The Fragmentation Of Online Marketing

The AVC community helped me work on my OMMA Keynote over the weekend. I delivered it yesterday. Here is the video. Sorry about all the advertising in and around it.

I like how the talk came out. Thanks for all of your help on it.


Comments (Archived):

  1. William Mougayar

    I listened to It & it was clearer than reading the image leaves only. 1 observation:Re: venue based advertising and native advertisingIt strikes me that these are new online extensions of previous models:a) in store display ads with fancy plasma screens are a form of physical to physical venue based adS vs the online to physical ones on Foursquareb) tradtionally, publishers acquired an audience (loyal readers who spent time with the newspaper in hand), then monetized that with print ads, classifieds & subscriptions. Now, we spend time on games & other online activities at other online businesses who monetize our presence & engagement.

    1. fredwilson

      i agree that these models are quite similar to highly effective models that have worked offline for years

      1. William Mougayar

        Yes, and here lies the creativity of making them work online via these new companies. Nothing wrong with taking the best of old practices and super-charging that with the efficiencies & innovations of online.

        1. Adam Malone

          What we haven’t broached yet is that there is opportunity in connecting the physical (old) with the digital (new).Those Venue-based Digital Screens can be integrated with Foursquare to promote check-ins, grow loyalty and brand interaction on a hyperlocal level.

      2. Steven Kane

        plus ca change?

        1. fredwilson

          hey steve. we should catch up. i want to hear how your new thing is going

  2. awaldstein

    While I don’t agree that native monetization = native marketing = native advertising, the idea of native as germane to the channel and behavior of the users, and additive to the value of the experience rings really true.This harks back to discussions of revenue models as the exhaust of the community.Native marketing = bringing the message in a way that is appropriate and additive to the medium is a great way to articulate this.This all leads to an idea of a reconfigured sales and engagement funnel. Broader and Interconnected. And requiring a new way of evaluating activities.

    1. leigh

      Totally agree re: broader and interconnected – i call it Network marketing — simple but important differences from traditional marketing planning process:Focuses beyond media and advertisingNon-linear Cross-functional (from ops & IT, sales and call centre to prod dev/marketing)Shorter planning cycles

      1. awaldstein

        Any dashboard tools that let you view funnel across these different channels that work for you?

        1. leigh

          No tools that I’ve found yet.  We have created some key templates that we use:1.  Cross functional marketing calendar (an executive view and then we have more detailed views that eventually link to project views)2.  Marketing briefsThe template starts off with a product view (to make everyone at the brand level happy bc it’s their natural comfort zone and how their own research and data is set up) and then flips it to something i call a consumer flow – which has the customer view as the starting point 3.  KPI and measurement dashboard (my biggest issue with this which we are still refining is how complicated it is – brilliant but no one gets it and not as actionable as it could be – so need to find a way to simplify it to various levels to make it more meaningful in the organization)

          1. leigh

            like avinash’s stuff but most of those tools don’t necessarily let you view funnel across different objectives — they are more KPI based and focus on measurement…ps.I’ve always admired those that love talking dashboards.  I just do my best to understand them as they often feel way over my head 🙂

          2. Adrian Palacios

            Sorry Leigh, I don’t quite understand the difference. Can you elaborate?

    2. Don Zepeds

      very good info for me! продвижение

  3. Cam MacRae

    Interesting to hear questions about measurement of hard to quantify outcomes as it seems to signal a shift in the attitude of marketers and planners from even a year ago. There’s plenty of traps for the unwary – take danah boyd’s now famous example of Coca-Cola proudly citing their large number of Myspace friends. boyd found those linking to coke were “making an identity statement, but it wasn’t the fizzy beverage that they were referring to.” Oops.In response to one of the questions you mentioned a bit of movement in this area. Any specific examples you’re able to share?



      1. Tom Labus

        And that creates another new industry/business which may  be good or bad.

      2. ShanaC

        a good measurement asks the right question…so when it comes to measuring – figure out what you are asking first…

        1. Cam MacRae

          …and remember not meaning something is sometimes as meaningful as meaning something.

  4. markslater

    i watched it yesterday – nice gesture to jimmy wales. As i said – i would have liked you to have focused on more of the “brave new world” that you will get to invest in, and whats down the road. 

