8 thoughts on “ComScore Widget Metrix, more like a Jellybean Contest”

  1. I wasn’t aware that people have questioned the comScore data in the past. I’ll definitely take a look at those links and try to talk to comScore to figure it all out.

    I agree with you that widgets are definitely needed; and if the opening up recently by Facebook and the response that they had is any indication, it looks like widgets are going to be around for a long time.

    Since web widgets are being used so much, someone has to report the numbers–because those numbers are so useful to advertisers and site owners. Perhaps by comScore tracking this data it might get someone else to start tracking it, as well.

  2. What I found interesting (i.e. disturbing) was that when VentureBeat picked up the Slide aspect of the story, the post title was “Slide pounds chest: Widget used by 14 percent of internet population.”

    Whether or not the comScore numbers are accurate, it worries me that in the current widget environment it’s so easy for someone to make the mental shift to calling comScore’s metric “users,” which implies some sort of active engagement with the widget, when in fact comScore’s metric is “viewers,” i.e. a passive audience that may or may not have even noticed the widget.

    I continue to believe that we’re heading for a widget bubble.

  3. OM – right on brother!!!

    On a related note – if I remember right – you mentioned in your disclosure a while ago that you had an interest in a widget company. Does that still hold – if not I stand corrected. If you are – it only adds credibility to your observations (and assumptions).

  4. yeah, a list with all photo widgets and no video widgets is a pretty strange list.

    youtube and flickr, the widget kings, used widgets/embeds as an acquisition + marketing tool, not a business model. that’s pretty much where the value lies. so it can help the business, but it can’t BE the business..well, unless you’re photobucket…

  5. I don’t see widgets as a simple embed of static pictures, videos, etc. I view widgets as the embedding of distributed programs from other sites. So embedding a static YouTube video or picture wouldn’t count (in my opinion) — that’s just content from another source, which has been happening for years — though embedding a program that allows a user to cycle thru videos/pictures would.

    Maybe the distinction for me is the distributed functionality. If the “widget” is static for everyone and not dynamic or controllable by either the viewer or publisher can tailor it, then it’s content. If it’s dynamic and/or controllable by the view or publisher, then it’s a widget.

    Clearly I’m making this up as I go along, but seems to work for me! 🙂

    That said, you’re right about the business model challenges. It’s best to think about widgets as free ad placement for the publishers, and measure them on that basis — impressions, uniques, conversion, etc. That’s where the value is (though I’m convinced someone will figure out a “meta-ad” model behind it at some point).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.