The New Economics of Valuelessness
Reader J.S. writes “I thought you may not have seen this but I know you are a big twitterer so you may see this differently.” This is an article making the case that Twitter should be eager to accept a purchase offer since ultimately there’s no revenue stream behind it:
The blogosphere was all atwitter over the weekend with news that Google (NSDQ: GOOG) is close to offering a lot of money for Twitter. I know I’m going to get dinged for saying it, but I think the company’s founders should take the offer, whatever the price. [...] And, when matched against the potentially cosmic implications of ubiquitous social/search, Twitter might be only one mechanism in search of an issue (or issues) to resolve. Sure, it’s immediate and quick, but what exactly does Twitter really own?
That seems entirely reasonable to me. I think that the true essence of the “new economy” of the digital era is that there will be lots of activity going on that people enjoy and find useful, but that has very little in the way of economic value that’s captured by profit-making firms. The quintessential enterprises of this era are things like Wikipedia, which may no money, or CraigsList which makes a very modest sum of money, even while they both revolutionize certain spheres of endeavor. Certainly the revenues associated with CraigsList are tiny compared with the revenues that used to exist in the rapidly-dying newspaper classified ad market.
Twitter seems like something that could become extremely widespread, and that lots of people could receive a small-but-real amount of daily enjoyment from, all without ever generating much money. And I think that will be pretty typical of the digital realm. The fact that Google itself is a very successful company sometimes serves to obscure the fact that the total amount of money being made off the internet is pretty small considering how ubiquitous internet use has become. Ultimately, I think understanding this growing de-linkage between value and monetizability, or perhaps between “use value” and “exchange value” as Marx would say, is important to understanding the world we’re increasingly living in.
63 Responses to “The New Economics of Valuelessness”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 9th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I bet the assholes at Facebook are going to regret not having cashed in while they could.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ultimately, I think understanding this growing de-linkage between value and monetizability, or perhaps between “use value” and “exchange value” as Marx would say, is important to understanding the world we’re increasingly living in.
Sure. Do you have any concrete suggestions for the new model that will provide a way for writers and artists to pay their rent?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I bet the assholes at Facebook are going to regret not having cashed in while they could.
I’m missing the point…by charging money to use Facebook, or by not buying Twitter? You are aware that Facebook is wholly owned by Google, right?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
If Google is really the NSA front it behave like though… it all makes sense.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I think Krugman made this point years ago – new technologies are often far more transformative than their profits would suggest. Electricity really did unleash a revolution in production and consumption, but utilities aren’t the biggest, richest firms today (though I take it they were more powerful in the mid-20th century).
April 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
James Gary:
Facebook is not wholly-owned by Google. Facebook could have cashed in by accepting a $1 billion bid from the idiots at Yahoo!
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/09/ff_facebook
April 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
You are aware that Facebook is wholly owned by Google, right?
LOL!
http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/google-buys-facebook-796
Check the publication date. Big FAIL, JG.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Take the money and run. The smartest (luckiest) guy of all the Internet “moguls” was Mark Cuban who parlayed an essentially valueless company into multi-millions. Almost all of the best plays of the Internet era have been finding someone willing to pay through the nose for something with marginal, at best, long term prospect for profitability.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Big FAIL, JG.
Whoops! Yep.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Sure. Do you have any concrete suggestions for the new model that will provide a way for writers and artists to pay their rent?
Aggressively licensing product to corporations/advertisers.
Cultivating fan bases willing to pay to support their favorite artists.
Day jobs.
Do YOU have any suggestions? Because this is all I’ve come up with in my short time outside of the academy.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It should be noted that Craigslist is not profit-maximizing. It’s entirely possible that without Craig, some other firm would have come up with the idea of creating a catch-all classified website for individual cities, destroyed the newspaper, and made billions of dollars in the process. Indeed, it’s possible that someone may still do it, or that after Craig decides to stop running Craigslist, the new owners decide they’re going to try to make money, etc.
Wikipedia is of course much different.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The social surplus generated by the internet is obscene. It’s something like 3-6% of GDP, which pales in comparison to the amount of revenue it generates even if you include telcos.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
it’s possible that someone may still do it, or that after Craig decides to stop running Craigslist, the new owners decide they’re going to try to make money, etc.
