I recently read an article about a company compensating people – with virtual cash to buy virtual goods – in exchange for viewing online advertisements. Why would anyone think this is a sustainable business model?

Back in the late-90′s, NetZero provided 100% FREE Internet service to consumers who didn’t want to pay the $19.95 monthly fee to AOL for the same service. Ultimately, you were continually served ads – up top of the screen – for as long as you were logged on.

Well, we know that this model isn’t working for ISP’s around the world – so obviously there was a flaw. Consumers will often tolerate some annoyance – for free stuff – but ultimately this wears off. Further, when consumers are forced to view anything they’re almost always less-inclined to pay attention or click on anything.

Who wins here? The advertiser – who thinks he’s getting exposure – is likely seen as more annoying than helpful or remotely interesting for a potential purchase. The viewer – who thinks he’s getting free stuff – eventually gets bored or annoyed and moves on. The company that came up with the idea gets a quick shot-in-the-arm of business before it all goes away just as quickly. Ultimatley, it just doesn’t work.

Advertising is intended to be targeted and relevant to a target audience. Then, hopefully with enough exposure, they’ll respond and buy. It’s the “buy” that’s most important – as many companies forget that it’s sales that pays the bills and keeps people employed.

Compensating people for viewing ads – unless it’s a market research project – is ultimately a short-lived gimmick that winds up wasting everyone’s time. And worse, it wastes the money of the company that thought it was going to work as a business model in the first place.

Finally Google’s taken, what I consider atleast, a truly huge step in the future of search engine results and marketing. After all, they’ve been reaping huge dividends, for over ten years now, on their original algorithm that put them on the map and made Google a household name.

Their testing of displaying search results, as one types the keywords or phrase into the search engine, is absolutely tremendous for various different reasons.

First, the real-time aspect of being able to quickly see what results will be displayed saves time on the part of searchers worldwide. Speed, after all, is one of the hallmark elements of what’s made the web such a success today.

Second, the advertising aspects are just huge. Ultimately, the real-time element of search results creates additional advertising opportunities for those looking to reach key audiences based on keywords. This is not much different than the current AdWords model – however, the real-time posting and changing of ads based on what searchers type creates a real-time ad serving network that’s more robust than the current AdWords system.

Basically, if someone types in “bicycles” but finds quickly that the search results are not exactly accurate to his / her needs, they may quickly type in a more refined search. This refined search may be based on geographical location – hence helping out the local market – or perhaps they may type in “ny mountain bicycles” and quickly get the results they need.

Ultimately, this refinement in speed and accuracy will bring perhaps better overall conversion of clicks and site visits to purchases. This helps both advertiser, Google, and the economy as a whole as more purchases will transpire. This is a win-win.

Now, the only question is, how long before real-time search results becomes mainstream and the de-facto of a Google search?

Apple is hot right now – there’s no doubt about it. But it’s ventures into the mobile ad world have gotten some heat – apparently due to the time it’s taking to get everything running. I applaud them.

Anyone who’s been kicking around for at least ten years in the Internet sector can tell you that the banner world is basically broken. It’s nothing more than junk – with CPM buys that almost never benefit the advertiser.

Apple’s strict adherance to quality control – combined with their ability to micro-manage every aspect of their universe – is ultimately what leads to their ongoing success. Sure – they have the manpower and pockets to churn things out quickly – but they choose to do it right.

Ultimately, applauding Apple’s efforts in taking their time to do this right is exactly what the online advertising industry needs. Apple stands to give the entire industry a good kick in the pants – simply because they spend the time on details. They appear to be masters at taking something that exists – such as MP3 players – and turning it into a marvel of a business that’s lean and mean and beats the heck out of the competition.

The online advertising sector is broken. The mobile ad business is already fragmented and sloppy – although it’s in it’s infancy. My prediction is that Apple will slowly and methodically take over the space and their business model within the space will be air-tight. Much like it did for the iPod, iPhone and i-everything they put their mark on.

Google’s beyond just the DISH on their TV ad serving platform. They’ve now added DirecTV – a step in the right direction.

As a media buyer, I’ve been waiting two years for Google to expand its reach a bit. I was a big user of their radio ad buying platform for years before they shut it down. So I’m hopeful the addition of DirecTV is going to push them forward at least a little faster.

