4 ms·

The most amazing thing about this, and DHH in general, is that it is all common sense. But he is the only one that has the guts to shout "but the emperor has no

by mixmax 18y ago

The most amazing thing about this, and DHH in general, is that it is all common sense. But he is the only one that has the guts to shout "but the emperor has no clothes on"

axod 18y ago
>> "only one that has the guts to shout "but the emperor has no clothes on"" On what point specifically? I really would not trust advice from him on how well advertising models work. Seek out someone who has made a money from advertising and trust them instead. If you've already decided to offer a paid product, 37signals, fogbugz etc all seem to have good things to say on that model, but taking their advice on which model to choose seems like a very bad idea to me.
- mixmax 18y ago
  On choosing a business model. Far too many companies rely on just getting users, and monetizing later. Of course advice from someone who has had success with both an advertising and a pay model would be the ideal, but lacking that I'll settle for advice from someone that has actually had success. Come to think of it, I can't recall having read about a company that has had success (as in making enough money to live on within a year or two from launch) with an advertising model. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it seems to be an outlier. Charging for your products, on the other hand, is a well-proven model that has worked for hundreds of years. This is how the vast majority of companies generate cash. I just think it's refreshing to see someone that actually comes out and says it, instead of all this get-big-fast hype that only worls out well for an absolute minority.
  - axod 18y ago
    If you're in the UK, check out forums like http://www.affiliates4u.com/ http://www.affiliates4u.com/ There are hundreds if not thousands of users on there making a living out of affiliate marketing. I don't know of similar forums in the US, but am sure they exist. Also check out sitepoint 'websites for sale'. Quite often they include figures on revenue. Just scan down those and see how much they're making from advertising. It's just less news worthy so you don't hear about them - "Another website makes lots of money from adverts" - big deal. Also lots haven't gone the VC route so they don't try to court the press/blogs/etc quite so much. The issue I have with companies that get big with ad income as a model, is the massive amount they spend on servers, offices, tons of employees. If they kept lean they could be making a lot of money.
    - mixmax 18y ago
      I just checked Sitepoint, and there are currently 17 sites that sell, or have been sold for more than $50.000. A salesprice less than that probably indicates you can't live off it. Of those 17 sites: - two are getting revenue from affiliate marketing - one is advertising porn - one has advertising income of $500 monthly - one has ad revenues of $3000 monthly. The rest sell actual products that they charge for. I still don't think advertising is a model that works well for most companies.
      - axod 18y ago
        I did actually mean look at it periodically for a while and check out some of the sites that come up. You can't really take a single snapshot for a single day and draw any conclusion from it. That's like saying there haven't been any IPO's today, so IPO's aren't possible. Also it's probably slightly rarer to see profitable ad-supported websites actually come up for sale, since often they take nothing to run, so people hang onto them.
      - tjogin 18y ago
        I agree with your general perspective; but also, I see obvious benefits to charging for one's product directly from the user; revenue increases as you grow, no conflicting interests or prioritisations between advertisers and users. What are the advantages to the advertising model from a business perspective? I see obvious downsides; ad placement is a careful balancing between frustrating/confusing your users and making money off of them. Costs aren't related to the useage of your product, etc.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > Charging for your products, on the other hand, is a well-proven model that has worked for hundreds of years. I think you vastly underestimate (by many orders of magnitude) the length of time businesses have been successfully charging money for their products.
- trapper 18y ago
  Great point. I personally believe in the paid model, but if I were to try an ad-supported model I would do just as you suggested.
- tjogin 18y ago
  They're not saying to not use an advertising model. They're saying "don't forget about the regular old proven model of charging money for your product — it's still relevant and it has these great attributes, here's our experience with it". Don't take their advice personally, because it's not. They're just broadcasting their own experience.
antidaily 18y ago
I think it takes a lot of practice to communicate as efficiently and effectively as the 37s gang does. It's not just about getting a reaction; they know what they're talking about. I don't mind the swearing if it's sincere. At least they're passionate.
jhancock 18y ago
not really. Lots of people have shouted this..it was before RSS and blogging so the megaphone and recording devices were not on. I'm sure I'm not the only one. When Java started taking off with J2EE, I tried really hard to let the majors (Sun, IBM, Netscape, Microsoft, BEA) understand how their monolithic frameworks were not what most users needed. It all fell on deaf ears to the tune of: "What, EJBs are too complex? Swing shouldn't bypass native UI controls?" This not just from the architects inside those big co's, but from the users that would believe anything a big co told them. It took a full decade of users to experience how poorly conceived these frameworks were before DHH had a stage to stand on. Timing is everything. Users had to go through this severe disillusionment before anything like Rails could have every been accepted. If it wasn't DHH, it would have been someone else. Its the message and timing of it, not the messenger that is generally more important. Also, do not get me wrong. I'm actually not a Rails fan nor a serious opponent of it, use what works for you. Rails only gets half the equation right in my opinion. Rails too severally bastardizes MVC and lacks quality internals (hopefully Rails 3 will change some of this). What Rails does right is the accessibility of its APIs/DSLs, convention over configuration, etc...btw, all been done before the dark cloud of Java rolled onto the scene. Just goes to show how starved the web dev world was to flock to only half a solution. Turns out this was exactly the half of the equation they were starved for.
henning 18y ago
I was railing and whaling against Web 2.0 bullshit in 2006, no one paid much attention, though.

