Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

Monetization, Stories, CPM

Recommended Posts

I have wondered about several ideas (no links, you're on your own to find them):

1. What does it mean to "monetize"? (And why is everyone talking about it?)

2. Facebook is now moving to "stories". What does that mean?

3. "CPM"? What does that mean?

======

Should people like me care about such terms?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, August1991 said:

I have wondered about several ideas (no links, you're on your own to find them):

1. What does it mean to "monetize"? (And why is everyone talking about it?)

2. Facebook is now moving to "stories". What does that mean?

3. "CPM"? What does that mean?

======

Should people like me care about such terms?

 

1. It means taking something that is getting a lot of attention and figuring out how to make money with it.  If you watch the Facebook movie, they had quite a problem with it at first and it's covered in that film.

2. I suspect it's a way of serving user stories back to customers to add a shape to their postings.

3. I think it's a measure of the cost to acquire 1,000 views.  The reason television is dying (if you didn't know, then I'm sorry to tell you) is that advertising on TV makes less sense than doing so in an interactive medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

..

2. I suspect it's a way of serving user stories back to customers to add a shape to their postings.

..

Wrong. And I suspect a serious problem for Facebook.

====

Whatta a scary business for FB/Gutterberg.

I'd prefer creating/changing something real, like Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison did. Even Bill Gates added value.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, August1991 said:

Wrong. And I suspect a serious problem for Facebook.

Well, if I'm wrong why not tell us what it is before you say it's a "serious problem" ?

Do you know what zlookaflume is ?  No ?  Well let me tell you it's a *serious* problem.  More later....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, if I'm wrong why not tell us what it is before you say it's a "serious problem" ?

Do you know what zlookaflume is ?  No ?  Well let me tell you it's a *serious* problem.  More later....

zlookaflume?

Google: Facebook p/e overpriced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, August1991 said:

Google: Facebook p/e overpriced.

At one point it was something like the biggest company on earth with no earnings, wasn't it ?  This is the monetization part.   The practical side of me wants to see this used to provide wealth to workers, investors, and customers.  The leftist side wonders if we can just redefine monetization in some hippy dippy way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2018 at 12:19 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. It means taking something that is getting a lot of attention and figuring out how to make money with it.  If you watch the Facebook movie, they had quite a problem with it at first and it's covered in that film.

....

Your definition of "monetization"? Facebook? Sadly, Michael, you may be right.

=====

It seems to be a slang word - to make money.

I've always loved/hated this American usage of the English language, for example: "make money". WTF? "Make" money?

A central bank "makes" money. Ordinary people create real wealth.

America, what a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, August1991 said:

1. Your definition of "monetization"? Facebook? Sadly, Michael, you may be right.

2. A central bank "makes" money. Ordinary people create real wealth.

1.  No, I believe that's the common definition.

2.  Ordinary people don't talk like that.  We used to call it 'making bread'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1950s/1960s, many/millions of Americans watched "TV" - 2 or 3 "channels/networks" daily. If someone had a new product to sell, this was an original way to introduce the product. TV channels created content to attract viewers.

In the 2010s,  many/millions of Americans look at their Facebook page daily. If someone has a  a new product to sell, this is an original way to introduce the product.

But here's the difference: In the 1950s, several networks had to create the content to attract viewers to see the advertisements. In the 2010s, ordinary people create the content themselves.

Facebook is a 1960s TV network, without a competitor and without any production costs.

===

I always thought that Facebook was about a network, like a phone system. I was dead wrong. Facebook is about eyeballs.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, August1991 said:

1. Facebook is a 1960s TV network, without a competitor and without any production costs.

2. I always thought that Facebook was about a network, like a phone system. I was dead wrong. Facebook is about eyeballs.

1. Yes, by God, you are understanding this.

2. You will be a McLuhanite yet !  Here's another way to look at it... Facebook is a social network, which evolved from simple web pages, which evolved from the internet, but also video and newspapers, which evolved from telecom, telephone, television and radio, which evolved from telegraph.  Every old medium becomes the content of the evolved medium, so you can watch TV, read the newspaper or listen to the radio on the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2018 at 7:22 AM, Michael Hardner said:

2. You will be a McLuhanite yet !  Here's another way to look at it... Facebook is a social network, which evolved from simple web pages, which evolved from the internet, but also video and newspapers, which evolved from telecom, telephone, television and radio, which evolved from telegraph.  Every old medium becomes the content of the evolved medium, so you can watch TV, read the newspaper or listen to the radio on the web.

Marshall McLuhan? Is he a billionaire?

=====

I reckon that the world's first trillionaire will be the guy (girl? maybe - 3-sigmas, requires extreme thinking) who figures out how to create a world network.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, August1991 said:

 I reckon that the world's first trillionaire will be the guy (girl? maybe - 3-sigmas, requires extreme thinking) who figures out how to create a world network.

Mark my words: there will soon me a new 'democratized' form of money that will satisfy the far-left and far-right.  THAT will be the new world network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Mark my words: there will soon me a new 'democratized' form of money that will satisfy the far-left and far-right.  THAT will be the new world network.

Bitcoin or a variant thereof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes but when the people discover the value of open money, there will be no hiding.

The problem is that openness and democracy are not very satisfying to people of wealth and power.  Push and they will shove, especially if we try to fuck with the money...mark my words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

The problem is that openness and democracy are not very satisfying to people of wealth and power.  Push and they will shove, especially if we try to fuck with the money...mark my words.

People have forgotten about the power of the masses.  It's happening again but it's just pointed the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

People have forgotten about the power of the masses.  It's happening again but it's just pointed the wrong way.

Pointlessly too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Pointlessly too.

I forgot something: the Democrats villainized the wealthy as robber-barons by depicting economics as a zero-sum game, and now here we are again.  It will be harder for the Republicans to make things better for middle- lower- class Americans though, as their patrons need increasing profits and even their toadies on here are spouting NDP-like language.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...