How easy it would be for someone else to undercut a hypothetical fee-charging Craiglist seems an open question. Similarly, I don’t know if I’d actually pay to be on Facebook— since I imagine a lot fewer people would use it if it cost money. In both cases, the “free” model seems absolutely integral to the continuing success of the thing.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The problem with that is that Twitter isn’t free (or even near free) to operate. It requires major investment in servers and Bearded Tech Guys to keep up and running, and that’s just with a tiny fraction of the online population using it — the costs would be exponentially higher if the use volume was the same as, say, email. Somebody has to pay for all that.
It’s possible to imagine a model where it’s paid for the same way email is paid for — a distributed network of companies all pay a share of the freight, hiring their own BTGs and running their own servers, to provide service to their customers/employees/users. But Twitter won’t be that model, it’s a centralized service where all the expense is borne by one company.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
How would this occur? Do you mean that it would continue as it is, not making much money and still being very popular, if it were bought out by a biggie like Google?
If not, how will it become a self-sustaining company “without ever generating much money”? The VCs, the Angels, and all the other investors are going to be looking for returns somewhere down the line. And operating costs for good employees and hundreds and then thousands of servers are not insubstantial. Cox et al know they have to develop a robust revenue model. They’re just doing it slowly, on their terms, while continuing to leverage their exploding popularity.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I’ve twatted.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
ha, well said, sameasiteverwas.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
No money in tweets? You gotta be kidding me. I remember people saying there was no money in web searching, what mattered was content delivery!
Tweeter users tweet on the street, on their phones. Phones are always on and at known locations all the time. Tweet users leave a record of exactly what they are doing at every moment.
Here’s one model for making a profit. Send tweet: Hungry? Mo’s is offering Burgers for $4 to everyone with a movie ticket stub, we’re only one block away!” To everyone who has tweeted with “movie” or “metreon” or “Folsom and fourth” or “Love you Man” in the past two hours. (ok i don’t have a future in writing ad copy, but that should give the idea)
Perfectly targeted and timed advertising. And they wont make a profit?
April 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
And the fact that Google is profitable obscures the fact that almost all of its profits come from a tiny amount of the stuff it does (mostly paid clicks on search ads), and almost everything else comes out neutral or loses money.
Google basically found one really good thing to monetize, and has been funding a bunch of not-very-profitable experiments with the cash it gets from that. I consider it a great deal for pretty much everyone.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Rather than just summing myself up….
April 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Off topic for Matt:
I heard, early this morning, very groggy, that Fannie is not going to accept condo mortgages if the building is less the 71% sold. This is up from 50%. (Again I was groggy numbers might b way off.)
This seems to be a disaster for urban development. In a better organized world shouldn’t Fannie be increasing its portfolio of urban mortgages, not decreasing it?
Is there any pushback from urban congress on this?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
James Gary Says: I don’t know if I’d actually pay to be on Facebook— since I imagine a lot fewer people would use it if it cost money. In both cases, the “free” model seems absolutely integral to the continuing success of the thing.
This is a good point. When people are used to getting something for free, then you attempt to charge them for it – some significant portion will defect to competition – as long as there is competition.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Here’s one model for making a profit. Send tweet: Hungry? Mo’s is offering Burgers for $4 to everyone with a movie ticket stub…Perfectly targeted and timed advertising. And they wont make a profit?
Yeah, deluging Twitter users with constant targeted spam is a sure path to success.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Matt’s made the point before that “information” will become free, as opposed to other sectors of the economy, and there he gave the production of art and music as an example. The trouble with this idealism is that more and more of the economy is information, and that creativity that can never reach remuneration short of attaining superstar status is going to take its toll on both the creative individuals and on the state of the art. Arguably, it already has in the fine arts, with the divide between struggling artists and superstars leading to bloated, empty, dispersed work.
But more important, people need to earn a living. It sounds nice to put it in Marxist terms of eating away at market value as a standard compared to use value. But in practice it’s not a leftist vision that no one gets paid for working long hours. The vision of reporters doing their job at night while working in something outside information, such as automobile manufacturing, would be ludicrous even if there was much future in America for manufacturing. But then Matt’s already expressed the usual blogger disdain for the real reporting on which blogger commentary feeds.
