The Next Web

» Zen and the art of ‘capturing mass audiences’

   
Win Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design Standard by inspiring us with some smashing art work!
Find out more!

Zen and the art of ‘capturing mass audiences’

reinout Written on March 24, 2008 – 12:15 pm
Reinout te Brake, online gaming expert

The last few days I had some time and look around over the Internet. As you know, there is a lot of news about companies like Facebook.com and Google. Their success is the motor of a whole industry, they are the fuel for lots of new business ventures. In loads of business-plans you will see entrepreneurs compare their ideas against that of these companies. It is very difficult to create and come up with something unique, I grant you that, but what is it that these companies mentioned above have in common? The answer is; simplicity! Already I hear loads of people wonder if I lost it, but let me assure you, I didn’t.

It’s so simpleDuring the last years I have come in contact with many VC-companies and they all are looking for companies that look like Bebo.com, Facebook, Google and MySpace. The “why” is simple too, these companies re-present high valuations today and therefore the investors who backed these companies made a great “return of investment”. These VC companies contact me if I know entrepreneurs with similar good ideas. In most cases I do send them info about young companies that look for funding. And then it starts; benchmarking! The business plans are going to be compared to the successful companies of today. After a while I have come to believe that VC-companies want something they can understand and compare, they want it too; simplicity!

What is simplicity?

So what is simplicity? Let me take a first shot at this. Google is a company that is committed to make “search” simple and because of that focus got mass audience. Of course they introduced several ways to “please” that mass with simple functions like GoogleReader, GoogleNews and Gmail. FaceBook wanted to give people a simple way of showing and sharing their online profiles, which resulted that people also started to find each other and start looking for (old) friends and (old) collegues. Facebook got mass audience and a very nice valuation because of that. To keep to mass satisfied, Facebook opened up for developers who came up with “fun stuff” that the people on Facebook started to use. Simple, right?

Where am I heading? Well, both companies do represent a quite simple business model. Not only do investors understand this very well, but also for the users (read; the mass audience). There I said it! I believe that there are lots of companies right now with amazing concepts, but sometimes way too early for the public at large. These companies need development time and it is very good that investors do “back” these companies, but at what price? Sometimes it is my believe that investors just don’t want to miss out and just invest for the sake of it. I heard someone say once; ” Out of the 10 investments, we hope 3 of them will do very well”.

Aiming for the same users

google graffitiSo lots of companies do get funding, because the investors do hope that it might be the next big thing. This means that the internet gets more crowded with websites that do reach out for the mass audience. All of these companies aiming for the same users in general. The more, the better…but where to find them. You know the answer by now; Facebook and Google. Did those companies expected this; sure they did, Google came up with Adwords/Adsense and Facebook created a Marketplace and opened up for developers that created complete companies with ditto websites based on developing “widgets” for companies like Facebook. Overhere a nice case-study by the way. But in the end the mass audience stays at Facebook and Google. Better; their reach is growing more and more!

The audience’s contribution

Through the years people got a bit more used to pay online, or better said “order online”. To trust a computer that is going “online” and pay with your own real earned money, that is a bit scary. It takes time and these days it seems that people are getting used to it. People that are spending money online will also drive the possibilities online. You need the audience’s contribution to become a (financial) success. For example I started to use more and more Flickr. Flickr.com is growing but my guess is that this is because of the success of Facebook and more bloggers. In the end Flickr also has to rely on other sites and developers for their own growth and financial success.

Therefore I say, keep it simple and you will attract the mass audience. They will and can figure out what you offer, start coming back on a daily base and tell others about your offering. When you get this mass audience, you will also see new companies “floating” around your company and come up with new ideas to tease and please “your” audience. That will give you and your investors a nice return of investment. And I’ll bet you that those developers will get funding too. Only thing is, is that they are relying on your company and are in the back-seat. Question is for them “how long are you being the top-driver (of traffic)?”.

I hope you like that post!

The Next Web Blog covers start-up news from all over the world (not just the Valley), exciting new technologies and inspiring entrepreneurs. If you're new here, you may want to read our 'About' page and subscribe to our RSS feed.

