pending SPAM comments, it was quite refreshing to see a comment from a real person…lol. My Army officer training just had to take precedence with the type of schedule we run here. I do have some serious plans for the new year. On January 3rd, Jonathan Volk (from JonathanVolk.com) is actually publishing a guest blog post I had submitted. I really hope to get a few more posts out here shortly….Thank you for continually checking in! I hope for 2011 to be a big year for this blog AND it’s readers ;) :)

Going to put this atricle to good use now.

Write a comment