As for the average worker, much less artists and writers, forget about it. Am I wrong to be scared, or sickened?
April 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
But in practice it’s not a leftist vision that no one gets paid for working long hours.
Disagree. One of Marx’s main points is limiting the amount of time one has to spend laboring for in wage in order to free up time to devote one’s labor to more personal interests.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
The smartest (luckiest) guy of all the Internet “moguls” was Mark Cuban who parlayed an essentially valueless company into multi-millions.
Let’s not forget Steve Case. And Jeff Bezos looks to be having the last laugh, too.
The problem with that is that Twitter isn’t free (or even near free) to operate. It requires major investment in servers and Bearded Tech Guys to keep up and running, and that’s just with a tiny fraction of the online population using it — the costs would be exponentially higher if the use volume was the same as, say, email
Surely you don’t mean exponentially higher, do you? I can’t imagine why economies of scale wouldn’t eventually be brought to bear, especially as Twitter matures, and finds ways to be more efficient. Anyway, I don’t Twitter, but don’t they sell ads? And if not, can’t they eventually start doing so? I can’t imagine Nike, say, wouldn’t be interested in connecting with the consumers of Lebron James’s tweets, or the DNC in Matthew Yglesias’s.
I bet the assholes at Facebook are going to regret not having cashed in while they could.
Maybe. But they just passed 200 million users, and it’s not like they’re generating zero revenue. Perhaps they’ll never approach late 1990s Microsoft-levels of profitability, but I don’t see why they couldn’t have a billion users or more in another decade. That’s a lot of eyeballs, or potential shoppers.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
As for the average worker, much less artists and writers, forget about it. Am I wrong to be scared, or sickened?
Yes! There’s no point in being scared or sickened when one can easily numb the pain with alcohol or drugs!
April 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
It seems to me that Google is paying for access to all the valueless information that people send through twitter. But it’s not valueless if you organize and mine it for information.
There’s a lot of information out there that I think would be valuable to people if they knew it was available. For instance, a research paper found that Google searches of stock tickers predicted stock price moves in some meaningful ways. That’s just one example, but the key is you aren’t paying the users to get what they consider to be pretty useless information. But when aggregated, something of value could be found.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I don’t disagree with Matt’s point, but the two examples he chose are interesting corner cases that don’t necessarily fit so well into the general mold. Craiglist made a fairly conscious decision to destroy the for-pay classified advertising business and redistribute most of the value in the industry as consumer surplus. Obviously their no-fee model accounts largely for their success, but they could be making quite a bit more money than they are.
Ditto for Wikipedia. They have enormous traffic, low overhead, and are the top Google search result in an astounding breadth of categories. The advertising potential is insane.
Basically, both craigslit and Wikipedia are run by techno-hippies. Good for us, but not really inherent to their businesses.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yeah, deluging Twitter users with constant targeted spam is a sure path to success.
Oh I dunno. If it’s done very subtly and unobtrusively, I suspect most users of the service wouldn’t have a huge problem with it. How many users of Google loathe the (let’s face it, fairly unobtrusive) text ads enough to stop googling? Similar with Facebook. Yes, I’m outraged that my JLo tweets invite me to check out ITunes!
Wikipedia is of course much different.
That site is simply astonishing. I’m utterly addicted to it, and my use wouldn’t diminish in the least were they to run unobtrusive text ads. They’re leaving gazillions on the table. Amazing degree of public-spiritedness!
April 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
When you consider the value that has been created, then entrepreneurs who actual invent stuff and bring it to market don’t capture anywhere near the value that is created for society. It is one of the reasons capitalism is really such a great system.
The internet is just the most recent, most obvious example. Having companies last long periods of time being worth a whole lot really is the exception and tend to have some unusual feature. Like the fact that once people get used to drinking Cokes, they have a hard time stopping. Or if you are the only one that has access to the information, you have a monopoly on that information, can mine for data, and make a lot of money ala Google.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
1. WP certainly brings in a good chunk of change.
2. WP gives good links to a small set of sites that are certainly a valuable commodity.
3. I’m sure Twitter could be monetized in various creative ways.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
How many users of Google loathe the (let’s face it, fairly unobtrusive) text ads enough to stop googling? Similar with Facebook.