    1. fredwilson

      that’s a good critique. i had a very specific agenda which was to wake up marketers to new channels and ask them to move funds from the older channels i should do a follow up talk on what’s next

  5. Jan Schultink

    Don’t forget to post it on your “video” page. The content of that tab at the top of your blog looks a bit stale at the moment, there must be lots more. 🙂 

    1. testtest

      it sucks that the page doesn’t update according to what’s in the informational ecosystem

      1. Mark Essel

        That’s a true pain point, not just for Fred’s blog but for search in general. I was putting together a short set of pages where I track CoffeeScript and it’s growing ecosystem and already there are so many sources for posts, videos, podcasts that it’s beyond my ability to curate. I guess it explains why search is so highly valued. Keeping a curated topic fresh and relevant takes work.

        1. testtest

          if identity becomes ubiquitous and standardized there would be an opportunity to aggregate individuals production of content. the meta data would already be attached.another, maybe having a hash tag for your own content, then parsing the twitter feed looking for your own tag on content your tweeting out. if it’s there the content is fetched and aggregated on your own property. That may be a bit hacky though.when i’m tracking a subject i accept that i’m not going to be able to read all the information — nor would i want to, too much.i set up filters in different ways, be it people, algorithmic, or institutions (i love harvard business review press books).agreed on search, it solves a big information problem: how to find what your looking for in an abundance of information. i find timing of information interesting; getting given the right information at the right time. the world is very different from when search came about, now everyone is throwing off information. a service that could look at what i’m talking about and then recommend information based on my conversations would be useful. example:i tweet i’m having marriage problems then useful information about how to resolve marriage problems is presented to me.i don’t want to have to input data in to services, i want services to run from information that’s already created, or being created  

          1. FAKE GRIMLOCK


          2. testtest

            i don’t read news. i find it informationally shallow, no depth, lacking profound insights. books are better.if i want to start thinking like everyone else, without really thinking for myself i’ll start reading news again.what have i missed?

          3. testtest

            in particular are you referring to the open graph?

          4. JamesHRH

            Define ‘useful’If you don’t read news, you don’t follow the mainstream agenda. that’s what you miss.

          5. testtest

            a service that could look at what i’m talking about and then recommend information based on my conversations would be useful. example:useful: people have problems that need to be solved. these change day to day, they may be real or they may be perceived. matching up problems and solutions is useful. not the day before the problem, not after the problem, but when the problem is being experienced. that’s when people could say that solutions before the problem is better, but most people are shortsighted or too busy to deal with problems before they occur.if you don’t read news, you don’t follow the mainstream agenda. that’s what you miss.i’d rather have deeper knowledge in areas that matter rather than an overview of everything. attention being limited i have to make a choice, read articles about hear-say or learn to be a better marketeer, programer, designer, get deeper domain knowledge, try products myself etcnews being news it’s manufactured hype. reporters need to find attribution for events that take place so they link it to anything that’s a good angle. i’d rather wait to see how it plays out, or see something in the wild and come to my own conclusion. if i don’t come across it then it’s probably not important to me or my goals.i would love to be an expert in everything facebook is doing (or whatever), but there’s an opportunity cost to that. @FakeGrimlock:disqus

          6. JamesHRH

            I wasn’t arguing for it – just trying to help.Although, your analysis of mainstream news is incorrect. Mainstream editors attempt to produce stories that they feel the largest number of people in their local communities will be interested in reading.The hearsay angle you review may or may not be true. Most people would describe mainstream media as ‘full of spin’. But, that as is instructive, as it tells you what people who are in the news think their constituents want to hear.Again, not telling you to read it or not.As for problems, most people are aware that they may have a problem but do not act on it until some aspect of that problem affects them in a way they did not expect.You may be onto something with the auto-matching solution service. But it is deeply complex; not only different variables for each problem but different levels of impact importance (my car needs a wash / the tranny is making a funny noise ).

          7. testtest

            I wasn’t arguing for it – just trying to help.thanks.i think there’s functions for news, it’s just functions i don’t need.You may be onto something with the auto-matching solution service. But it is deeply complex; not only different variables for each problem but different levels of impact importance (my car needs a wash / the tranny is making a funny noise ).complex, yes. a simple example would be the use of the term “i need”, has it as the question it poses. the data’s there, the tech isn’t, yet.

          8. Mark Essel

            Sounds familiar to what me and a friend worked on in late 2009 early 2010. Each company likes to brew their own version of a recommendation engine, and all of them have access to streams of info we share publicly or opt in to sharing.

