Google

Google started out as a simple search engine and evolved into a massive corporation. They are the Microsoft of the internet world, in my opinion, and they have a hand in everything from searching the web to mobile phones. Their main revenue is probably from software development and their Android phones. They released their phone OS a few years ago and it gave way to the now popular Droid mobile phone. Google is the most popular search engine on the web by a wide margin. They make money from their "Adsense" program as well. They allow people to place "Google Ads" on their sites that automatically use ads relevant to the website they're placed on. Its interesting how a simple idea for a website like Google can turn into an international corporation with a wide control of the internet. Google also recently bought youtube.

TeeFury

TeeFury is a web based company where they have new daily t shirts up for sale for around 9 dollars. Everyday a new t shirt is posted, only one, and after the day passes its gone. All in all TeeFury.com's mission is to sell you a fun creative t shirt created by artists from all over. Not only do they sell your work on a t shirt but they promote the artist that designed it. They show other works by the artist and a few quick paragraphs from him so you can get a feel about the person that made it, it gives you a closer feel to everything which is a great idea.

Another reason as to why people buy these t shirts is because they are only available for one day and then its gone, most sites have sites up for forever mostly, but the idea that you only have so much time to get this shirt is really smart because you dont want to miss out on it. I know its worked on me, I buy alot of my shirts from this site.

YouTube

I would consider YouTube to be a well-established communication website. As most people know, one can create an account, post videos, and have those videos "liked," "disliked," and commented on. One can also do all these things on other people's videos as well. Youtube puts ads on everyone's videos as well as charges users for a premium accounts so that they can post videos longer than 10 minutes, and this is how they make their income.

YouTube is also now in a partnership/ownership with Google. Every time one logs into YouTube it asks the user to merge their YouTube account with their Google mail account. This opens up the opportunity to send mail to the users gmail account as another means to make income through mail advertisements.

Expedia

My web-based company is called Expedia. It is an online travel company website where people can book their airline tickets, hotel reservations, car rentals, cruises, vacation packages, and various attractions.

Expedia makes money by charging a fee per transaction, by purchasing the travel inventory such as plane tickets and hotel stays from the travel provider at a discounted price and/or by charging the customer a premium on top the original price.

Base on the Wiki analysis, Expedia is struggled to remain profit because of the higher fuel prices and lower consumers demand for travel. Further, Expedia has intensive competitions such as Priceline, Oribitz, and Travelocity that also drive for the same goal discount airlines.

They plan to make a profit by continuing to offer loyalty programs and lots of discount to various marketers ranging from families with children to luxury travelers.

Amazon

Amazon is a well known established online e-commerce company. It was founded in 1994 and launched just a year later in 1995. It is by far one of America's largest online retailer. The company's original plan was different than other online businesses. They did not expect to make a profit for the first four to five years. It slowly but surely grew and stockholders complained the company was not making a profit fast enough. As many online companies went out of business Amazon still stood strong.

They began as an online bookstore for easier convenience. The company was named "Amazon" for being the worlds largest river in hope their business would grow to be just as large. In 2000 Amazon logo had an arrow leading from the letters A to Z. This arrow represents a smile and the letters A to Z was a goal to have every product in the alphabet. Amazon is well-known for just books now so the letters in the logo no longer exist but the arrow for the smile is still there to represent customer satisfaction with a smile. Amazon sells just about everything. They sell products such as books, music, movies, software, electronics, kitchenware, tools, lawn/garden items, toys, baby products, apparel, sporting goods, gourmet food, jewelry, health and personal-care items, beauty products, instruments, clothing, industrial/scientific supplies, and groceries.

