24 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
24 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Here's an image that online marketers need to pay attention to

by Steven Carl Kelly
20 replies
Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko



Plan accordingly.
#attention #image #marketers #online #pay
  • Profile picture of the author InitialEffort
    I like the Video illustration.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3389620].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kim Lauren
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly View Post

    Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko



    Plan accordingly.
    So what's your take on it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3389622].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Kim Lauren View Post

      So what's your take on it?
      "Internet traffic" is perhaps measured by bandwidth.

      That's conveniently undefined, isn't it? And it doesn't mean much of anything without knowing that.

      If it's bandwidth or anything similar, then video's doubtless going to be absolutely huge. But for that reason and several others (downloadable movies, YouTube, etc. etc.) it may not be nearly as significant to internet marketers as one could imagine at first glance. It may even not be significant at all, in that way.

      Call me a skepchick, but it seems to me that "information" like this, in abstract, without precise definitions and interpretations, typically has the potential to be colossally misleading. And in that sense, it may well even be the case that many online marketers would be better off ignoring it than paying too much attention to it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390000].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kim Lauren
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        "Internet traffic" is perhaps measured by bandwidth.

        That's conveniently undefined, isn't it? And it doesn't mean much of anything without knowing that.

        If it's bandwidth or anything similar, then video's doubtless going to be absolutely huge. But for that reason and several others (downloadable movies, YouTube, etc. etc.) it may not be nearly as significant to internet marketers as one could imagine at first glance.

        Call me a skepchick, but it seems to me that "information" like this, in abstract, without precise definitions and interpretations, is typically colossally misleading.
        Thanks, Alexa, for responding.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390028].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        "Internet traffic" is perhaps measured by bandwidth.

        That's conveniently undefined, isn't it? And it doesn't mean much of anything without knowing that.

        If it's bandwidth or anything similar, then video's doubtless going to be absolutely huge. But for that reason and several others (downloadable movies, YouTube, etc. etc.) it may not be nearly as significant to internet marketers as one could imagine at first glance. It may even not be significant at all, in that way.

        Call me a skepchick, but it seems to me that "information" like this, in abstract, without precise definitions and interpretations, typically has the potential to be colossally misleading. And in that sense, it may well even be the case that many online marketers would be better off ignoring it than paying too much attention to it.
        Pretty much. Google will still provide the buying keywords. People are NOT using Facebook to find things to buy - yet. Will they ever? I doubt it.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390332].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Carl Kelly
          Originally Posted by JackPowers View Post

          Pretty much. Google will still provide the buying keywords. People are NOT using Facebook to find things to buy - yet. Will they ever? I doubt it.
          Yes, I have no doubt that they will. Facebook is about the only thing that scares Google at this point. Facebook can (and will) provide a robust search mechanism that Google can't touch (at least not yet).

          Facebook's search platform is coming, and the results will be tailored to the users in a way that advertisers will eat up and that users will love. Google, which is hard at work integrating more social input into their search results, is going to be at a disadvantage.
          Signature
          Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
          FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Carl Kelly
      Originally Posted by Kim Lauren View Post

      So what's your take on it?
      I think it's an interesting visual representation of trends in internet (vs Web) use. Having been at this as long as I have, I remember the days pre-2000 where the real gold mine of online marketing was in newsgroups (yeah, that's how long I've been at this).

      Anyhow, I found the image interesting and worth paying attention to, but I posted the image alone without a link to the accompanying article. Here's the link to the article now, so you can tie the image and the words together to get the entirety of the message:

      The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet | Magazine

      Food for thought, I feel.
      Signature
      Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
      FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390164].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Janice Sperry
    What does "PEER-TO-PEER" actually mean? Also Alexa make a strong point - if the graph represents bandwidth it has a totally different message.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390030].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author J Bold
      Originally Posted by Janice Sperry View Post

      What does "PEER-TO-PEER" actually mean? Also Alexa make a strong point - if the graph represents bandwidth it has a totally different message.
      I would assume peer to peer is meaning torrent sites where people download music and movies and tv shows for free.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author st271
    I don't think I understand that picture. I like graphs or numbers, something that doesn't confuse me. Interesting though even if I dont know what it all means.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390134].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ExRat
      Hi redicelander,

      I would assume peer to peer is meaning torrent sites where people download music and movies and tv shows for free.
      I might be wrong, but I'm assuming it means (slightly more specifically) that instead of an end user (someone with a hard drive - a peer) connecting to a web server to get their information, they are getting the information from another end user's (peer's) hard drive.

      I agree with Alexa's points, but as for broad based conclusions -

      Video and peer to peer have grown, thus taking chunks out of all of the rest to differing degrees.

      I guess what's interesting/important is trying to predict how it will look in the future and it would be interesting to see the same graph in non-mobile and mobile browser versions.
      Signature


      Roger Davis
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390175].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael T.
        Video sites are more and more popular nowadays...specially youtube.
        Signature

        Regards...Michael T.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390189].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        I might be wrong, but I'm assuming it means (slightly more specifically) that instead of an end user (someone with a hard drive - a peer) connecting to a web server to get their information, they are getting the information from another end user's (peer's) hard drive.
        I think it's almost bound to mean this?