Google’s got a long way to go. I imagine the next step is to add on the cable networks – which may take another couple of years if the current economy and their deal with DirecTV is any indicator. Then, of course, the networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc.

If you’re bullish is Google, then you likely envision Google having a hand in the advertising you see on the small screen. But could it really take 4 to 5 years for this to come to fruition. That’s a long time.

Google’s got lots of projects – lots of entrepreneurial ventures – so this may or may not be on their short-list. It’s a good project and there’s obviously profits in the TV advertising space. Hopefully, however, they get there quick enough to capitalize on the opportunity.

There’s just too much potential federal regulation looming on the online advertising sector. Privacy, tracking, involvement at the federal level – it’s just not good.

ASq – a venture by Microsoft, Yahoo! and Hulu – lets users choose the ads they will be served. Recent research has shown that when users are given the ability to choose their ads, they’re twice as likely to click on the ad and visit the site. That’s the whole point, right? Response.

Ultimately, ASq is a step in the right direction given the current economy and the consumer’s view on evil online advertising. Even if, however, online advertising is growing at a faster pace than all other media. It’s still evil, right? Maybe not.

By giving the consumer a choice, they’re incorporating the consumer into the process. It’s less intrusive, more targeted, and potentially more lucrative for the advertisers themselves. The consumer is no longer just a set of eyeballs – but an engaged and active participant in the process. Furthermore, they’re twice as likely to move from prospect to customer.

With all the recent talk about Google needing to pull a card out of their sleeve – kudos should be given to Microsoft, Yahoo! and Hulu for being first to market with ASq. It sounds like it’s got the makings of a win-win for both the consumer public and advertisers (and maybe even shareholders).

The Federal Trade Commission is considering implementing a way to allow users to opt out of behavioral tracking across the Web. In my opinion, very premature and not needed.

As a marketer, I’m the first to say that marketers can often get out of control when something shows signs of working. Quite frankly, we go too far and often don’t police ourselves properly. However, additional government-level control is not needed.

The Do-Not-Call list has ultimately decimated an industry of consumer phone solicitation. CAN SPAM – while arguably necessary – appeared to be likely the result of just a few “bad apples”. Going down the list of government-monitored marketing initiatives, it’s only a matter of time before marketing is a career of the past.

The Internet is still in its infancy – and behavioral tracking is quite new and not implemented by most firms. As a marketer, I can easily argue that tracking activity leads to more thoughtful and targeted future marketing to individuals – rather than just blasting them with offers they have no interest in.

What I personally find ironic is that political spending on advertising is way up when elections roll around. But couldn’t one make the argument that Democrats don’t want to see Republican ads – continually in their face? Obviously, the reverse would be true for Republicans. So why type of advertising any less intrusive, offensive, or any better? At least behavioral tracking will ensure that Republicans only see Republican-focused ads.

As a person who’s been active in education, as an adjunct professor for a few NYC universities over the past 10 years, my experience has been that students are embracing interactive marketing and social media education beyond traditional marketing.

Ultimately, the students benefit from the real-world exposure that’s timely for their current and future careers. Given that social media tends to be mastered by many youths, social media often fits into their job descriptions at internships before leaving college.

This is not to say the fundamentals of traditional media and marketing should not be learned as it helps build the foundation for why interactive marketing and social media work so well. After all, it’s a different media or method but the basic principles of marketing are still the same.

My findings have been that students tend to embrace this type of learning because it captures their attention for immediate use. Not unlike learning a trade, on the job training, or continuing education which is very popular among adult learners and master’s degree programs.

Ultimately, if the student is engaged in the topic, they’ll do well from both an academic and practitioner perspective. So the more we teach about Internet Marketing and Social Media in the classrooms, we’re helping along the workforce and future employers of these students. Truly a win-win.

So I’ll add to the constant mix of people that have an idea on Facebook – more specifically, what can ruin them, further expand them, etc.

I’ll start by giving some much-earned respect to Facebook as it’s undoubtedly lead a culture-changing phenomenon on a worldwide basis. Not since we started “Googling”, has something so big and wide-spread happened. Kudos to them.

As a follower of the Facebook model and happenings, many talk of the various initiatives that may indeed do Facebook in. They include open-source social networking, Google finally doing social networking right, gaming, local-social networking like FourSquare and many others.