Semi-OT: The text ads on Google don’t bug me. All that bottom-feeding crap (”New York Accident Lawyers!”) on Facebook, however, bugs me quite a bit. I suppose it’s the presence of graphics that does it.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Semi-OT: The text ads on Google don’t bug me. All that bottom-feeding crap (”New York Accident Lawyers!”) on Facebook, however, bugs me quite a bit.
I agree FB could probably stand to tighten up their standards — some of their ads are rather bottom-feedish and cheesy. Still, I tend to ignore the crap, and use the site because of its utility. I think that’s the key — if people really get used to using a service, and find it difficult to go without — they’ll put up with it.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
While the revenue of Craigslist is unimpressive, it’s a freakishly efficient enterprise. It pulls in an estimated $80 million in revenue and only has ~28 employees. Pulling down almost $3 million an employee is not chump change. It could easily boost up the revenue number if it would like, but for a techno-hippie, Craig Newmark (who is a libertarian, BTW), is running a very smart business. A lot of internet companies would be wise to use the efficient cost model rather than blowing tons of cash hiring people and not growing profitably.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It’s strange how i find matt’s twitter feed much more enjoyable than his blog nowadays. His april fools twittering was pretty top notch.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Imagine the arguments 100 years ago to Hearst: You are going to write stories about what is happening politically in europe and weird places like the philipines. You’re going to pay to send writers and photographers all over the globe and all over town, then pay phone and telegraph costs to get the story out every day.
And do what for money? Sell this thing you call a newspaper at a loss on every copy? Then sell classified ads, to recoup the difference. Hah. That’ll never work!
Sure the model broke when the newspaper owners hugely leveraged their papers at exactly the moment when the classified business got pummeled by the internet. But that was consolidation and really stupid biz (and banking) decisions, compounded by technology change, not a model failure.
No biz will pummel its customers with ads. Every biz will look for the sweet spot. Just short of a pummel. Put too many ads in and you get TiVo, but then you relocate ads to the content (product placement). Google had no ads now every google search has ~5 per page. Does it bother you? Enough to go elsewhere? Tweeter has to figure out what the sweet spot is, but it may be able to do this person by person.
(i’ve tweeted exactly twice and not on facebook, perhaps facebook is on the wrong side of the line, or their v.c.s want revenue too fast.)
Its a very sound biz model. And the fact that they are building the audience base before getting revenue: smart.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
A lot of internet companies would be wise to use the efficient cost model rather than blowing tons of cash hiring people and not growing profitably.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to run something like Facebook or even Twitter on that kind of model. Craigslist really is pretty much rock-bottom in terms of simplicity and bandwidth requirements.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
It’s strange how i find matt’s twitter feed much more enjoyable than his blog nowadays. His april fools twittering was pretty top notch.
I was just looking for it. Do I click “follow” on Matt’s Twitter page to subscribe? The mimimalist Twitter interface is hard for me to figure out.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Mo @35 mentions as an aside that Craig Newmark is a libertarian. If I’m not mistaken, Jimbo Wales is or was an Objectivist–maybe he’s moderated to libertarianism by now. In any case, these two guys seem to be evidence that not all (probably just most) libertarians are cheer-leaders and fig-leaf-painters for plutocracy: some of them just are really keen on enabling people to freely contract or inform themselves and on not being told what to do.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Maybe there’s no need to resort to a lot of pompous Marxian blah about use-value and exchange-value. Maybe it’s just a real world example of the textbook perfect competition model. Open entry and intense competition drive economic profits to zero, while consumers benefit from the lowest possible price.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
The logical corollary of “Twitter should sell at ANY price” is “Twitter is worthless,” which might not be obviously idiotic but is idiotic nonetheless. Twitter Search is like Google in real time.
It’s not clear they’re holding out for ridiculous sums anyway. I think Twitter’s last investment round was at a $200-$300m valuation, which is a far cry from the $15b (or was it $10) implied by Microsoft’s investment in Facebook.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
You are aware that Facebook is wholly owned by Google, right?
