Earlier this week, Jordan Golson took a look at the analysis by Lightspeed Venture Partners that showed that the sale of virtual goods, or those silly little gifts people seem bent on sending to friends on Facebook, are accounting for approximately 10% of the site's estimated $350 million revenue stream. His claim was that since it's such a small fraction of Facebook's revenue stream, it won't put a dent in advertising, and companies that depend on advertising -- such as Google -- will not consider virtual goods as a serious contender. I respectfully disagree.

While many others in the current Web 2.0 climate would also disagree with me, you need look no further than gaming to see where revenue trends are headed. The Next Big Thing is clearly going to be micropayments for virtual goods. Back in January, BusinessWeek noted that Electronic Arts (EA) had given up trying to sell its FIFA soccer game in South Korea. The game's sales were at a standstill because of the rampant pirating, so they changed the business model. Rather than dig its heels in and cling to the old model, EA gave up selling the game itself. Rather, the company offered free online access to the game, but began charging customers for performance enhancements for virtual players and in-game items like outfits, pricing items at $1.60 each. The result? An average revenue stream of $1 million a month for the game over the previous two years. This from a game that had dropped from 250,000 copies sold there to a mere 10,000 copies in four years due to pirating.

Those clinging to the ad-supported model insist that people don't want to pay for content of any kind, but gaming had consistently proved that false, and it makes sense that Internet companies would follow that lead. The music industry argues that iTunes and other online music retailers are cutting into the former album-oriented sales structure, but all these sites really change with the $0.99 song structure is allowing people to spend the same amount of money on music (or more!) while sampling a larger number of artists. How many people think twice before spending $1 here or $1 there on a song or two, when a full album would require more thought?

Naturally, Google must be looking at micro-payments as a possible alternative revenue stream to advertising. Why would any company bet its entire existence on one model? Any money coming in is a good thing, and it's fairly safe to assume that companies like Google (and Facebook) are looking beyond the typical CPM-dependent ad revenue model to alternate methods of collecting those nickels and dimes consumers aren't afraid of dropping, even in a faltering economy.

More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:

• Analysis: Facebook makes millions from the sale of virtual goods, but can it rival advertising?
• Analysis: Facebook vs. MySpace: The battle for global social network dominance
• Analysis: How MySpace Music could beat iTunes
• Analysis: 10 cool Facebook applications that you've probably never heard of -- but should