    2. fredwilson

      i’d like to get rid of the video pageunless there is a way to automatically pull all the video i post on AVC into that pagei am terrible at managing content like that


    IT GOOD!

    1. Tom Labus

      Do you do movies?


        DEFINE “DO”.

  7. Rohan

    Nice. Prezi flowed very well with the narration. 

    1. Donna Brewington White

      Yeah, much different in action than when just viewing it.(I’m following you around the VC blogs.)

  8. Alan Mendelevich

    So, basically you are encouraging your portfolio companies to create complexity in online marketing, so your other portfolio company can help marketers navigate in this fragmented sea 😉

    1. fredwilson

      no. we are asking them to create monetization systems that work natively in their systems so that the user experience is as strong as it can be. the fact that we have a company that helps out is just an accident. they didn’t start out doing that stuff.

  9. Steven Kane

    “Sorry about all the advertising”… irony intended?

    1. Susan Rubinsky

      Love the juxtaposition of the ads with the content. Annoying and disruptive yet illuminating. Another example of the fact that internet is going mainstream.

    2. fredwilson

      yes. thanks up for picking up on it.

  10. testtest

    When content state moves from static (the document web), to dynamic (social, flow of information), ads need to be part of the dynamic, the flow. If you want to engage with people it’s better to be part of the party, than part of the furniture.

  11. leigh

    If i get what you mean by native (value enhancing to the users product experience, creation of behviour or action, relevant to the platform the user is interacting with) I don’t really get how pre-roll, or the streaming radio fit.  They are same as banner ads – mass advertising in an interactive medium. In the pre-roll case, we are being forced to watch 15/30 seconds for every 2 min of video which is way more then i’d be forced to watch on conventional TV.  

    1. timoteoverde

      i’m having a little difficulty with the pre-roll myself, but streaming radio not so much.  i don’t think the user experience is necessarily undermined if, for example:-data is collected about musical tastes (easily done via pandora or even turntable using stations/favorite rooms).-new album comes out that is closely aligned with your preferences.-promoted content disseminated via artist’s new single.what do you think?

      1. leigh

        Actually that’s a good point – Fred didn’t have related content which is probably one of the best native systems 🙂  ps. many of the radio services don’t work here in Canada so probably haven’t seen best of the best yet….



        1. Jim

          Good explanation

        2. JamesHRH

          Interestingly, about 10% of offline ads are native…….

          1. FAKE GRIMLOCK


        3. markslater

          but does not mean user wants. user not own his own data – data used to bombard user with mindless messages. User needs to participate in how his data monetized. User not at table. CRM is evil

          1. FAKE GRIMLOCK


      3. fredwilson

        i totally agree

    2. fredwilson

      i hate pre-roll and always have. there are a bunch of posts on AVC circa 2005/2006 talking about how much it sucks.but in stream audio, maybe 10 minutes in, for 15 or 30 seconds, is very native in my opinion

  12. Ciaran

    “Sorry about all the advertising in and around it.”Why? Without it, uStream wouldn’t be able to offer their services.

    1. fredwilson

      agreed. but it is not native. it is intrusive and obnoxious. native would be going right into another video (promoted) that you might actually want to watch

  13. Ciaran

    Couple of thoughs, and I’m writing whilst listening, so apologies if it’s a bit Kerouac.* You keep talking about fragmentation (which is true) but suggest that this means you can no longer get scale from display/banners – that’s simply not true. In many, if not most developed markets, there are still a couple of behemoths – whether that be Facebook, MSN, Yahoo, or whoever. Whilst they can’t answer every problem that a marketer faces, they can solve some.* Even if that weren’t the case, tools such as audience science & demand side platforms are making it possible to find incredibly niche audiences, at the same time as ensuring the sort of reach that major brands need, all the while driving cost efficiencies.* You suggest that marketers need to be operating out of the NASA control room, but that’s simply not realistic. Most people don’t have the time or energy to do so. And, frankly, whilst there are great examples of things like the foursquare/AMEX promotion, there is also still a huge amount of uncertainty as to the real benefit of some of these platforms – I think you even say at one point that ads on Facebook are measured in likes – if so, we should all go home now.I have to say that since starting to read this blog, I’ve gained a huge amount of respect for you. But I think that when it comes to this presentation, I think you’re off.Saying the web is fragmenting is one thing – meaning that marketers have to start immediately fragmenting their budget, is simply not the case. They need to do that when it’s efficient to do so, and when the returns have been proved. In many cases, neither of these has come to pass.

