The Akamai network currently handles over 2 trillion requests a day, [Akamai CEO Paul Sagan] said, and about 3,000 hours worth of content every minute — that’s 2 trillion transactions of some kind involving content that needs to be moved across the network from one of the company’s thousands of nodes in hundreds of countries around the world. And the bulk of that isn’t really content but e-commerce, banking transactions, payment handling and so on.
…While demand for those types of transactions is also increasing, Sagan said the biggest single strain on the network — as companies and users demand more real-time content — is for video. “We expect demand over the next five years will grow a hundred-fold,” he said, “so our capacity has to grow in order to keep up with that. People expect that video will be a TV-style quality experience, and we need to be able to provide that.”
Want to skate to where the puck is going? Get into the video market in some new way. Be that storage since all those videos are bigger than the pictures we shared on Instagram or transmission or even just a better way to share and collaborate the future is clearly video.
What would make video more disruptive for me? Smaller chunks which are more easily digestible in various settings.
I can’t spend 10 minutes on a video, I’m usually working
Sound can be a problem, at work I really don’t want lolcats sound tracks playing. And much as I enjoy TED Talks it’s not what I get paid to do.
Need a way to scan more quickly, find the grain of goodness.
Altogether then it seems like the world is missing the Twitter/Tumblr for video. Give me the equivalent of 140 characters, make it simple to consume on any device, allow me to rapidly scan through a ton of content only stopping for a few seconds on the best of the Internet.
Oh yeah… and if you can make it social so I can earn a curator reputation and share it with my fans/followers/friends so much the better. Hm… seems like I need to dust off my keyboard and get writing.
“[Twitter’s] a stronger platform for advertisers than Facebook will ever be. In fact, I’d put my money on Twitter to be here and be growing long after Facebook fades away. I think Twitter will monetize with brand partnerships like its current brilliant global one with Pepsi, and its partnership with ESPN. These are non-obnoxious, non-obtrusive ways to use advertising and promote content and brands. They will endure long after intrusive advertising on social platforms, including Facebook, have failed.”—
Here’s the big grain of salt to accompany this: Twitter is a platform more suited to what currently constitutes advertising and branding. Twitter is (for the most part) a way to consumer information. It breaks news. Facebook is a medium for engaging with and consuming people.
Brands are not people. Brands are a hack for when people aren’t available (which is why they’re so well suited to TV and other media where audiences don’t actively participate–their slight of hand isn’t interrogated by interaction). Until companies figure out that Facebook is a space for people, employees, workers, not the classical idea of a ‘brand’, advertisers will have limited success with Facebook.
HERE’S THE BIG GRAIN OF SALT TO ACCOMPANY THIS: TWITTER IS A PLATFORM MORE SUITED TO WHAT CURRENTLY CONSTITUTES ADVERTISING AND BRANDING. TWITTER IS (FOR THE MOST PART) A WAY TO CONSUMER INFORMATION. IT BREAKS NEWS. FACEBOOK IS A MEDIUM FOR ENGAGING WITH AND CONSUMING PEOPLE.
The stress is on “current”. Currently we are struggling to understand how social media and ads works. And doing that in the mobile space is more unknown but interesting.
Eli Portnoy, CEO of ThinkNear, thinks the reason that mobile ads haven’t taken off is the lack of usable cookies — or the data that they collect — on mobile devices:
Eli Portnoy via TechCrunch
[…] why isn’t the money flowing to mobile?
Advertisers know that the golden ticket to performance is relevance, and by that I mean the ability to target and reach your potential customer base as accurately as possible. I live in Los Angeles, and you are going to have a tough time trying to sell me snow boots in the summer. The more you can target the ads, the more likely you can generate the desired action and the more successful the campaign. The current mobile eco-system allows almost no targeting criteria and demands that advertisers take a spray and pray approach to their campaigns. This leads to poorly performing campaigns and unhappy advertisers that are unwilling to keep pushing more money down the rabbit hole that is mobile.
Why are mobile campaigns so lacking?
The answer most people give is that cookies, which are the mechanism used in the online ad world, don’t work on mobile. Without getting into the technical reasons as to why this is the case, I challenge the argument because even if cookies did work I still don’t think you would see an advertising windfall. Fundamentally, cookie targeting lets advertisers build a profile about your browsing history and retarget you based on that data. However, in mobile the use case is different and this advertising paradigm starts to break. Using myself as a datapoint of one, when I am on a computer I tend to research specific items and create a browsing history that is rich with information and clearly paints a picture of my intents. However, on mobile my browsing and app history is sporadic and incoherent. I pick up my phone when I have time to kill, when I want to look something specific up, or as part of my everyday. Trying to create a profile from this activity would lead to few actionable insights.
So we use our mobile devices differently than desktops — at least at present — and as a result, mobile ads can’t be targeted as well.
But from my perspective the real problem is that advertisers don’t know that it’s me, on my phone, the same person browsing on my desktop ten minutes ago. What’s missing is a unified picture of the person, which could direct an ad to me based on a richer profile.
This space will change soon. Either someone like Foursquare will do it well enough (doubtful), Facebook will own enough piping to target well, or one of the majors will plumb it in directly. The problem with the last one is that Apple has no real incentive to improve ads on iPhone; they make a ton of money now and unless the ad makes the experience better…
And that’s the real thing. The disruptive thing on mobile will be the idea that isn’t an ad, it’s something that helps immediately. Phones are about now and possibly really soon. Help with that, people will pay.