Anthony Terrizzi

  • Alumni

Submitted

YouTube: Struggling to Monetize Cat Videos
Anthony Terrizzi
Posted on December 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm
After ten years and over one billion active users, YouTube's ad model is still unprofitable.

Activity Feed

On December 13, 2015, Anthony Terrizzi commented on Wikipedia: Information in the 21st Century :

Nice post Prasad. Wikipedia is such an interesting innovation. My favorite part of the business model is that the site attracts university professors, among the most educated people in the world, to share their knowledge for free with the unappreciative masses. I wonder what motivates Wikipedia editors to contribute to the website? It seems like a lot of work for very little reward. I’m surprised that a for-profit competitor hasn’t entered the space and poached editors with a freelance or “get-paid-for-your-contribution” model. Wikipedia would make a great HBS case for understanding human incentives and motivation. #eveythingbecomesLEAD

On December 13, 2015, Anthony Terrizzi commented on Stop The Press! The Financial Times Proves News Publications can be Profitable :

Great post Preeya!

It’s amazing that the FT is still profitable and growing. I agree with Alex’s point; targeting upper-middle class readers has probably been a nice tailwind, particularly for their subscription revenues. After reading this, I was surprised that the FT is still getting most of its revenue from subscription fees and display advertisements. From a monetization standpoint, this space seems ripe for innovation. I’m not sure what innovation might look like, but I think our Facebook case was an interesting preview (targeted lead generation, tracking user movement across the web, etc.). This would be a fun business model to track several years from now.

On December 13, 2015, Anthony Terrizzi commented on The IKEA Concept: Furniture for the Masses :

Thanks for the post Andie! This is definitely a fun business.

It’s interesting that IKEA sources its designs through freelance designers. I wonder what that means in practice? This may just be the cynic in me, but it sounds like a way for IKEA to underpay designers. Given how subjective fashion and design can be, their freelance model probably allows them to pick and choose which design ideas they like and which ideas they dislike. This way, they only pay for good design ideas without paying for bad ideas. If IKEA held salaried designers on staff instead, they’d be paying for all their designers’ ideas, whether IKEA uses them or not. Given the high cost of Swedish labor, this makes great business sense, but I wonder if there are ethical implications.