Website visits won't make you money!

The Indian Avinash Kaushik He has a peculiar job title: he's a digital marketing evangelist at Google. Among his responsibilities is studying and speculating about people's online behavior.

For him, measuring a website's success by the number of hits is "stupid." He argues that having loyal readers or customers is far more important.

In this sense, he defends charging for internet content, a strategy adopted by foreign newspapers such as the "New York Times" and, in Brazil, by [name of newspaper missing]. Sheet.

He also criticizes the websites of Brazilian retail companies, which, in his opinion, are not very user-friendly, and claims that Google does not pose a risk to people's privacy on the internet.

Folha – Page views [the “raw” number of pages viewed on a website in a given period] are still a synonym for digital success…

Avinash Kaushik – That's nonsense!

Why? And do you think that's changing?

If you have a website, your advertising return is related to page views. The problem, I think, is what the page view encourages, the mental model it creates.

You can create the dumbest website. People will visit it, but what do you, as a business, gain? I mean, how do you make money?

For example, I love the “New York Times”…

That was the next question…

[Laughs.] I pay to access the “New York Times” online. Wherever I go in the world, news consumption is increasing, even as print disappears.

So, the "Times" can offer stories about Obama's new dog for the sake of viewership. But I don't pay for the dog, I pay for high-quality content.

Online newspapers won't profit from one-time visitors, but from those who visit the site regularly and are willing to pay. Loyalty is what matters.

But, as you yourself point out, advertising revenue is linked to website traffic.

Yes, unfortunately. It breaks my heart that the advertising industry still works in the same old way: a magazine has a certain circulation, so its advertising costs this much and reaches so many people – even if the person doesn't even look at the ad. We went to the internet and the mentality remained the same.

My advice to the media companies: OK, play their game for now, because if you stop playing, you'll go broke. But work hard to find other ways to generate revenue.

It's difficult to say if the paywall is the future. It's working at the New York Times and the Financial Times.

Over time, advertisers will change too. They will see that loyal visitors are an asset to websites – because they are “premium,” because there is no way to find them anywhere else.

How can you be so sure about this future change?

I have children aged 11 and 9. When I say we used to go to record stores, they just don't understand. I say, "But it was gigantic, it had many floors," and they think I'm lying. [Laughs.]

What will it be like when they and their friends are the ones responsible for making decisions in the advertising market?

The other day I went to the market with my daughter and we saw a product for washing your face.

Can you believe she took my phone, pointed it at the barcode, and in seconds a page opened with hundreds of reviews about the product, showing that 6,000 people had liked it on Facebook?

I thought, "What an insane girl, I would never have done that!".

Today, if a company, in any field, doesn't have a digital strategy, it's doomed, it's going to die, it's just a matter of time.

Do retail companies struggle with the internet?

Yes. Look at the American luxury store Neiman Marcus. The cheapest t-shirt costs US$$ 200. But you go there and you feel important. They pamper you, they do everything for you.

But go to their website. It looks like Kmart [popular department store]. I know their offline experience is amazing, but what about my kids, whose first contact with the brand will probably be online? They won't see the point in those prices.

But what exactly can a store do to improve the online "experience"?

We see websites as just a way to receive orders. They need to be more than that.

Let me give you an example: I wanted a red Puma shoe. I checked Google Brazil for the results. On Netshoes, it's okay. It's a bit like Kmart. I was directed to the shoe section, there were several Pumas, that's good…

But check out Zappos.com. They created a special page just for red Pumas, exactly what I wanted! It's amazing, perfect, you feel so happy with them.
Both websites use the same technologies. It's just a matter of wanting to.

Have you seen more websites from here?

Yes. At Submarino, you see, they asked me to install an update on my computer so I could view the site perfectly and make purchases…

Another issue is the presentation on mobile phones. Look at this! [Shows Buscapé, Americanas, and Dafiti.] It's like accessing it from a desktop computer; you can barely see the product.

But Magazine Luiza is especially good for cell phones; the navigation is excellent.

Google and Facebook have been heavily criticized by those who advocate for greater privacy of personal data on the internet.

At Google, privacy is paramount. I can't speak for Facebook. We analyze people's behavior anonymously, helping websites gain insights into their audience.

Anonymous analysis allows us to offer ads related to your interests, and you can disable it if you want.

What does an "evangelist" do?

I help Google's clients understand digital marketing and the data they accumulate about their customer profiles.

Source: Folha de São Paulo

Now it's your turn!

I'd love to hear your opinion in the comments!