<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Stupid Question?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Startups, Entrepreneurs and the Web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:25:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-213857</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-213857</guid>
		<description>I know you wrote this two years ago but I notice that Twitter is still searching for a business model. Google looked and found the advertising model and then Facebook looked and found the advertising model, now Twitter have looked and are testing out -  surprise-surprise - an advertising model. Hardly rocket science now was it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know you wrote this two years ago but I notice that Twitter is still searching for a business model. Google looked and found the advertising model and then Facebook looked and found the advertising model, now Twitter have looked and are testing out &#8211;  surprise-surprise &#8211; an advertising model. Hardly rocket science now was it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlodgetVictim</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-141805</link>
		<dc:creator>BlodgetVictim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-141805</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s be clear...what made Google great was the combo of ripping off Overture&#039;s pay-per-click model (and paying for it later) and great marketing. The search results are just OK. Period. 

In case people haven&#039;t noticed it&#039;s getting harder to find &quot;real&quot; search results amid the &quot;search result sales spam&quot; that keeps popping up. 

And tell me why I should believe a WORD of what Blodget says...he&#039;s the same guy who said CMGI stock was going to $300 a share. R-i-ight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s be clear&#8230;what made Google great was the combo of ripping off Overture&#8217;s pay-per-click model (and paying for it later) and great marketing. The search results are just OK. Period. </p>
<p>In case people haven&#8217;t noticed it&#8217;s getting harder to find &#8220;real&#8221; search results amid the &#8220;search result sales spam&#8221; that keeps popping up. </p>
<p>And tell me why I should believe a WORD of what Blodget says&#8230;he&#8217;s the same guy who said CMGI stock was going to $300 a share. R-i-ight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitter To Unveil Their Business Model Early Next Year. Here&#8217;s What Will Be Entailed : tinyComb</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-136895</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitter To Unveil Their Business Model Early Next Year. Here&#8217;s What Will Be Entailed : tinyComb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-136895</guid>
		<description>[...] moment. Hopefully it will be solid as a rock.   SAI,  ReadWriteWeb, mathewingram.com/work, Mark Evans, Business Week, VoIP Watchand A VC   October 18, 2008 &#124; jason &#124; 1tinyComb, twitter&#160; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] moment. Hopefully it will be solid as a rock.   SAI,  ReadWriteWeb, mathewingram.com/work, Mark Evans, Business Week, VoIP Watchand A VC   October 18, 2008 | jason | 1tinyComb, twitter&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Gibbons</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123365</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Gibbons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123365</guid>
		<description>I think the idea that Google got lucky by creating a business, and the Overture / Bill Gross stuff really misses the mark. Google redefined search as the cornerstone of all online activity, for which you can forgive them stumbling across the monetization strategy. Twitter is a great service, but it&#039;s a peripheral utility for almost all Internet users.

My point is Google was always going to figure out some form of fantastic monetization because they conceived of something simply indispensable to virtually all web users, and knocked it out of the park when it came to execution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the idea that Google got lucky by creating a business, and the Overture / Bill Gross stuff really misses the mark. Google redefined search as the cornerstone of all online activity, for which you can forgive them stumbling across the monetization strategy. Twitter is a great service, but it&#8217;s a peripheral utility for almost all Internet users.</p>
<p>My point is Google was always going to figure out some form of fantastic monetization because they conceived of something simply indispensable to virtually all web users, and knocked it out of the park when it came to execution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Revenue Model for Twitter Coming Soon &#124; sofhaljamil.com</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123340</link>
		<dc:creator>Revenue Model for Twitter Coming Soon &#124; sofhaljamil.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123340</guid>
		<description>[...] the same with numerous outages and stability issues plaguing the service. Personally, I agree with Mark Evans sentiment that the question is not dumb at all. The question at hand could arguably be one of the most [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the same with numerous outages and stability issues plaguing the service. Personally, I agree with Mark Evans sentiment that the question is not dumb at all. The question at hand could arguably be one of the most [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sachin Balagopalan</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123254</link>
		<dc:creator>Sachin Balagopalan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123254</guid>
		<description>Their business model won&#039;t be pay-per-click ...

http://tinyurl.com/5pg7wx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Their business model won&#8217;t be pay-per-click &#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/5pg7wx" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/5pg7wx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google, They Are So lucky : Vmalni (BETA)</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123187</link>
		<dc:creator>Google, They Are So lucky : Vmalni (BETA)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123187</guid>
		<description>[...] they just got luck. According to Mark Evans on his post, He stated that  First, Google got lucky when it “borrowed” Bill Gross’ pay-per-click [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] they just got luck. According to Mark Evans on his post, He stated that  First, Google got lucky when it “borrowed” Bill Gross’ pay-per-click [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Manley</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123110</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Manley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123110</guid>
		<description>Yo, Mark. Listen up. Fred Wilson&#039;s right. He must&#039;ve read blodget&#039;s remix of your article. What? Who&#039;s blodget? Well, let&#039;s just say he&#039;s the guy who thought he&#039;d figured out Web 1.0. 

