ryan l.

It's interesting to see questions/arguments like this about a possible MySpace downturn after reaching a ridiculous "peak" of 80+ million registered users, and then to see article's like this one from Ad Age, discussing social networking sites recently securing major advertising opportunities with companies like Wendy's and Toyota. 

So, what is it? My guess is that, like others believe, the downturn talk is a bit premature. But, with more social networking copycats like Bebo.com popping up, you never know where the finicky teen and young adult markets will choose to go. 

MySpace's instant messaging client launched today, as some probably already know. It looks pretty clean and simple, but leaves a few remaining questions.

Surely MySpace, with its 60 million+ users, have a built-in user base for the client–which is all well and good–but that number in no way rivals that of the current market dominators (AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, etc.). Introducing another client futher fragments the instant messaging market and makes me wonder how sustainable the MySpace app. really is. Granted, tons of people will download and use the software, but will they do away with the standbys? Doubtful.

With so many different protocols out there, it seems the best bets these days are on applications like Trillian or GAIM, which enable users to add each of their respective accounts into one buddy list - so you're operating with Yahoo! and AIM in the same window. If the MySpace client gets picked up in this way–being added to consolidated apps. like Trillian–then I can see it having a better chance at sticking around.

Steve also brings up a good point, that there is space in the IM window for an ad, but again, a la the Opera browser, how long will people put up with having ads they didn't ask for shoved in their face?

There’s a really great discussion taking place over at TechCrunch about the soon to launch 3Bubbles, a chat interface that can be added to blog posts automatically and enables live discussion.

To be honest, this sounds really intersting, but a few questions come to mind — or should I say concerns. Many of these appear in the comments of the TechCrunch post as well.

First, and most importantly, how many bloggers will actually be able to sustain a live discussion about any of their posts? I know that with my readership being pretty low, with occasional spikes, I wouldn’t be able to use this service very effectively. A couple of people have mentioned that not even all of the Technorati Top 100 would be able to host live discussions. However, that doesn’t mean blogs like TechCrunch and maybe Micropersuasion and others wouldn’t be able to. Hm.

Second, I don’t know about anyone else for sure, but I enjoy having the comments section live within the post. Sure, 3Bubbles can, and most likely will, find a way to archive the live chat discussions that take place, but how many people want to read through innumerable lines of “yeah, but I like 2.0 technology,” and “oh yeah? well I don’t.” That could get old in a hurry.

And third, as one commentor asked, is this a company? For the 2.0 lovers out there this is just part of the wave, but how sustainable is their business model when it’s based on advertising? If you can’t guarantee that the vast majority of bloggers will use the service, and have readers partake, you certainly can’t guarantee, or shall we say ’sell’, advertisers on the idea. Where’s the traffic to justify the placement?

All in all, great, fun idea, and undoubtedly useful for bloggers with mass traffic and opinionated readers — real-time interaction is definitely lacking in blogs — but I’m not sure I’d bet on this as an overly used option. I’d use it, but it would just be another tool built into the blog, like trackbacks, that I don’t seem to get too many of.

The Valley seems to be on fire lately, and I know I’m not the first person to notice that the climate in tech right now feels like the boom. New start-ups are popping up everywhere, Web 2.0 has gone from buzzword to backlash, and yet the companies and innovation– sometimes pseudo-innovation–keep coming.

I’ve been in a few meetings lately with companies with technology offerings ranging from established to start-up and it really got me thinking. With so many companies trying to make their way in tech, whether they be 2.0 companies or non-Web-focused, when is it the right time or appropriate for PR to say no to new business?

Every agency wants to diversify their client roster and keep a consistent pipeline of new business, but when is it ok to evaluate a potential new client and say ‘you know, maybe we don’t want this business for reason x, y, or z.’

I think agencies in general sometimes fall into the habit of being so focused on picking up new clients that they forget that not every potential client they pitch, and win, has to be taken on. Sometimes restraint can be useful.