Listen, I love YouTube more than the average person, I really respect its founders and backers and all. But let’s put one thing in perspective regarding the rumor that its founders are asking for $1.5 billion in any sale.
When MySpace sold for $580 million, News Corp. paid that much for Intermix, MySpace’s intrinsic value in the deal was much less, probably over 50% but less than $500 million for sure. Of course, News Corp. would have probably paid as much for MySpace alone, but the point is that benchmarking any YouTube deal to the News Corp. deal needs to adjust for that.
Indeed, MySpace has tripled in size, but that has a lot to do with News Corp. not playing too much with MySpace’s core mission. YouTube would have to be tweaked quite a bit because 90% of its content is violating copyright laws and no parent company would get away with that. Think Napster and Bertelsmann. So if YouTube’s acquiring company has to change the recipe, then there is no guarantee that it too will experience hypergrowth subsequent to a deal.
So this begs the question: even at today’s size, is YouTube worth $1 billion, let alone $1.5 billion?
While MySpace has subscribers who would input all of their personal demographics into the site, YouTube does not get anywhere near the same amount of data than MySpace gets. Yes, it is great that YouTube knows exactly which profile watches what kind of video, but that is not the same thing as knowing everything about a MySpace subscriber. Even Fox Interactive Media’s CEO Ross Levinsohn was saying that the user information on MySpace is as valuable if not more than its sheer audience size.
But the same way that MySpace has proven a difficult asset to monetize - with paltry (given its size) revenues of $180 million per year - YouTube will be even harder to monetize due to the copyright issue.
Last but not least: nothing would make me happier than seeing insane multiples in the online video space, I am after all biased by virtue of being a producer of original content for online video.
But, and here is the clincher: the entire video industry is said to generate $1-2 billion by 2010. That’s the entire industry, in almost half a decade. In this framework, how could one company be worth today as much as the entire industry’s revenue generation potential in 4 years when the video advertising will probably not be spent on that site? It’s not like trying to guesstime Google’s value as a function of search revenue, after all. Google not only commands 45% of the search market share, but it can also commands most of its revenue. YouTube - as we know it today - does not in any direct way benefit from video advertising since it does not plan to run video advertising.
That being said, maybe the $1-2 billion figure for online video advertising by 2010 is not the best metric to determine YouTube’s value after all…
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterI told you that money alone would not clinch the deal, Yahoo! should stress autonomy galore, but the question remains: does autonomy within a large, established company really exist?
Yahoo! has changes it ways over the years. Back in the day, it would acquire a company and before the lawyers would have the paperwork finalized, the colors on the wall of the acquired company would be purple. A lot changed when Flickr’s users got irritated when Yahoo! initially suggested / forced Flickr users to sign in through Yahoo!’s login, and then renegged.
After that, Yahoo! changed quite a bit and no longer renamed assets or fully integrated properties.
The bottom line is that Facebook - assuming if it can continue to defend its position as the MySpace for students - is a very interesting asset because it allows the acquiring company to introduce services and products to students as they graduate and become young professionals in the marketplace.
Read more.
(PRLEAP.COM) Wireless Internet Access Provider dot Com Shows How To Convert Your Cell Phone Into a Wireless DSL Modem. We all have a cell phone or pocket pc. Many of us have an EVDO Wireless Internet Broadband equipped cell handset from Sprint or Verizon. But nobody seems to realize that their cell phone can easily double as a wireless internet cell modem.
http://wireless-internet-access-provider.com shows how to quickly convert your cell phone or pocket pc into a cellular modem for your Mac or Windows XP PC. The process does not require an engineering degree but will take about 60 minutes. Once the modifications are complete, switching from cell phone to EVDO wireless internet modem takes seconds each time.
Since there are hundreds of cell phone and pocket pc models available today. http://wireless-internet-access-provider.com has enlisted the help of http://evdo-coverage.com to isolate the modem drivers for the most popular cell phone handsets available today. The list is quite comprehensive although not unabridged.
Mobile office workers will find three key components to getting online with their laptop and cell phone. First a driver is needed to tell your computer that the cell phone is now a modem. Second, a modem emulator is needed to tell your cell phone that it is a modem as well. Then with the third component, a way to connect the two: bluetooth or a usb cable, all you need to do is create a new dial up connection shortcut from the network control panel.
The website also offers visitors a comprehensive internet access protocol comparison chart. It helps consumers understand the differences and compare wifi vs dsl vs cable vs t1 vs evdo vs wimax vs hsdpa vs ofdm. With all the new internet standards coming out, this list makes understanding your options simple.
As the world of Rupert Murdoch turns: Ms. Murdoch being assigned to spearhead MySpace’s China plans - which nepotism accusations aside, is not a bad idea, since she was a Chinese executive for the company’s efforts in the mainland.
Read more.
[Editor’s Note: Original version has been modified on or about February 5, 2007.]