    1. Adam Malone

      I agree with you Ciaran for the most part.It is possible to achieve scale – all while dealing with only a hand-full of platforms.  (Facebook, Paid Search and even buying from Ad Networks such as AdMob for mobile)The silver bullet opportunity lies in creating a single platform that empowers brands to buy the right placements, matched with the right content mix, trafficked to the consumer in the right context, to achieve the intended result.And, of course, this must be done easily, measurably and at scale.

    2. awaldstein

      You obviously have a lot of background but I think you may be mistaking the trees for the forest here.While I may not buy that marketing and advertising and monetization are synonyms (which I don’t), I don’t see this as a call to fragment your budget.This is to me a statement of three things: 1) to go where your markets are, including a lot of new channels that are growing and that you may not be aware of;  2) your message needs to be native to the medium; and 3) measurement is key but measurement for different systems may not be the same.Logical calls to action that are a prod to think beyond the status quo.

      1. Ciaran

        Donna/Arnold – you both make very good points. Perhaps I am getting bogged down in the trees so to speak. I also think that your summary of the 3 key points really help bring Fred’s point to life.But still, I do think that there’s a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water and whilst there is a job for marketers to be brave and look forward, they also need to make sure they don’t lead clients down blind alleys, only to find out that the bandwagon they’ve been chasing is the wrong one.

        1. JamesHRH

          That’s called being an early adopter Ciaran. Any client that is in the space has to accept the blind alley potential.

          1. Jim

            We all need some budget for blind alleys.

          2. Ciaran

            It is. I guess the question is whether one believes that being an early adopter is, in and of itself, a good thing. I don’t think it is (for businesses); adopting the right things is, but not just doing it out of habit.

          3. Donna Brewington White

            Some people think of being an early adopter as being a guinea pig…There is a difference, right?

          4. JamesHRH

            LOL! Absolutely.A gifted startup sales up leader friend of mine, when asked what to look for in a partner / customer answered:’Willingness. They have to have a valid reason for doing business with a company that looks like us. IF they can’t tell us why, we should pass.”Brilliant – its a good thing that you only have to listen for wisdom, rather than come up with it on your own!

        2. awaldstein

          I can only speak for myself. I’m a passionate believer and practitioner in figuring out how shifts in technology and changes in the behavior of the mass market open new avenues for building community and market.But, I’m not an either/or marketing thinker. For example, I’ve built a few companies on the back of search (natural and paid) and still believe in this. Although I see search and how we leverage it changing dramatically.Don’t mean to rant. Just want to clarify that leveraging these future directions is building on, not discarding smart marketing thinking and tactics. The changes are dramatic but the logic and behaviors of people connecting with brands and communities is still core.

          1. Ciaran

            We are on exactly the same wave-length in that case.I’d love it if more of my clients adopted new trends and tools – so long as they did so in a careful and thought out way. There’s nothing more likely to ensure that a client never tries something new again than being convinced to grab hold of the shiny new toy, only to find out if doesn’t work.Evolution, not revolution.

        3. Donna Brewington White

          You make a good point about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The objective must drive the methods and not the other way around.I like @awaldstein:disqus ‘s response (and his thinking in general) because he keeps the focus on the “objective” rather than getting caught up in the “means” or the “how.”   It’s not about what’s shiny, but about what works — which requires a profound understanding of your markets.I know that’s a simplification, but I’m out of my league on this topic anyway.

          1. Ciaran

            *’I like awaldstein ‘s response (and his thinking in general) because he keeps the focus on the “objective” rather than getting caught up in the “means” or the “how.”‘*Me too!

    3. Donna Brewington White

      Are you basing your observations/comments on where you see marketing to be right now, or where it’s going?For sake of argument, even if you don’t accept that Fred’s preso represents the current state of marketing in the mainstream, it is very clear that this is where we are headed.  Visionary marketers have to build bridges between what currently is and what is emerging.  Not to do so is death, because sometimes the opportunity to catch up just is not there.



        1. Donna Brewington White

          Bridges into unknown territory?

          1. Tom Labus

            That is the future!!

