I’m often asked what sources I use to keep up with the interactive marketing industry. One of my favorite printed publications is Business 2.0. Josh Quittner (editor) recently wrote an article on Web 2.0 that I thought was interesting. In the article Josh talks about the reasons that this recent internet boom is different, and more likely to last, than the boom we experienced in the late 90’s. A few of his points I really like.

He states that most of us won’t get too hurt this time but then again, most of us won’t get too rich this time either. Start-ups today are not trying to build until they can IPO, but rather are “built to flip”, meaning their goal is to quickly be bought by one of the “sugar daddies” of Web 2.0: Google, Yahoo, AOL or Microsoft.

He also talks about how the smarter Web 2.0 companies understand today’s users and actually get them to produce the content and create the environment by which their business lives. In the old days, the plan was to raise as much VC money as possible and staff up. Today, its grow by adding as little overhead as possible. You might say that in the past the mantra was “build it and they will come”, whereas today its “they will come if you let them build it”.

Which leads me to the last point that Josh makes that I agree is the real difference with today’s boom…today’s start-ups are focused on (GASP) profit! However, he’s quick to point out that in lieu of a profit at the very least these companies focus on the number of users that actively use their service, so then they can leave the profit-making part to one of the sugar daddies.

And I think Google really set the stage for that change (either make a profit or get the traffic to then make a profit - typically through advertising around the eyeballs). Mark Cuban, another person I read frequently to get a different perspective on the industry, wrote on his blog recently about the possibility of Google entering the online music space. Essentially he speculates that Google might decide to compete with Itunes (Apple) and Zune (Microsoft) and completely disrupt the online music world by giving away music and selling ads to make their revenue. It’s the same thing Google did with YouTube - find a way to get your ads in front of the most eyeballs and you win. Imagine if you could buy a similar device to the iPod and your monthly subscription gave you all the music you want - for free. Who wouldn’t put up with a few ads in order to have free music?

But the underlying point is that Google (and their counterparts today) is focused on profits, unlike the world we saw in the late 90’s. Back then, an idea like Webvan where you order groceries online and have them delivered to your door sounded like a great idea. And for the consumer it was fantastic. But there was no way to make that a profitable business, which is what really makes today’s boom different, and more likely to last than the previous one.