Web Business

TwitterFacebook
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Did you know that blocking ads truly hurts the websites you visit? We recently learned that many of our readers did not know this, so I'm going to explain why. There is an oft-stated misconception that if a user never clicks on ads, then blocking them won't hurt a site financially. This is wrong. Most sites, at least sites the size of ours, are paid on a per view basis. If you have an ad blocker running, and you load 10 pages on the site, you consume resources from us (bandwidth being only one of them), but provide us with no revenue. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

Why Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love

Every so often we hear about a random blog or website that freaks out and claims that ad blockers are "stealing" or somehow damaging websites. But it's quite a surprise to see a similar argument from a site like Ars Technica -- one of the top techie sites out there, which is now owned by Conde Nast. Over the weekend, Ars wrote an odd post claiming that ad blocking "is devastating to the sites you love." Ars decided to run an experiment where it blocked access to its content to any user using an ad blocker (with no warning or explanation). http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml

Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites

The Long Tail - Wired Blogs - Mozilla Firefox

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:46:19 “ Priced and Unpriced Online Markets ” by Harvard Business School professor Benjamin Edelman. Discusses tradeoffs in market such as email, IP addresses, search and dial-up Internet. http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2008/11/the-miraculous.html

Mary Meeker Web 2.0 Presentation

Very usefull data on CPM, CPC and Web advertising market... by Patrice Mar 1

Dow Jones VentureSource released its second quarter numbers for the venture industry today, and there’s a reason they’re not dominating the headlines. They’re pretty boring: Overall investors put $8 billion into 776 deals in the US in the second quarter, a decrease of 5% in terms of invested cash and 2% in terms of deals. The median amount raised per deal was $5.2 million, up from $4.6 million a full year earlier. Yawn, right? But the fact that the numbers are so unremarkable is what makes them interesting. http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/more-evidence-theres-no-bubble-vc-investments-were-flat-in-q2/

More Evidence There’s No Bubble: VC Investments Were Flat in Q2

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/11/dont-call-it-the-next-tech-bubble-yet/ Signs of exuberance are everywhere: Tesla roadsters, soaring real estate, overpriced vinegar - and eye-popping valuations for pre-IPO companies like Facebook and Zynga. So why are so many Silicon Valley denizens reluctant to use the B-word? By David A. Kaplan , contributor FORTUNE -- Michael Dreyfus, 49, is a leading real estate broker in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Don't call it the next tech bubble - yet - Big Tech

Measuring internet audiences

More stuff

Online payment

Creative SEO

Groupon's crazyness

Une bulle technologique? Vraiment?