Popularity isn’t everything
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123335678420235003
It is common to learn and reason about various topics’ implementation and subsequent impact in the real world; of course, everything works out when the context one is considering is ideal. Likewise then, it is also prominent to find that the projected results from this thinking differ from what occurs. Such is the case discussed in this article from The Wall Street Journal, specifically regarding Google’s PageRank and click-through rates at Facebook. The former deals with measuring the importance of pages based on endorsement from other (popular) pages, while the latter impacts how advertisement slots are sold and modeled by prospective buyers. Intuition would suggest that these two could be linked positively: a high number of clicks from a prominent set of websites would lead to an increase in traffic to a startup’s website–but does that necessarily mean that the company in turn will benefit?
The answer to that question according to the article is no, given the business environment of the modern-day Internet. All companies with little capital are able to get a website running, so the issue of not having any publicity due to insufficient means is lessened. Furthermore, once potential customers reach a site, what causes inclination to buy? Such a question even existing is sufficient reason for why solely securing ad slots with high click-through rates does not guarantee success. As the article states, ad revenue for smaller, startup companies–even for a good month–are not enough to sustain what it costs for the slots to begin with. Yet all of this talk is not to suggest that PageRank and click-through rates are not important; instead, the article serves to shed light on the fact that popularity is not everything: a successful company still requires much of the reliable methodology from the pre-Internet days, like a sound business model.