If I go back 12 years in my time machine, I personally remember people talking about the potential demise of Amazon. Obviously, it didn’t happen and they emerged as one of the greatest e-tailers of all time.

Then if I go back around 7 years, people were looking for the Google-killer. It didn’t happen – so perhaps I’m just making an argument that it’s tough to be King and at the top of your game. Someone’s always looking to de-throne you.

When I look at Facebook, I see a 500 million-strong machine that’s absolutely ready for sale. To whom, I have no idea – but I think that the founder has done what he’s set-out to do. Quite simply, make big change and perhaps pocket a few billion bucks in the process.

Why now? I see it at the Apex – it’s probably as far as it’s going to go. Not to mention, there’s just too many new and fun ideas out there to jump on. Not to mention all those looking forward to your demise. Like a great actor, jump out while you’re at the top. Get top money, come back and live to fight another day.

After all, what’s wrong with being a billionaire in your mid-twenties and continuing your quest in changing the world – just in a different way?

It’s hard to deny mobile represents a large part of the Internet future. PDA’s are getting smaller and smaller – and into the hands of more and more people. Folks are browing the web on these mobile devices and relying on them more and relying less on their laptops and other home computers.

As a business owner, you may be wondering if it’s time to make your website mobile-optimized. Not a bad idea – and a small and somewhat inexpensive step in jumping onto the mobile bandwagon.

Getting a developer to optimize your site for mobile may cost you just a few hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on the depth and complexity of your site. However, like all expenses, it can be justified by measuring the additional business (or traffic) you might receive by having a mobile-optimized site in the first place.

If you’re missing out on opportunities, it’s a no-brainer. If your target market is a consumer-oriented, younger-demographic, it’s also a no-brainer because they are on their mobile-devices much more than their home computers in general. The case for having a mobile-optimized site gets greater as you crunch the numbers.

Eventually, you’ll want to start thinking of having an app (or more) on your site to further engage your target audience. Right now, however, the app pool is becoming crowded and many sites are developing apps just for the sake of doing it. Kind of like what folks did with Blogs a couple years back. But if you can cost-effectively develop an app that can live on your site that adds value to your visitors then you have another expense that can be easily justified.

Much has been debated on whether or not the Internet will remain free. It appears it’s often a debate between those where the glass is always half-full and those where it’s always half-empty.

Nonetheless, I’m of the mindset that we’ve been getting a great freeview for about ten-plus years now. Ultimately, our email, our browsing of sites and now even social media has been free. This big freebie is typically the compliments of display advertising. However, as a marketer, I strongly feel the advertising-only revenue model just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Without getting into details on the above, I’ll stick to my point that ultimately I can see our e-mail transmission costing us. That’s right – you may think twice in the future before you forward that chain e-mail to 50 of your closest friends because it may prove to not be worth it. We’ll see.

Moving on to browsing and visiting sites, ultimately, sites need to monetize their web presence, so visiting sites should be free. However, the amount of time you spend online might not be. You may ultimately pay a token amount on the time spent online. Those logging-in – pretty much sporadically all throughout the day – may also think twice should their time spent cost money. After all, AOL used to give our 20 hours of free Internet – and I’m not sure this model should have ever died.

Then, of course let’s remember the premium services like logging on via your smart-phone. Quickly becoming a must-have, I see twenty-somethings all over the place browsing as if they’re at work. Sometimes they ARE at work. This trend won’t die – so why not monetize it by charging for this premium service?

I’ll end with a no-brainer – and include social networking. How can Facebook offer to host some folks’ entire lives – their life database of friends and family – and keep all of it in one organized place for free? This would also fall into the premium category – and ultimately might become a paid-service.

Now, I know that some might angrily say “I won’t pay for the web! Never!” Maybe you won’t, but I think you might. After all, the web as it stands today won’t be the web you feel is worth paying for in the future. The web will evolve – as will mobile browsing, social networking, etc. – and if you refuse to pay then you’ll be out of the loop.

Facebook has already proven that about 75% of the nation wants very-much to be “in the loop”. So, in my humble opinion, all that needs to be done is a little additional programming and feature-adding – as well as giving the pricing addition a little time to “breathe” and before long we’ll all be paying about $20 monthly for all the added features the Internet brings us throughout our day.