Takes a big man to linger in the thread after that.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
One assumption that everyone seems to be making is that Twitter can only get revenue via some sort of interaction with the end user, e.g. advertisements. But I wonder if Twitter could make money by selling what’s essentially real-time marketing information to advertisers and research firms and such.
For example, in PPM’s movie scenario, instead of sending an ad to the end user, Twitter could do some data mining for all Tweets containing “i love you man” to yield a real-time snapshot of “word of mouth” about the film–information that a movie studio would probably pay money for. (Of course, a problem with this is that all Tweets are already Google-able anyway, so you could just do the data mining yourself… so Twitter would have to make some changes in order for that story to be possible.)
Another example might be to follow the iPhone app store model and allow people to buy and sell things over Twitter, with Twitter taking a cut off the top of every transaction. This would be unobtrusive to the end users, since you could simply unfollow any commerical Twitter feed that annoys you.
And there are other possibilities, too, that could leverage things like GPS. For example, I always thought a cool service would be if you’re standing in a Best Buy or something about to purchase a TV, and you text the service which searches to see if a nearby competitor will underbid the Best Buy price (and if so, the TV would be waiting for you at the nearby store). This could be an “app” (really more a service) that uses the Twitter “platform”, with Twitter somehow getting a piece of the action.
So, anyway. To me it looks like that if Twitter takes off, it will be the socially networked interface for text-message-style communication, in the same way that Facebook became, among other things, the socially networked interface for email-style-communication (for people my age–I’m 27–email is still the dominant way of getting in touch with people, but teenagers rarely use email, instead doing all their email-syle communication through Facebook). Surely that can be monetized, although just not via the usual route of “unobtrusive” advertisements, which are impossible in Twitter’s low-bandwidth environment.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I think you’re missing something here, Matt, or else you’re deliberately ignoring it. The internet is not an immaterial ether. It costs money to run. The services that use it also require staffing, computers, data centers, and lots of electric power and wiring. But we get it for free! How come? Where is that written? Why does the modest revenue (compared to the size of the enterprise) have to come from ADVERTISING, which already poisons our TV and radio signals with endless messages full of falsehoods?
The economic model of the internet is skewed by the fact that the government has subsidized it for a long time in the laudable interests of seeing it grow rapidly. But at some point, this economic model may have to change.
Personally, I’d be happy to pay a tenth of a penny, or even a penny, to send an email. In fact, I’d be ecstatic, because an e-postal fee would put spammers out of business.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
You are aware that Facebook is wholly owned by Google, right?
Takes a big man to linger in the thread after that.
I got nothing I need to prove. Especially, I might add, on blog comment threads.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Always has to do with Craigslist in one way or another…
April 10th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Мне кажется это не совсем точно. На эту тему имеется несколько мнений. И у каждого человека со своим мировоззрением свое мнение.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Электронные системы набирают обороты. Уже столько девайсов и новшеств развилось, что я иногда когда смотрю новости с трудом вербю в то, что происходит в современной жизни. Сегодня показывали реальнодействующего японского робота, который по может помогать старикам, выполняя все домашнюю работу. Он даже может отличить грязную рубашку от читстой.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Hmmm, sent this to note to MY and went to Philly for the day.
Very interesting discussion, except for these last two Russian comments.
After seeing Independence Hall (very small, last time I saw it was as a kid), it seems to me that those guys also made some important contributions to humanity that weren’t necessarily compensated economically.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Вчера шел по улице, капал дождь и только на секунду я понял, как класно жить и ходить по земле. Мы за всеми нашими проблемами, и этой тоже, иногда забываем о совсем обыденных вещах – о людях, которые возле нас, о мире, который нас окружает. Главное токо по сторонам смотреть, в такие моменты чтобы под колеса не угодить. А так 100% отдых и релакс от природы получить можно, главное постараться.