Before you fire someone, you need to give the poor sap a warning. That’s not just conventional wisdom, it’s the law in most places. But how many warnings before you lose your patience? I don’t know the answer there and hope I do not have to fire anyone. All I know is that ever when you fire someone, you need to be professional. In other words, don’t fire someone a week before Christmas. Obviously only the lowest of the lows would do that, but you never know. The meek have inherited parts of the world.
The same common sense applies to law. Oftentimes lawyers plan in stealth mode and strike in a surprise move. I understand why you do that, but frankly, when a client authorizes such a tactic, they set themselves up for a counter-strike. This begs the question, just because one party acted callously with no fair warning, should you return the favor and strike back without giving them a fair warning?
Well, two wrongs don’t make a right. If I ever had to counter strike someone in legal matters, I am pretty sure I’d still give them a fair warning, then again, that’s just me.
[Editor’s Note: Original version has been modified on or about February 5, 2007.]
So I got blasted by a reader yesterday for suggesting [insert whatever you think I was suggesting] regarding the potential Yahoo!/Facebook deal. Indeed, social networking is competitive and there are many new players who can come and usurp your spot. But, the fact remains, after being acquired for $580 million, MySpace has tripled in size and made Rupert Murdoch/Ross Levinsohn look like geniuses over at News Corp. and Fox Interactive Media. And, like Mr. Murdoch said so himself, in the very worst scenario, it would have been a half billion dollar mistake, for a company with over $20 billion in sales, you can allow yourself such misses. And, of course, MySpace (and IGN, though I respectfully think IGN would be worth more outside than inside FIM - oh oh, is that a bailiff’s knock on the door I hear?) have been anything but misses.
In this context, it is not surprising to see other social network sites get attention from old and new media, and indeed, Yahoo! is a new media company that has been treated like old media. The stock is down (I am a bullish shareholder mind you, not concerned with quarterly fluctuations, but based on the fact that people spend 25% of their time online yet advertisers only spend 5% of their budgets online) and with a few billion dollars of cash on its balance sheet, it needs to make a move. Over time, Flickr and Del.icio.us proved very reasonable and smart acquisitions. Of course, Facebook will be a mammoth deal, roughly valued at $1 billion.
The thing is, I reiterate, this deal will turn out to be a winner or a loser based on culture. Yahoo! is a corporation, especially since Terry Semel came on board. As well, having spoken and worked with many Yahoo! executives over the past few years, it’s a place where I doubt many will put up with Facebook founder’s Mark Zuckerberg’s style. I personally commend him for being himself and not taking himself so seriously, but make no mistake about it, if Yahoo! pays him what they might pay him, they will expect some changes (like an actual title on his business card, or accepting “early” meetings at 8am, for example). Mark, on the other hand, will feel that his style was justified all along with such a massive payday, and he will, whether it’s cool or not, walk around with a greater strut within Yahoo!’s hallowed hallways.
As such, the only question is not whether $1 billion is fair value for Facebook, but rather, is the potential culture clash too much to handle for both sides?
NEWPORT BEACH, CA — (MARKET WIRE) — September 22, 2006 — Wi-Fi TV Inc. (PINKSHEETS: WTVN) today is making available for its members a new personal Internet TV technology. The exclusive Wi-Fi TV service allows members to communicate with each other in a way that supplements the free VoIP service and live chat that Wi-Fi TV members already enjoy.”Wi-Fi TV delivered the first movie over the Internet in December 1995, offered some of the very first electronic books online, and is a global pioneer in Internet TV delivery. Our new product and technology is one of the most exciting developments in the ten-year history of Wi-Fi TV Inc. It will be another reason why Wi-Fi TV has no peer among Internet TV providers, and another reason for people to subscribe. It is a global communication tool that enhances our Wi-Fi TV Virtual Phone Dialer and our Wi-Fi TV Live Chat. We will unveil the name and let the public try it for free next week,” said Alex Kanakaris, Chairman of Wi-Fi TV Inc.
“Beginning today, our Wi-Fi TV members can be the first in the world to try this new cutting edge communication tool,” he concluded.
All Wi-Fi TV members can use the service for no additional charge by accessing it from the top of the www.Wi-FiTV.com home page. Access links are also available from the top of all Wi-Fi TV Country and Category pages.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2006, the name of this new Wi-Fi TV Internet TV service will be unveiled (it is currently being previewed under an interim name) and the public will be invited to a free one-week trial of the service. During the trial week, no payment or credit card will be required to try the service, and Wi-Fi TV intends to generate additional paid memberships through the introduction of its new technology. The technology was created in conjunction with Consolidated Streaming Inc. and is used under license from that company.
About Wi-Fi TV Inc.
With independently verified viewers from over 150 countries, Wi-Fi TV Inc. provides a new generation TV delivery platform that has a geographic sphere out-distancing any traditional cable or over-the-air TV broadcaster.
Wi-Fi TV can be seen over the Internet in the United States, Latin America and globally. 300 channels of live TV programming, Country and Category specific breaking news and free voice over IP phone calls are available at www.Wi-FiTV.com.
