What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
46 Comments
- Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+69why exactly does $50 million count as 'taking off'... personally If i made enough money to pay the rent off a website I would consider it more than a sucess
- Sagags, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Any site that is making a profit is "taking off" if you ask me. but im a simple person.
- tofslie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I think making a profit with a few employees is a better judge of taking off. I think making 50 million is more a number to try and reach to sell the site to Mr Google Or Ma Yahoo.
- Eleo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Millions? Thousands is good too... Even hundreds. Being able to live comfortably off of ad revenue would be enough for me.
- mogrefy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ah, but as we have seen with many sites... $50 million in revenue is not required to sell to the likes of Google and News Corp for hundreds of millions of dollars. I would consider those MORE THAN successful for the founders.
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If I could clear $25 on my commission junction account so I could get my first check I'd be happy! (I've been sitting at $23 for a long time now).
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How many web 2.0 users does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Two. One to screw in the light bulb, and the other to mod up the screwed in light bulb. - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Would your employees and suppliers? Remember, this is revenue and not profit. $5,000 wouldn't cover the bandwidth expenses for any decently-sized site.
- EssPii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Two. One to tell everyone how awesome his new web 2.0 site is and one to pat him on the back.
- clark24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If only all of those sites generating $25 million in ad revenues could "take off"
- antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nah, even better: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/business/17online.html?ex=1331784000&en=8c67e3ff3a190b78&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (no registration!).
- Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think I was making 5 bucks a month with Google ads at the hight of my site's life. It barely made even and I was happy. If made more than 5 bucks a month i was ecstatic. funny thing is now I'm making more parking it at Sedo.
Still thinking of making 50 million in ads is crazy. - zifnab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you need a password: http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com
- mamageek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. YouTube wasn't making squat when they got sold to Google for 1.6 billion.
- DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My website's still a litttle bit short.
- xpose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cashing a google adsense check every few months is more than successful if you ask me. If its every other month, or better yet, every month. I'd be extremely happy.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Agreed. YouTube wasn't making squat when they got sold to Google for 1.6 billion."
But it had an enormous userbase, which is why Google bought them. Sadly, buying a userbase doesn't guarantee you can turn a venture around on a dime, and YouTube's still costing them, but at least the Tuber's haven't filed for bankruptcy like they would have if they remained independent. - roland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+250 million per year revenue, not per month.
and he only said 4 billion if it was a general interest ad 200 million for ad specific (guitar/music etc.) - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if I had a web2.0 site
being able to live off ad revenue (after all the computer related costs) would likely be sufficient - thesimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+230,000?
- Wang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, so two points.
The obvious one - why does it have to be a web 2.0 site and not just a "website" ?
and...
"$50 million a year in revenue" - who says it has to make $50 million to take off? imho making $1 million is a killing.... - sunshinelife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This information is great advice.
Many entrepreneurs start their business not to get rich but to pursue a specific lifestlye.
If you take on board investors, venture capitalists etc - what you are often creating is just another job, often more stressful than the one you wanted away from.
The purusit of the "lifestyle online business" is great advice.
- Own the stuff yourself, you do not even ned to incorporate.
- Do not take private investors.
- Do for gods sake not take professional investors.
- Be aware of what you want and do not loose track of that.
- Live the desired lifestlye from day one, give yourself the reward and you will find the way to make it sustainable. - gregfadein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They said four billion, not four million.
You're off by a factor of one thousand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they didn't actually say how many users. Did they?
All i saw was page views - meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who's rehashing any debate? The article doesn't mention Web 2.0. Quote where it does.
- theshutterbug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fixed the URL
http://www.johnchow.com/index.php/the-internets-biggest-google-whores/ - spatznick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This means for every 4 page views you'd make $1?"
You need a few dozens visitors to even get one click, while a click costs a 5-25 cents or so. - WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Where does the author of the article get the $50 million from 200 million page views from? 200/50 = 4. This means for every 4 page views you'd make $1? That's balony! Not even in the dot com crazy days could ads fetch for that much. That number equals to $4,000 CPM (aka. $4,000 per thousand page views)!