Do you have a start-up that we should write about? Contact us! Thanks for visiting and hope you come back again!
Add to Google Add to netvibes Subscribe in Bloglines
About the author: Reinout is well connected within the online global gaming and media industry. Currently he is a partner/group strategist at SPILL GROUP and focused on establishing the world's largest online game-traffic company. Also Reinout is an advisor/boardmember of several companies and venture funds.

6 comments/trackbacks to “Zen and the art of ‘capturing mass audiences’”

  1. Apr 1, 2008: Online casual games; a worldwide gameplay of dollars!

    [...] agree with me that the big companies have seen the light and want to “find” the mass-audience through their own games/IP. But when you look at the current trend of “free-to-play”, [...]

  1. By Ernst-Jan Pfauth on Mar 24, 2008 | Reply

    Nice piece! Although I miss the no 1 example of simplicity: Twitter!

    On Le Web 3 last year, Evan Williams told the audience you can have success by keeping things simple and even leave stuff out. See: http://thenextweb.org/2007/12/.....-services/

  2. By Reinout te Brake on Mar 24, 2008 | Reply

    True! completely true and guess what I started to use twitterpod. Nice tool, created for Twitter.com.
    Alexa says; http://www.alexa.com/data/deta.....ize=Medium

  3. By Reinout te Brake on Mar 24, 2008 | Reply

    Social networking and user-generated content sites, online advertising optimizers, casual video games, and virtual worlds are not only attracting growing numbers of consumers, they’ve caught the eye of forward-thinking investors.

    Where there are people on the Internet, chances are there will soon be money.

    VC dollars grow in the entertainment space.

    Whether affiliated with big industry players or not, consultants, venture capitalists and others funding hot media and entertainment sectors say they are already pumping big chunks of their disposable capital into such companies. Many expect to continue doing so over the midterm.

    just read this article;
    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz.....f0756de8e0

  4. By Tim Molendijk on Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

    Yes, simplicity is important. But I think you’re a bit oversimplying here.

    First of all, simplicity is a condition, a means to an end. And that end is a useful service. So at the end of the day, usefulness is key.

    And that’s where the real challenge comes in. Since most of the new business models in the ‘Web 2.0′ space rely primarily on advertising, as you rightfully pointed out they all need mass audiences in order to really workout. Nowadays that mass audience is reading some news, doing web searches, doing some social networking and sending mail. That’s about it. At least when we’re talking about true mass. So a new service does not just have to be useful, it has to be REAL useful. Simplicity is peanuts compared to that.

    Secondly, nowadays we’re so used to the concept of social networking that it’s hard to imagine not being able to grasp its usefulness. But after some honest introspection I doubt whether I would have gotten excited had someone tried to explain the idea of social networking to me ten years ago. (”Yeah you can put your name and age on a page, and then your friends do the same, and then you can send each other messages! — Hmm… why can’t I just send an e-mail?”)

    I’m sure there must have been a lot of investors back then who didn’t get it either. My point is; I think Facebook’s simplicity wasn’t as utterly obvious before its conception as it is now we are all familiar with its dynamics. So since investors cannot truly judge the simplicity of new ideas, it wouldn’t make sense for them to use it as their main criterion.

  5. By Reinout te Brake on Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

    Tim, I agree. of course the concept that is sometimes TOO simple, is also overlooked at in the beginning. because it is too simple sometimes investors don’t believe in it, but I always say that the more simple, the more pure and close to the needs of the online users!

Post a Comment

Subscribe to:

 RSS feed   Comments  Email update Email

Add to Google   Add to netvibes   Subscribe in Bloglines

Giga Sponsors:

eBuddy
E.Factor

Accenture Innovation Awards
Netlog

Wakoopa
Spill Group

This blog is currently sponsored by Accenture, E.Factor, Netlog, Spill Group, eBuddy and Wakoopa. Interested in becoming a sponsor too? Check our advertising opportunities for more information.



Mega Sponsors:

Fleck Intermediads
myplaylist thenextweb
thenextweb thenextweb


Copyright 2006-2008 © The Next Web - Entries (RSS) / Comments (RSS)