April 11th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Ваш блог, естественно, очень полезен. Сам иногда пользуюсь информацией, которая размещена на подобных блогах. Хочу заметить, что такие блоги не только познавательны, но и довольно популярны в современном Интернете. Побольше бы их. Конечно, остаются некоторые вопросы, которые хотелось бы уточнить, но уверен что смогу их решить при следующем посещении. Думаю, многие согласны со мной. Распространение подобной информации – дело благородное и требующее достойного внимание со стороны заинтересованных лиц. Сейчас вынужден покинуть данный блог, но уверен что на днях не один раз посещу его. Спасибо.
April 11th, 2009 at 8:36 am
A slightly old fashioned view of economics has it that money is only a representation of value – that a dollar represents a rate of exchange guaranteed by the government. But there can be other rates of exchange – it doesn’t have to be money and it does not have to be guaranteed by the government. So, with this discussion of Twitter (which appears to be an evolving biological mechanism) maybe what is at issue is something that represents non-dollar value in itself. What kind of economic reasoning applies to a new form of value? Eye-share, mind-share….these appear to be something people are rewarded by. Not having the energy to think this through completely let’s just say that sugar is sweet without government intervention. Maybe Twitter is some kind of home made sugar?
April 12th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Пусть и не скромно начинать комментарий с комплимента, но у Вас достаточно приятно побывать в гостях. Пишите Вы, как я вижу, не очень быстро, но с другой стороны, это ведь тоже не плохо. ИМХО это лучше, чем писать всякую ерунду или просто копировать свои тексты с чьих-либо лент. А вот насчет комментариев, тут да, у Вас иногда такие дискуссии разгораются, что прямо даже удивительно. На ровном месте. Еще зайду как-нибудь.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Да, столько кофе пить нельзя. Выпил чашечку какого-то бразильского собственной заварки уже три страницы блогов из Яндекс блоги пролистал. Конечно, ведут их школьники частень, ну по крайней мере так кажется на первый взгляд, но спорить стем, что грамотные мысли тоже бывают там не буду. У Вас тоже ничего, со вкусом. Но от дизайна как раз не все зависит, хотя в приятных тонах которые не режут глаз все же приятнее читать и листать. Еще загляну на днях. пока всем
April 13th, 2009 at 10:39 am
James Gary Says:
“Sure. Do you have any concrete suggestions for the new model that will provide a way for writers and artists to pay their rent?”
That’s always been a problem for writers and artists, unless they’re doing purely commercial work-for-hire. The majority of writing is done for personal reasons, and doesn’t get published. Most of what is published doesn’t make the author that much, and doesn’t lead to a paid career as a writer. Similarly for art.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Прикольно, такое не часто прочитаешь. Не всякий дурак до такого додумается. Да если бы это было кому-нибудь интересно, наверное было бы больше комментариев.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Да написано неплохо, неужели так бывает. Как интересно, только вчера эту тему перетирала с подругой сидя на кухне с рюмочкой коньяка.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Всегда можно найти компромиссы и прийти к общему решению. Если вам что-нибудь не нравится попробуйте что-нибудь другое.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Доброе время суток! Сегодня, пользуясь дружественным дизайном этого блога, открыл для себя большое количество доселе неизвестных вещей. Можно сказать, что я существенно отстал в данной тематике в виду её постоянного развития, но всё же блог мне напомнил о многом и открыл новую, можно даже сказать, таинственную информацию. Раньше я часто пользовался информацией подобных блогов, но в последнее время настолько сильно зарапортовался, что нет времени даже зайти в аську… что говорить уже о блогах… Но всё равно спасибо создателям. Блог очень полезный и смышлёный.
April 19th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Да, столько кофе пить нельзя. Выпил чашечку какого-то бразильского собственной заварки уже три страницы блогов из Яндекс блоги пролистал. Конечно, ведут их школьники частень, ну по крайней мере так кажется на первый взгляд, но спорить стем, что грамотные мысли тоже бывают там не буду. У Вас тоже ничего, со вкусом. Но от дизайна как раз не все зависит, хотя в приятных тонах которые не режут глаз все же приятнее читать и листать. Еще загляну на днях. пока всем
April 19th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Не очень понятно о чем идет речь, хотелось бы более обширнее получить информацию о данной теме.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Прикольно, такое не часто прочитаешь. Не всякий дурак до такого додумается. Да если бы это было кому-нибудь интересно, наверное было бы больше комментариев.