Not only can you purchase on amazon but you also sell. Amazon makes money by taking a small percentage of each item sold on the website. Since they get millions of visitors a day they make a huge profit. Their popularity has grown throughout the years as well did their market share. Those who used to sell on ebay now sell on amazon. Amazon is now worldwide and have quickly become a household name

Facebook

Facebook started out with no ads on their site at all. They used to be very strict about it because a lot of the times, ads ruin websites. Once Facebook got popular, they allowed for ads which is where all of their revenue comes from. Companies have to pay a lot of money in order to advertise on the site. The best way for companies to adeverise on the internet is to use word of mouth and that is essentially what Facebook is. That is why a lot of companies make Facebook pages and links to Facebook from their website, so people can post about it and drive up hits to that company's website and increase that company's sales. Owning an account on Facebook is free and there are no service charges. Facebook plans to make $800 million in revenue from ads that appear on their site.

Rue La La

I've been a member of Rue La La for about three years now. Rue La La is a web-based company that is free for users to sign up but can only get involved if invited to join by someone who is already a member. In acualty the site is a collection, a portfolio of different e-commerce companies, that all use the same structure and management team to make online shopping easier for the consumer. They get major private discounts from different brand and designer names from fashion and home.

The company is a division of Retail Convergence.com, LP. They use vouchers for the third parties to use.
"(b) Vouchers. We offer a service on the Site pursuant to which third party sellers of goods, services and/or experiences ("Merchants") present offers ("Offers") for you to purchase vouchers ("Vouchers") redeemable for Merchant goods, services and/or experiences. Vouchers are subject to the limitations described in each Offer at the time of purchase of the Voucher. Without limiting the foregoing, all Vouchers are subject to the additional terms and conditions found thereon as well as all terms and conditions herein. The specific terms of the each Voucher will control in the event of any conflicting terms contained herein, unless prohibited by law. By purchasing a Voucher, you indicate your acceptance of all of the terms and conditions applicable to such Voucher, as set forth in the Offer, on the Voucher, and herein."

Rue La La's partnerships with other e-commerce sites/third parties is their primary way of making money.

Etsy

Etsy is an online site where users can buy and sell handmade crafts, vintage items and craft supplies. Initially I thought all major web-based companies made their money through selling ad space but Etsy has zero ads on their page. It is also free to register with Etsy, but there is a fee for listing a user's goods. For twenty cents a user can list a product they wish to sell for 4 months. If the item is bought, Etsy takes 3.5% of the total sale excluding shipping. Now the majority of items that I've seen listed are way less then $100 making a 3.5% very minimal.

Etsy has a few partnerships that benefit their users, such as; FedEx, Outright, MOO and Aviary. These companies offer discounted services to the users. I believe that these companies give monetary value to Etsy in return for being promoted to the Etsy community. Etsy also promotes these companies through their social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter.

After looking through the entire Etsy site I believe that partnerships are their main way of gaining revenue and keeping the company running. The 3.5% of sold items also adds to the revenue but I think the partnerships are a greater gain.

Assignment for 10/26

Research a well-established communication or web-based company.
Blog about their revenue model: What is their mission? How do they use this to make money or pay the bills? Do they make a profit? Do they have plans to make a profit?

wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica

I really feel like these two aren't so comparable because they are used for two slightly different reasons. Wikipedia is used to obtain information quickly and to have information put in more understandable terms. Encyclopedia Britannica allows you to find more accurate information but doesn't cover as many topics and sometimes isn't up to date. Yes it's true both allow you to do the same thing but usually you have two different purposes in mind.

If someone tells you for instance about a war you have never heard of, for information's sake, you will quickly go to wikipedia to get an idea of what they are talking about and maybe even be able to give input. If you wanted to write a paper for school on that war you will more likely go to encyclopedia britannica for a more in depth or accurate depiction of the war. So to me I think both can easily stick around and while wikipedia might be the more popular choice (for people that just want quick information) it wont always be the only choice. After all anyone can put anything on wikipedia and even with regulation some incorrect facts can be missed by regulators. So technically the more accurate one will always be the one with official information with valid sources and copyrights and all that stuff. But they both are very useful and both serve a purpose people will want to use them for.

Britannica vs. Wikipedia

The way we research and consume information is always changing. Wikipedia sprung up in recent years as a free "open source" so to speak encyclopedia that anyone could change and edit. The drawbacks are that because of the fact that anyone can update any given entry are that obviously, credibility suffers. Educational institutions often won't trust sources from Wikipedia at all because of this. Encyclopedia Britannica has its cons as well. The information is largely static, which is contradictory to the basic nature of the internet.