          2. FAKE GRIMLOCK


        2. fredwilson

          that is a fair comment grimlocki need to follow this up

          1. FAKE GRIMLOCK

            IT GOOD TOPIC.

    4. ShanaC

      Lets pretend that some of the fragmentation stays – then what?

      1. Ciaran

        It will – I’m not arguing with that; just suggesting that we temper the ‘everything has changed, nothing is the same!’ type discussion – awaldstein sums up my thoughts (and possibly Fred’s) better than I did myself in the original comment.

        1. ShanaC


        2. Robert Thuston

          I agree with everything you said in this thread. Sometimes I read into Fred’s post as… I need to change what I’m doing, rather than consciously evolve. You’ve captured my sentiments well.

    5. Adrian Palacios

      A few notes on your points above (disclosure: haven’t had time to watch Fred’s video yet):-It is difficult to reach scale with niche audiences. There seem to be a bajillion platforms (Google AdWords, Bing/Yahoo AdCenter, Facebook Ads, etc) emerging, and trying to get ads on all of them, let alone making sure you’re doing a good job advertising on these platforms, feels nearly impossible.-I gave up on tools to advertise to niche audiences. While I have not looked into Audience Science, I’ve looked into similar tools and the minimum budget required to even use their services was out of line with the what our clients could even afford, even though they promise what I really need for my clients: very niche audiences.-I really like your last point about working out of the NASA control room. I work with SMB’s, and this field is destined to grow immensely as the local baker or pizzeria around the corner realizes they need a website and some type of online exposure/reputation management. Typically, they run their own marketing. It’s unrealistic to ask them to do this on top of trying to keep a business afloat or even grow.

    6. fredwilson

      i’d love to have a longer discussion about this. i respect your opinion and it seems like you know what you are talking about. i feel pretty strongly about my point of view too. so that’s a recipe for a good discussion.

  14. Matt Straz

    Great presentation, Fred. The conference attendees really enjoyed it.Fun to see it come to life here on and then onstage.Thank you.

    1. fredwilson

      thanks for having me matti really like building it over time with the help of the community

  15. Pedro Sttau

    Absolutely loved your presentation. Curiously I think that Google is really trying to fight this “Fragmentation” you mentioned. the strategy is to unify more and more services in a single homogeneous system that is even starting to serve content directly in the search engine. 



      1. JamesHRH

        Customers are funny that way……

        1. FAKE GRIMLOCK


  16. John Gant

    This is a great video! I tire of typical marketers, and I’d rather have someone not getting paid to advertise to inform me of how they do it and what’s successful.

  17. Adam Malone

    Hey Fred (and the AVCommunity),What are some potential native monetization opportunities for this blog?

    1. Mark Essel

      Disqus sponsored links if there was such a thing. Not sure where they would go or reside (top of page in a sponsored area). And the topic would have to be germane to the discussion.

      1. Laurent Boncenne

        Zemanta would be a better fit imo, disqus is more like the supporter of such monetization rather than the actual driver of it…

    2. JamesHRH

      Fred will tell you that the native monetization is Fred gets even wiser about being a VC!

      1. fredwilson

        just did



      1. Adrian Palacios


    4. testtest

      reputation is a currency online as well.

    5. fredwilson

      make investments in companies and opportunities that come to light from the discussions we have hear. it has resulted in the highest monetized publication ever

  18. Mark Essel

    At 10minutes into the talk Fred you discuss the multiplier in effectiveness by engaging across channels and extrapolate that adding more native channels will increase the performance. The multiplier without cost wasn’t meaningful to me. I think that analysis has to include the cost per effective reach, not only the monetary cost of the ads but the people cost for strategically creating those campaigns and maintaining them to optimally feed business funnels. 

    1. Laurent Boncenne

      because the cost depends on the platform in question, and the same person is not worth the same on different platforms. The benefit to engagement across channels rely upon your expectations, and your metrics.Reach can’t be measured the same way on radio or on TV.But overall, having a multichannel strategy is beneficial to you/your campaign…

  19. Neil Braithwaite

    Your presentation will prove invaluable for any internet start-upcompany. While I have spent the last year building a social-based product,it was only when investors and grant apps asked about “specific” monetizationdid I seriously begin considering marketing models. Native Internet marketing should be among the first thingsany start-up company considers before moving forward – it’s a Start-Up 101required course. This presentation alone led me to come up with two specificways, within the native monetization system, to enhance the value of my productto investors and users alike. Thanks

    1. JamesHRH

      @fredwilson:disqus I agree (for what that’s worth!) whole heartedly. ‘Popularized the concept of Native Monetization for online Social Media’ will be in the first paragraph of your of your 2025 Wikipedia entry!