by mixmax 18y ago

The most amazing thing about this, and DHH in general, is that it is all common sense. But he is the only one that has the guts to shout "but the emperor has no clothes on"

axod 18y ago

>> "only one that has the guts to shout "but the emperor has no clothes on"" On what point specifically? I really would not trust advice from him on how well advertising models work. Seek out someone who has made a money from advertising and trust them instead. If you've already decided to offer a paid product, 37signals, fogbugz etc all seem to have good things to say on that model, but taking their advice on which model to choose seems like a very bad idea to me.

mixmax 18y ago
On choosing a business model. Far too many companies rely on just getting users, and monetizing later. Of course advice from someone who has had success with both an advertising and a pay model would be the ideal, but lacking that I'll settle for advice from someone that has actually had success. Come to think of it, I can't recall having read about a company that has had success (as in making enough money to live on within a year or two from launch) with an advertising model. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it seems to be an outlier. Charging for your products, on the other hand, is a well-proven model that has worked for hundreds of years. This is how the vast majority of companies generate cash. I just think it's refreshing to see someone that actually comes out and says it, instead of all this get-big-fast hype that only worls out well for an absolute minority.
- axod 18y ago
  If you're in the UK, check out forums like http://www.affiliates4u.com/ http://www.affiliates4u.com/ There are hundreds if not thousands of users on there making a living out of affiliate marketing. I don't know of similar forums in the US, but am sure they exist. Also check out sitepoint 'websites for sale'. Quite often they include figures on revenue. Just scan down those and see how much they're making from advertising. It's just less news worthy so you don't hear about them - "Another website makes lots of money from adverts" - big deal. Also lots haven't gone the VC route so they don't try to court the press/blogs/etc quite so much. The issue I have with companies that get big with ad income as a model, is the massive amount they spend on servers, offices, tons of employees. If they kept lean they could be making a lot of money.
  - mixmax 18y ago
    I just checked Sitepoint, and there are currently 17 sites that sell, or have been sold for more than $50.000. A salesprice less than that probably indicates you can't live off it. Of those 17 sites: - two are getting revenue from affiliate marketing - one is advertising porn - one has advertising income of $500 monthly - one has ad revenues of $3000 monthly. The rest sell actual products that they charge for. I still don't think advertising is a model that works well for most companies.
    - axod 18y ago
      I did actually mean look at it periodically for a while and check out some of the sites that come up. You can't really take a single snapshot for a single day and draw any conclusion from it. That's like saying there haven't been any IPO's today, so IPO's aren't possible. Also it's probably slightly rarer to see profitable ad-supported websites actually come up for sale, since often they take nothing to run, so people hang onto them.
    - tjogin 18y ago
      I agree with your general perspective; but also, I see obvious benefits to charging for one's product directly from the user; revenue increases as you grow, no conflicting interests or prioritisations between advertisers and users. What are the advantages to the advertising model from a business perspective? I see obvious downsides; ad placement is a careful balancing between frustrating/confusing your users and making money off of them. Costs aren't related to the useage of your product, etc.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  > Charging for your products, on the other hand, is a well-proven model that has worked for hundreds of years. I think you vastly underestimate (by many orders of magnitude) the length of time businesses have been successfully charging money for their products.
trapper 18y ago
Great point. I personally believe in the paid model, but if I were to try an ad-supported model I would do just as you suggested.
tjogin 18y ago
They're not saying to not use an advertising model. They're saying "don't forget about the regular old proven model of charging money for your product — it's still relevant and it has these great attributes, here's our experience with it". Don't take their advice personally, because it's not. They're just broadcasting their own experience.

antidaily 18y ago

I think it takes a lot of practice to communicate as efficiently and effectively as the 37s gang does. It's not just about getting a reaction; they know what they're talking about. I don't mind the swearing if it's sincere. At least they're passionate.

jhancock 18y ago

not really. Lots of people have shouted this..it was before RSS and blogging so the megaphone and recording devices were not on. I'm sure I'm not the only one. When Java started taking off with J2EE, I tried really hard to let the majors (Sun, IBM, Netscape, Microsoft, BEA) understand how their monolithic frameworks were not what most users needed. It all fell on deaf ears to the tune of: "What, EJBs are too complex? Swing shouldn't bypass native UI controls?" This not just from the architects inside those big co's, but from the users that would believe anything a big co told them. It took a full decade of users to experience how poorly conceived these frameworks were before DHH had a stage to stand on. Timing is everything. Users had to go through this severe disillusionment before anything like Rails could have every been accepted. If it wasn't DHH, it would have been someone else. Its the message and timing of it, not the messenger that is generally more important. Also, do not get me wrong. I'm actually not a Rails fan nor a serious opponent of it, use what works for you. Rails only gets half the equation right in my opinion. Rails too severally bastardizes MVC and lacks quality internals (hopefully Rails 3 will change some of this). What Rails does right is the accessibility of its APIs/DSLs, convention over configuration, etc...btw, all been done before the dark cloud of Java rolled onto the scene. Just goes to show how starved the web dev world was to flock to only half a solution. Turns out this was exactly the half of the equation they were starved for.

henning 18y ago

I was railing and whaling against Web 2.0 bullshit in 2006, no one paid much attention, though.