Skip to main content

Monetizing Internet Traffic...

.. is hard. I've had trouble explaining (and even understanding!) how Internet traffic is monetizied (a word, which if you believe, seems to be incorrectly used by almost everyone:)).

This explanation of the categorization and monetization of Internet search traffic at the Lightspeed Venture Partners Blog, is the most coherent and clear explanation I've read in a while. Excerpt below. Numbers based on data.

"In fact, around 20% of searches are “navigational” in nature - users looking for a particular website. Another 50% of searches are “informational” in nature (e.g. “capital of Taiwan”, “top social networks”) and the remaining 30% are “transactional” in nature (e.g. “cheap flights to Orlando”, “flat screen TV”.......It is relatively difficult to monetize navigational and informational searches. "


Andrew said…
i concur. this explains why google and others have done well in monetizing search, but it's provided more difficult in the content network: transactional activity occurs a lot while searching, but less often while "browsing" (on the content network).
Vin said…
Interesting read on the classification of searches. Thought I’d add in a few more thoughts.

First, depending on the nature of the search engine, the types of searches that come in are likely to be self-selected. So, an engine like Google, that has a mission to “organize the world’s information”, will decidedly get less transactional searches than one like Kayak (that searches airline tickets). For this reason, it is hard to change the mix of searches to more transactional – there is ample evidence of this as Google has repeatedly tried to dominate other verticals, but people chose YouTube over Google Video to find videos, chose dedicated comparison shopping sites over Froogle to find deals, chose Technorati over Google to search through blogs, and so on.

Second, while it may make more sense for an entrepreneur starting a brand new search engine to base it on a more transactional vertical than one that is informational, it may be more important for existing sites (Google included) to handle all kinds of searches that currently come in and try to monetize each type differently. For example, while the pay-per-click model is attractive for purely transactional searches, Google could instate an affiliate model (revenue share –or- pay-per-thousand-impressions) for navigational and informational searches. This will be a lower-risk option for many vendors compared to the pay-per-click model. At the same time, Google could actively acquire more search engines that are transactional rather than informational.

Popular posts from this blog

Yup - humans still lack humanity

Every once in a while, I'm reminded that humans can be completely lacking in humanity.

My wife had the following experience yesterday on her ride back home. She got on the train and found a seat. The train was unusually crowded and it looked a lot of people had to stand for a long ride. An elderly Asian gentleman carrying a few things in both hands, was looking for spot, started to complain smilingly about the train being so full and stood in the aisle at the back of the carriage some seats away from her.

She expected someone closer to gentleman in the aisle (lots of younger people on the train) to give him their seat.

No one did.

The train started, and it was clear the man was having a lot of trouble standing up. Then at the next stop there was actually an announcement saying the train was full so please give up your seats to people who needed them.

Still nobody moved.

My wife got up walked to the end of the train and asked the gentleman to go over to her seat. She still couldn&#…

Whimsy when I changed my profile picture...

I changed by profile picture at work.

Later in the day, two people on my team had changed their profile pictures to these.. :-)

It made my day!

I changed my profile pic again today. Let's see how fast anyone catches on this time. :-)

Measure f-ing everything, and assume f-ing nothing!! - Or how mentoring ruined lives :-(

I've been really enjoying the Freakonomics podcast of late. This episode and the lesson we should take a away from it, was a stark reminder of one of the most important things we should be doing - but often don't - in building products or making any decisions: measuring the impact of absolutely everything we do, including the things that seem obviously good.

I recommend listening to the podcast if you have the time, but here's the summary. Stephen Dubner describes the Cambridge Sommerville Youth Study. The impact of social intervention programs in general is hard to measure and so they seldom are. This was the first attempt at measuring the impact over a long period of time.

It's a great story and there are a few good take-aways, but here's the main one: troubled or at-risk youth that received mentoring (good mentoring!) had worse life outcomes across every dimension than the kids that were left alone. Despite the recipients saying that the mentoring was incredibl…