        It's not going to refer to members of the "House of Peers": half of them may not know what a computer is at all.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390192].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ExRat
          Hi Alexa,

          I read some of the article and I wasn't too clear afterwards (I will go back and read it properly later.)

          But I got the impression peer to peer on this graph does include i-phone and consoles etc.

          But it's still a bit fuzzy (or maybe that's me?) What about if they watch video on i-phone - is that video or peer to peer or what?

          I know that when it refers to consoles for example - when I play one of the games I have it doesn't use a dedicated server - it uses one of the players' hard drives as the server.

          From the article -

          This is not a trivial distinction. Over the past few years, one of the most important shifts in the digital world has been the move from the wide-open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display.

          It’s driven primarily by the rise of the iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML doesn’t rule. And it’s the world that consumers are increasingly choosing, not because they’re rejecting the idea of the Web but because these dedicated platforms often just work better or fit better into their lives (the screen comes to them, they don’t have to go to the screen).

          The fact that it’s easier for companies to make money on these platforms only cements the trend. Producers and consumers agree: The Web is not the culmination of the digital revolution.
          Signature


          Roger Davis
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390244].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author webapex
            Guessing it being from Cisco, that this may represent raw bandwidth utilization and not a user count?, it's not surpriizng that video eats up a lot, the Sandvine Annual Bandwidth Report shows that Netflix streaming alone accounts at times, for 20% of the internet’s peak bandwidth.
            Signature

            “An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field” Niels Bohr

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390292].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
            Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

            But it's still a bit fuzzy (or maybe that's me?) What about if they watch video on i-phone - is that video or peer to peer or what?
            Think of Peer-to-Peer like the old days of gaming where you would directly call another person's modem to 'talk to their computer' and kick their arse.

            Peer-to-peer just uses the internet to create the connection rather than a dial-up modem.

            Console Gaming is a great example of Peer-to-Peer. As is Remote Desktop, VNC, VPN network sharing. It is when two or more computers create a direct connection without using a central server. World of Warcraft for example isn't peer to peer.

            The iPhone watching video isn't peer to peer - it is video. The data server doesn't care what asks for the data, just that something has. The iPhone remotely connecting to your computer via a VNC client IS peer-to-peer.

            I think you are right about the original graph. It is just a representation of bandwidth, not users of a particular technology. What IS important though is the trends each technology is showing - and why.

            Does a growth in Video really mean that more people will buy based on video?

            OR does it simply mean that people are turning away from traditional means of entertainment to use their computer to get their favourite shows.

            Do people look for video to find answers for their problems or do they still stick to more traditional web methods such as a 'Google search'?

            Edit: I think you'll also find that a lot of that peer-to-peer data will contain a lot of downloaded video so the trends could almost stack. Those guys aren't downloading their TV shows in bulk to sit through ads. Same for the guys subscribed to Netflix (and similar - Xbox, Playstation video services) as well as iTunes and other Video on Demand services. It will be hard to get heard and seen on those types of services which are hugely popular these days.
            Signature

            - Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
            - You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
            - Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns
            Connect with me on LinkedIn
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390350].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
    There are so many ways to read that chart that it's almost pointless taking any notice of without specific information. I just skimmed through the article and still found nothing specific. Ratio's don't mean much. If the non browser interaction vs browser ratio has grown, so what?

    Nowhere to be seen in that data is the timeline for average hours spent using bandwidth, in whatever form, nor is the amount of actual people using that bandwidth. You can bet they have all grown accordingly. I just see it as more to tap into, not less.

    I get the argument about plugging in directly to what people are looking for etc., but in my humble opinion the "ordinary" Internet, complete with full size keyboard a mouse and large screen is still far to useful to be worrying about it's demise anytime soon. The decline to 23% Internet usage is probably true in proportion, but my guess is the actual numbers are still growing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390227].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
    So peer to peer in this image just means people torrenting stuff?

    Yeah, I saw that graphic some time ago and wasn't worried. Mobile will be big soon, but will people buy from their iPhone? Can they even?
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390362].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Carl Kelly
      Originally Posted by JackPowers View Post

      So peer to peer in this image just means people torrenting stuff?
      No.

      Originally Posted by JackPowers View Post

      Yeah, I saw that graphic some time ago and wasn't worried. Mobile will be big soon, but will people buy from their iPhone? Can they even?
      Mobile is ALREADY big. Yes people can -- and already do -- buy from their iPhone or Android. In fact, I just bought something with my Android phone today.
      Signature
      Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
      FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390393].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Todd R
    When the article came out in wired magazine (that this graphic was the cover for) I did some research on what the image meant. There were a lot of discussion about how the image might ditort reality and in fact, Chris Anderson was accused (by some of his buddies) of intentionally distorting the representation of each sector so that it was sensational and would help sell magazine copies... I'm not saying Chris Anderson is anything but top notch, but jounalists will be journalists... and selling magazine copies is what they think about first... so maybe the image doesn't really represent anything worth thinking about. The article was great!
    Signature
    Interested in affiliate marketing..?? Join Erica Stone and Todd Royer's webinar every Thursday, 8pm EST
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3390440].message }}

Trending Topics