Social Media Revenue To Hit $29.1 Billion
There is little doubt that social media is the next frontier of web profits, but its very nature has caused many people to question its efficacy. One of the biggest complaints has been social media’s slowness to translate into revenues—many can’t seem to get social media participants to buy anything.
But there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. According to marketing insights firm Gartner, the revenue from social media is set to tip $29.1 billion by 2015. Based on the present state of things, social media worldwide is sitting at $10.3 billion for 2011. For many skeptics this is certainly great news and shows that the growth trajectory for revenues is correct. In 2010 social media revenues stood at a paltry $7.3 billion. The year-on-year growth into 2011 therefore represents a 41.4% jump.
So what is driving this surging growth? Based on Gartner’s findings, the increased participation of advertisers on social networks has contributed heavily to the growth in revenues. Indeed, social media giant Facebook, saw massive growth from advertising for much of 2010/2011. Another big factor contributing to revenue growth is the increased tolerance for ads by social gamers. Social games like Farmville are no key vehicles for advertising and as developers Zynga roll out more offerings, the ad inventory will increase.
With such healthy revenue projections, one can’t help but wonder what the state of things will be in the coming years. Will Google+ take over Facebook? Will Twitter gain more market share? All tantalizing questions that I am sure will be answered in due course.
Do you find ads annoying when you are on Facebook? Let us know how you feel about being targeted in the comments below.
(Source: sitetrail.com)
Comments (8)
November 11th, 2011 at 08:00
Unquestionably imagine that that you stated. Your favourite reason seemed to be at the internet the simplest factor to consider of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed at the same time as other folks think about issues that they just don’t recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top and outlined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , people can take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you
November 11th, 2011 at 22:20
A lot of times execs coming in to a company with that much momentum negotiate contracts that have them vesting much more quickly than a typical employee would vest. High profile candidates understand the volatility of the situation they’re about to enter and plan accordingly.
November 11th, 2011 at 22:20
Just lie and treat them like crap. There is always more employees where they came from in this market. Great company. Where do I sign up?
November 11th, 2011 at 22:21
On my second day working there I was told “We have no qualms of firing anyone we feel is useless.” This was done during training as a “motivational” speech. It motivated me to quit immediately and find a company that respected its employees. I’m glad I didn’t waste time on them. I would suggest that anyone who feels this is inappropriate behavior to show it. Show it by uninstalling all their games, and encourage your friends not to play them. Scrabble is much better than Words-with-friends.
November 11th, 2011 at 22:49
Morally acceptable? Bullhonky. If you have an agreement to pay someone in shares instead of money, that’s an agreement, period.
November 11th, 2011 at 22:50
Vesting rules normally only apply to willful resignation not termination or retirement, which is a company action. If they were given a written or verbal ultimatum to surrender the shares or be terminated it probably depends much on the wording of the stock grant whether or not the employees had a strong case but the company decided to negotiate not litigate so I’ll assume they either hand no confidence to win or did not want it to be a nuisance or complicate the IPO since it would be included in the Due Diligence before issuing the Prospectus. I’ll guess the lawyers who represented the disgruntled employees had fun turning the screws and no doubt based their fees on a percentage of the judgement.
November 11th, 2011 at 22:50
If the stock hasn’t vested, they haven’t paid taxes on it. Once the stock is vested an in an online trading account (typically where it goes), it’s yours and you pay tax. But not until then.
November 12th, 2011 at 13:31
You create some reasonable points, for sure, but I wouldn’t say I’m with you 100%. Nonetheless, I truly do appreciate your way of thinking and recognize the point that other people have similar issues. Thanks a lot.
Trackbacks - Pingbacks (0)
Leave a Reply