What’s a widget worth?

According to (Business week- Jan 2008), the view/usage of widgets has doubled from July to November 2007 with an estimated 586 million unique views. This is primarily due to the explosion of Facebook.

In the same time, the dollar spend by advertising companies on social networking websites is expected to rise to $1.56 billion in 2008. But is this good value for money for the advertisers?

Do we know what a Facebook user is worth? I suppose it gets to the heart of what is a user is doing on a social website? What are their behaviour patterns, do we fully understand how users currently engage within these social communities? Do they even see the advertisements or have the widget ads long faded into the backdrop like the mighty banner ads of 2003?

To combat the users desire to not click on ads, I sometimes wonder if marketers are banking on the effectiveness of subliminal messages.

2008 is going to be interesting year while widget makers and social marketing website will have to “show us the numbers” if they want continue to demand high premiums for their advertising space.

As a side, I always enjoyed this video on the Power of Subliminal Advertising.

Interesting article on Faceted Feature Analysis

The facets refer to three characterizing facets in any project (or release): business value, ease of implementation, and user value.

You compare these against the three constraints that govern every project (or release): cost, time, and quality.

“By crossing the characterizing facets with constraints, you are combining the subjective needs of the project stakeholders with the objective constraints of the project in a way that ensures all points of view are fairly considered. It also ensures that a project requirement is not included or excluded simply because one person yelled louder than the others”


Influencer’s Theory

A long, but interesting read of Duncan Watt disputing Malcolm Gladwell’s influencer’s theory.

“If society is ready to embrace a trend, almost anyone can start one–and if it isn’t, then almost no one can,” Watts concludes. To succeed with a new product, it’s less a matter of finding the perfect hipster to infect and more a matter of gauging the public’s mood. Sure, there’ll always be a first mover in a trend. But since she generally stumbles into that role by chance, she is, in Watts’s terminology, an “accidental Influential.”


I’d be curious to hear thoughts—I think a key missing element with the Madonna theory is that the influencer’s in that situation may have been media (MTV or radio) that played something over and over again until became a hit. How does the media powerhouse influence trends?