I believe that there will always be a place for encyclopedias like Britannica, but Wikipedia has already emerged on top as far as the way the average user searches for information. Wikipedia also has a more expansive library of information, and although the entry's are open to editing, its usually regarded as a reliable source among average internet users.

Wikipedia or Britannica

I personally feel that the Encyclopedia Britannica is already being taken over by wikipedia. I can’t tell you the last time I used an Encyclopedia Britannica to reference. I can tell you that the last time I saw the Britannica it was way out dated. Typically, college students such as myself reference scholarly journals and articles on such places like EBSCOhost or Lexus Nexus to get most of our information. Wikipedia is a place where we can grasp the subject matter more quickly. If I have no clue what I am researching, wikipedia gives me a running start so I can have a clue.

I can also use the references that are located at the bottom of the wikipedia page. In some instances, these references may not be accurate. It is up to the reader to determine what to use and what to believe.

I am not saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica will one day mysteriously disappear like the Dodo bird. What I am saying is people would rather have immediate access to information using wikipedia. This may perhaps result in the replacement of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As time goes on, a much younger generation will take over. They might be told to use wikipedia for all information references. Maybe later down the road wikipedia will be replaced with something better.

Their once was a time I listened to music on a Sony walkman. I mean how else would I have listen to music.

Wiki vs Britt

Wikipedia and britt encyclopedia will always have their place and I think neither will push the other one out of the information race. I use Wikipedia on a regular basis to get my information and find it particularly useful for more current events. even though the information is updated by users but I think that's a good thing. If its continually up datable then it will never be outdated. Wikipedia also has a team of monitors that checks the updated information, so even if the information uploaded is false, it will be caught. This method over time can only be improved. Would I/do I use wikipedia for a research paper or use it for a scholoary journal? No but that doesn't mean that the information inst useful.

The encyclopedia is good for definite historical things like art history or etc because they really dont need to be updated like some things do, so I think both sources will have there purpose. The encyclopedia I feel like will be more trusting than wiki on somethings but the encyclopedia can only stretch so far I feel like. You can find probably the same information on Wikipedia but teachers and such I feel will always find as a more creditable source then wiki.

The Wisdom of Others

Online Communities and social networks can take advantage of the wisdom of crowds in numerous ways. Lets take social network marketing for example. If your business is thriving off of the consumer and they are posting comments as to what they would like to see and hear, it would be to your advantage as the marketer to follow or consider the advice.
It is also a way to show the development of trends, new products or entertainment that is slowly, but surely becoming popular. The products or entertainment that is new to the market is going to grow through word of mouth or posting the new found information online. The news will spread and soon a "new discovery" has been made through the popularization of the social networking crowd.
In ten years it is hard to say what will be most accurate. Wikipedia is composed of information added my numerous people but can provide more detailed information about a wider variety of topics since it comes from such a large variety of people. To judge the validity or true accuracy of their statements is the difficult part. Encyclopedia Britannica is something that is consistently updated, maybe not as quickly since it is printed, but can be used a valid source for writing material.

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen

Because I'm a working professional 40-45 hours a week, I can't help but relate discussions to my day-to-day. I read an article recently called, Why Design-By-Committee Should Die and there is quote by Michael Arrington, founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, that really stood out to me, "And when too many people have product input, you’ve got lots of features but no soul."

So in the workforce, just like online communities you run the risk of having too many cooks in kitchen. And when that happens you have to take the good with the bad and be resourceful enough to get a second opinion. Or a third. Or a fourth...

Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia

I feel as though wikipedia is a great resource for finding quick tid-bits about topics one is reasserting it is difficult to say weather or not the information is credible. An argument for wikipedia is that while the content is publicly driven it regulates itself because in people want to divulge the correct information. It also creates and interesting way of documenting history. Instead of few people deciding how history should be written the entire world community can pitch in and argue their point. The danger of a system like this that their are bound to be arguments about how something should be written.
Perhaps a medium between socially driven networks and for professional works like Encyclopedia Britannica could be found. Those who wish to post something on a site could still do so however perhaps wikipedia could have a section for the information that is actually credible and back by professional historians. I feel as though a common grown between the two types of media would be best. However in reality I believe that wikipedia will win out in the end. People are inherently lazy and they will flock to whatever is the easiest way of doing something is. Even if that way might not be the most credible way hence illegally downloading music.

Wikipedia / Britannica

In ten years I truly do believe that Wikipedia will be more accurate than Britannica. I even read a few years ago that Wikipedia already had more correct information on it than Britannica according to some report Google put forth. Even in this class a lot of the sources we read for these blogs are from Wikipedia. And as the audio file from npr.org stated, a lot of journalists and scholars use wikipedia as a primary source, but never admit to it. To be honest, I have gone to wikipedia and read an article searching for answers I needed, found them, and cited the website from which Wikipedia said the information came from; and I'm many others have done the same.

But as far as Wikipedia replacing Britannica goes, I doubt that will ever happen. Sure I believe Wikipedia will be better and more accurate, but there will always be those purists out there who will deny it as a reputable source, and will require students and journalists alike to collect their information from elsewhere. Another interesting point is the Britannica is a ".com" site, where as Wikipedia is a ".org" site. In the past I have been told, when doing research, to never cite a ".com" site, and only to use ".net, .org, or .edu"... So it'll be interesting to see where this goes in the next ten years.

Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia

The public has been using both the Encyclopedia and Wikipedia for information. More people are known to go straight for wikipedia since we most likely hear that rather than encyclopedia online. We can still use both online but it is just instinct to go to wikipedia since there is more talk about it. More people usually use wikipedia quickly and not for indepth research.
Personally I dont think Wikipedia will be taken over by the Encyclopedia because wikipedia isn't as reliable. Since anyone is able to update wikipedia the information can be based on opinions rather than facts, or "facts" that had been heard through stories not actual events. I know I use wikipedia for everyday reference but when I am doing a project and I need real facts I will not use it because of that fact. The way it is set up is a lot easier as well but I know that when it comes to finding real facts I will use what I know I should. I dont see wikipedia ever changing and becoming more accurate so I dont think that the encyclopedia will ever be obsolete.

Wikipedia Will Evolve

Wikipedia is a place where almost all reports are started. If a student is required to do a research paper about something they have no clue about, they go to Wikipedia to get some information and a better understanding of the topic. Wikipedia is hated by teachers and professors for its user input system where anyone can post incorrect information. But what about the correct information. Can you cite Wikipedia if it is correct? I would if I knew I wasn't going to get an "F" for it. So I have to find that information somewhere else and almost lie about my sources so professors see me doing "the right thing" on sourcing. As said in the clip, most scholars rely on Wikipedia, its a dirty secret of theirs.

From this I feel that Wikipedia could evolve into a reputable source for information. It is already a good source for information but it can actually be something worth citing in a research paper. If the information is correct on Wikipedia and the writer using the information is wrong then it is the writer's fault for portraying the wrong meaning. But nonetheless, Wikipedia will evolve into a reputable source and notable asset for a majority of information.

Wikipedia and Britannica

Both Wikipedia and Britannica are used by the general public. Wikipedia is primarily used more by people to answer quick questions and is normally frowned upon in classrooms by teachers and professors alike because the information given on wiki can be changed by anyone who is a member. Britannica is more detailed and researched driven however it is not something that people go to for everyday answers, normally they would go to for projects, research (help included), and other things in this category.

I personally feel that Wikipedia is not going to become more accurate in the next ten years unless they have professionals write the information instead of the general public so that information is not constantly changing because people disagree with what is already posted. Encyclopedia Britannica however might stand the chance of time and become more accurate over the years. The information derived from an encyclopedia is always going to be used by people for research and other information as well.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.britannica.com/