      1. fredwilson

        new systems need new business models

        1. markslater

          marketing as we know it is about to change.and with it goes entire swaths of business models. i’m excited. its going to change everything.  

  20. Kasi Viswanathan Agilandam

    I got the flavor of the native …. gotta see first time an Indian ad (Indian as in India) in AVC presentation.

  21. gabebevilacqua

    Huge believer in ‘Native Monetization’ — really enjoyed the presentation.  From where we sit, the new mantra of the social-media marketer is that Your Content is Your Ad.  We think there are tons of opportunities with this type of marketing but also challenges; we wrote a blog post about it here:

  22. matthughes

    The venue based section was terrific – I like what 4S is doing w/ AMX.The Cromartie reference during the Twitter section made me laugh.

    1. fredwilson

      true, right? he was terrible against the raiders. and he was awesome the week before.

      1. matthughes

        So true. He’s that kind of player: he giveth and taketh away……usually in dramatic fashion.

  23. Dominic Carrozza

    Fred,Great presentation.  As the market continues to fragment, I think a real challenge will be determining effeciveness based on a widening range of parameters.  I see that issue being muliplied as the number and type of channels increases. 

  24. Donna Brewington White

    Enjoyed this enough to watch it twice!From the initial Prezi viewing a few days ago, must admit that I wondered how you were going to tie in the embracing sculpture. The NASA control room was one of my favorites — conveys the complexity involved and the need to be vastly aware.I’m not a marketer or an advertiser but this illustrates the larger picture of where business is headed and how those of us who want to thrive in business going forward need to be thinking about how to do that.Seems like so much of what people resist in advertising is invasiveness.  Same is true in business in general and even other spheres such as medicine.What you present is the idea of advertising that is not invasive — that is, in a sense, relational.Seems like “relational” is the alternative to invasive.  “Organic” seems to be another piece to the puzzle.  Something to think about.I’m glad to live in an era when this type of thinking is becoming more prominent in the business world.  I think the internet is a huge part of that.

  25. panterosa,

    Cool presentation on a subject I know little about, and so informative as well.However, there is a missed opportunity in not making a big picture – what presi does so well. If you can have a first/final image or graphic which ties together the individual arguments then that is super helpful. That is what is missing for me – tying together the idea of the fragmentation into a single larger picture. The bigger picture as envisioned by Fred.Any reason you did not make the presi this way??

    1. fredwilson

      i’m faking it with prezi. i don’t really know how to use it yet.

      1. panterosa,

        I like this one…

  26. im2b_dl

    I would repeat Fred. It is about integrated native and organic retail to the “content architecture”… Not advertising.

  27. Alex Murphy

    The last question, “what should a marketer do” and your answer made me think of what Brian Halligan from Hubspot has coined as find people that fit into DARC.  D = native Digital Voice (not someone that speaks it as a 2nd language, this would be the young person you were referring to)A = Analytical (test measure test measure etc)R = Reach (shows they know what they are doing)C = Content ProducerRare to find all 4 in one, but you can get close and it should be what you are looking for.  

  28. kfalter

    totally agree with your comments about qualitative information as a form of measuring effectiveness. 

  29. Jesse Bouman

    Great presentation. Thanks for posting the video Fred. It was fun seeing the progression of your Prezi with the AVC community. 

  30. Dave W Baldwin

    Great presentation!

  31. Bradley Gauthier

    Great talk! I especially loved the last 30 seconds… young people definitely deserve their place in the marketing world.I’m 25 and I’ve owned an online marketing firm for years now, and the one thing I’ve noticed is having grown up with these new technologies, it’s second nature to me to leverage them for brands. And while I’ve seen seasoned pro’s feel the traditional marketing methods are common sense and typically harness mass media for their advertising efforts, for me, online/social is the natural choice.Thanks for posting this, Fred!Brad

  32. Jon Atrides

    Thanks for sharing the presentation Fred. Completely agree on native monetisation. Engaging the user is now harder than ever and the highest probability of user engagement will be when monetisation is in line with the reason the user visits that specific site.