These days you'd lucky if you can get $1 CPM!
Am I missing something here, or is that author just blowing BS out of his rear? - theantirobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isn't one of the features of web 2.0 the ease in generating modest income from small sights? long tail?
The whole article seems irrelevant. - uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems like the article fails to see how web advertising has reshaped the way advertisers can reach people. They're looking at it from old-school methods ..... i.e. this many millions spent on advertising can reach this many people (that's how television and radio advertising works). What they miss is that with web advertising companies can spend FAR less yet reach a more targeted group of consumers. It's no longer a game of $X million in advertising expenses .... and a successful Web 2.0 company doesn't require the same financial backing that a successful television show requires. Everything is scaled down .... and while this means that the Web 2.0 company may not bring in $50 million .... they also don't have a cast of celebrities asking for $1m an episode to support the vehicle for advertising ... a tv show. The comparison just isn't the same ... and I believe the targeted ad on a website is arguably far more effective than that commercial for a feminine hygiene product or a snapshot of two retired people sitting in separate bath tubs on the side of a cliff waiting to bang.
- jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Again, the $50mil is revenue, not profit.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1According to that ratio, I should be making about $30/week from my website, whereas in fact I'm making more like $3/month. I must be doing something wrong. Actually, I know what I'm doing wrong. I hate websites overburdened with advertising, so all I have is few small Google Adsense ads and recently a few affiliate ads. Still, for only $30 a week in lost profits, maybe it's worth it to have a relatively clean site.
- goettel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't tell, this is a spin on the "How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb" gag, right?
Web 2.0. my aching ass. - theshutterbug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The article Absolutely does not makes sense
Here are the industry standards for advertising (Webmasterworld.com)
CTR or clicks per 100 page views = 1% (with tech sites this ratio drops to .1%)
$ per click average = 10 cents
With that kind of figures the site should make $4 Million
Also chk the incomes made by actual top earners and the truth is out there http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Biggest_Google_AdSense_Whores - roland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jstohler
Your telling me my website has to be bigger because it costs soo much? Bandwidth scales with revenue, your minimum user base is based on the cost of labor and content. It doesn't cost 5k of bandwidth a month to generate 5k of income. - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Oh boy -- I love rehashing the old "What is Web 2.0?" debate. Good times.
- crossers, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0$50 million in revenue is not required to sell to the likes of Google and News Corp for hundreds of millions of dollars.
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - dixonr315, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22 people, hence 2.0. Next question!
- Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you want to just cash AdSense, all it needs is about 1500 pages, and roughly 14000 visitors/day ( http://johnbokma.com/ ) is my experience. It does pay the rent and some more (about 700 USD/month). Someone who puts a lot of time in tweaking AdSense (location, color, etc) might make 1.5 - 2x more money. (I prefer to write new content, because it's more fun). If you have time to write 1-2 hrs a day, original content, and keep going you might be able to get that much traffic in about 2 years.
Of course one can stick more ads on such a site, etc. and probably make even more money. - xzourska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well considering if your running just some form of basic website and your add revenue is 5000 per month, you can figure that equals about 2000 per month profit after taxes. But if you have some form of buisness that does any type of shipping then most of your cost will be covered in that revenue. Well after saying all of that I would be happy with 6000 in pure profit/month so that I wouldnt have to work except maintain the site but that will never happen.
- satzio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think I made 30 cents today on my Helium account. Sigh.
- foodbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+027: 8 male, 19 female.
- nathanstarr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'm 17, if my website brought in $1000 I would consider it succesful. $1000 after bandwidth and all that stuff.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I'm working on it. As soon as I get there, I'm most definitely rent out one of these homes ...
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/10_Insanely_Expensive_Homes_You_Can_Rent
House #3 got my name on it. 1 Billion page views here I come!
I wonder which house Kevin would rent when he cashes out. That's one lucky dude. - shivits, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I don't need $50 million a year. I would be happy with $5000 per month in revenue on my sides.
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4"How many users does a web 2.0 site need to take off?"
If anybody cared, they'd read an article that actually refers to Web 2.0.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is