Of course Twitter will give us value, I mean, virtual value (which is to say, Bullshi*). So what if twitter is a time-waster? Didn&#039;t you know that for some people it is their  primary source of key insights and social interaction. Say, when they wan to know what lame movie some turd is watching. Or, or, what leftovers they&#039;re eating today. Useful but a little rough on the edge. Don&#039;t you think?

Oh, did I mention? You&#039;re article&#039;s headlining on Techmeme. That&#039;s how I got here. Congratulations, you&#039;re now in the virtual big league!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yo, Mark. Listen up. Fred Wilson&#8217;s right. He must&#8217;ve read blodget&#8217;s remix of your article. What? Who&#8217;s blodget? Well, let&#8217;s just say he&#8217;s the guy who thought he&#8217;d figured out Web 1.0. </p>
<p>Of course Twitter will give us value, I mean, virtual value (which is to say, Bullshi*). So what if twitter is a time-waster? Didn&#8217;t you know that for some people it is their  primary source of key insights and social interaction. Say, when they wan to know what lame movie some turd is watching. Or, or, what leftovers they&#8217;re eating today. Useful but a little rough on the edge. Don&#8217;t you think?</p>
<p>Oh, did I mention? You&#8217;re article&#8217;s headlining on Techmeme. That&#8217;s how I got here. Congratulations, you&#8217;re now in the virtual big league!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: buzzdup.com</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123076</link>
		<dc:creator>buzzdup.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123076</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;A Stupid Question?...&lt;/strong&gt;

Since Twitter emerged as a communications tour de force with millions of users, the question has been: “How’s Twitter going to make money?”...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>A Stupid Question?&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Since Twitter emerged as a communications tour de force with millions of users, the question has been: “How’s Twitter going to make money?”&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dcostolo</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/10/18/a-stupid-question/comment-page-1/#comment-123062</link>
		<dc:creator>dcostolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markevanstech.com/?p=4121#comment-123062</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s a bad idea to force a business model before it requires one in a company and product that is otherwise booming and is ripe for further innovation. *IF* you can afford it, better to wait until the company&#039;s ready to focus on revenue, and then start to iterate on several potential ideas. 

Since we&#039;re in this tough economy right now, a bunch of people will snort at that suggestion and say something like companies without real business models blah blah blah death spiral blah blah blah. That&#039;s not my point. The point is that once you attack a business model (or multiple potential models), you can&#039;t necessarily keep innovating as quickly because you have to start doing things like hiring A/R folks, ad ops folks, have engineers work on Revenue aging reports, have engineers work on payment processing systems, etc. 

Why do that before you need to when there are still loads of things you&#039;d like to be able to attack quickly while your burn rate doesn&#039;t include 20 addl. headcount working on the $$ side of the equation? 

Of course companies that have limited access to funding have to find their models more quickly. Of course all companies eventually have to find their models. But it&#039;s not necessarily true that it&#039;s better to make money sooner than later. By attacking a business model too soon, you may end up underinvesting in innovation, customer adoption, and market penetration, and have yourself a nice small business that throws off a couple million in cash every year but that is otherwise uninteresting. If you have bigger plans, focus first on the product, then on the customers, and THEN on the business model.

This will always be true, in a down or up economy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s a bad idea to force a business model before it requires one in a company and product that is otherwise booming and is ripe for further innovation. *IF* you can afford it, better to wait until the company&#8217;s ready to focus on revenue, and then start to iterate on several potential ideas. </p>
<p>Since we&#8217;re in this tough economy right now, a bunch of people will snort at that suggestion and say something like companies without real business models blah blah blah death spiral blah blah blah. That&#8217;s not my point. The point is that once you attack a business model (or multiple potential models), you can&#8217;t necessarily keep innovating as quickly because you have to start doing things like hiring A/R folks, ad ops folks, have engineers work on Revenue aging reports, have engineers work on payment processing systems, etc. </p>
<p>Why do that before you need to when there are still loads of things you&#8217;d like to be able to attack quickly while your burn rate doesn&#8217;t include 20 addl. headcount working on the $$ side of the equation? </p>
<p>Of course companies that have limited access to funding have to find their models more quickly. Of course all companies eventually have to find their models. But it&#8217;s not necessarily true that it&#8217;s better to make money sooner than later. By attacking a business model too soon, you may end up underinvesting in innovation, customer adoption, and market penetration, and have yourself a nice small business that throws off a couple million in cash every year but that is otherwise uninteresting. If you have bigger plans, focus first on the product, then on the customers, and THEN on the business model.</p>
<p>This will always be true, in a down or up economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

