One of the best things - ie. most reassuring - is that the stock market is not exuberant.
Today, Yahoo! bought the 80% of Right Media it did not own for over $600M, valuing the entire company at over $800M. To put this into context, NBC bought all of iVillage for $600M, News Corp. bought Intermix (MySpace’s parent) for $580M, and all of IGN for $650M. All of these deals took place less than two years ago.
Just last month, of course, Google bought privately held Doubleclick for $3.1 billion, effectively raising the price for peers such as Right Media. When I read this, I thought “that’s a home run for Right Media,” because by staying independent it would invariably face competition for Google/Doubleclick, but I also thought: what would that do to 24/7 RealMedia, Valueclick, aQuantive and other publicly traded firms.
Disclosure: of the companies mentioned, I own shares in YHOO and AQNT.
While some people had called for heightened demand for TFSM, AQNT and VCLK amid the DCLK buy, it was a no-brainer that YHOO would not be in the running for TFSM, AQNT and VCLK, since it already owned 20% of Right Media and backing TFSM, AQNT and VCLK would have an adverse effect on its investment on Right Media… but nonetheless, seeing Right Media shoot up from a valuation of $200M to $800M in a matter of months suggested that the implicit value of TFSM, AQNT and VCLK would rise, and not fall.
Today, the stock prices of all three TFSM, AQNT and VCLK fell, but not because of the fact that YHOO buying Right Media translates to one elss suitor for these firms, but rather, because Citigroup analyst downgraded AQNT (bad analyst, bad analyst).
Jokes aside, this was a welcome move by any sane and rational investor. Sure, short term I would have liked an additional spike in AQNT’s shares, but having seen the stock spike 30+% year to date, this $1.86 fall in AQNT’s stock price suggests that it will be easier for it to surpass expectations and or up guidance. Please note that this is an observation - and at the very most a wish from an investor - and not a recommendation to buy or sell any of the securities mentioned above.
I know a few people at Right Media and began to track them all the way back when they launched when I was VP of Sales at a publisher, so I am very happy for them in this stock/cash deal, but the rapid spike in valuation in a matter of months shows - like the DCLK deal showed as well, that the private market for securities is a lot more irrational than the public markets…
Or, maybe, both markets are equally rational / irrational and ’tis the market for all things digital that is hot… I do wonder what this means to the valuation of companies such as Tribal Fusion, Blue Lithium and other privately held online advertising companies…
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterDays between historic Dow closes, from 3000 in 1991 to Wednesday’s close of 13,090 (courtesy of USA Today Research, Robert W. Ahrens)
Dow hits 2,000
1560 days later…
April 17, 1991: Dow hits 3,000, 1408 days later…
Feb. 23, 1995: Dow hits 4,000, 271 days later…
Nov. 21, 1995: Dow hits 5,000, 328 days later…
Oct. 14, 1996: Dow hits 6,000, 122 days later…
Feb. 13, 1997: Dow hits 7,000, 153 days later…
July 16, 1997: Dow hits 8,000, 264 days later…
April 6, 1998: Dow hits 9,000, 357 days later…
March 29, 1999: Dow hits 10,000, 35 days later…
May 3, 1999: Dow hits 11,000, 2,726 days later…
Oct. 19, 2006: Dow hits 12,000, 188 days later…
April 25, 2007: Dow hits 13,090.
Are we in a bubble? Suddenly, I think not, and maybe we’re starting a new cycle? See my previous post on “We’re not in a bubble, though we are seeing pockets of bubbledom?”
Enjoy.
Got back from LA this yesterday morning after attending the Economics of Social Media conference put together by Paid Content.
Definitely worthwhile, but the red eye flight is sinking in now was too much, maybe it did not help that I had a big meeting at 10am Friday morning - 45 minutes after landing - and that I worked all day yesterday…
Also have three more posts on the panels in the afternoon, my I did a couple of “live blogging” posts while there, with a lot more added today from my notes. attempt stopped after the first few sessions.
I hope you enjoy it:
- EconSM 1 - The Social Media CEOs Speak Up
- EconSM 2 - Social Media Meets Marketing
- EconSM 3 - Social Media Meets Hollywood
- EconSM 4 - Social Media Meets Music
- EconSM 5 - Social Media Meets Mobile Media
- EconSM 6 - Social Media Meets Deals
Extra, related to the conference in general:
- The Art of Reporting: When Journalists Lose their Edge
- I Stand Corrected, Networking Works
- The Road Less Traveled and the Pursuit of Happiness
- Off to Economics of Social Media Conference in LA
Tale of the tape:
- 5,000 air miles in 48 hours
- 10 blog posts in 72 hours, totalling some 10,300 words
- Cards handed out: 100-200
- Cards received: ~ 50
- The couple of big announcements to make next week: Freaking priceless…
Rafat Ali and Staci Kramer joined forces to moderate and tag team a nice panel on dealmaking, Yahoo!’s Toby Coppel and former Fox Interactive Media CEO Ross Levinsohn were no-shows, FIM’s Mike Lang was kind enough to step in and pinch-hit, and he added a lot of good intel.
Anyway, the roll call:
- Quincy Smith, CEO CBS Interactive
- Esther Dyson, Chairman EDVenture
- Jason Hirschhorn, President Sling Media (formerly MTV Chief Digital Media, after MTV bought his company Mischief Media)
- Mike Lang, EVP, Business Development and Strategy, Fox Networks
(disclaimer: I was an IGN employee after it bought my old company in June 2005 and then a News Corp. employee after it bought IGN in October 2005, I left the companies in Dec. 2005 to start WatchMojo.com, they’re big fans of the site and have been known to check it out frequently…)
Ali asks: is there a clash of objectives, the goal of media now is to buy early while startups don’t want to sell early, something that MySpace is to this day criticized with.
Smith: We work with VC and investment bankers… a major plus in deals is acquisition of “startup DNA” that media companies sometimes lack, so not really a clash of objectives…
Ali then asks Lang on the difference and nuance between IGN vs. MySpace intergration
Lang: “Both integrated really nicely in News Corp. environment, but MySpace is so much larger, IGN is strong in vertical of video games with good assets, but MySpace is a lot larger than we expected. Resources gravitate to MySpace. Management: Chris DeWolfe has been a wonderful addition in terms of so-called startup DNA, that DNA was not in News Corp… Chris has become a point man on new ventures,” interesting, since a lot of rumors circulated on the MySpace guys not being happy with their proceeds in the sale.
Hirschhorn: “No blueprint for financing, but old media is into control, control of distribution and brand. Angel community is more forgiving (than media). In some cases, media is good at pitching themselves, while others are not. Fox and CBS are good, others are bad. ” Who is he referring to? His old company Viacom? Disney? You got a sense he’s pitching himself to Fox and CBS, who are sitting next to him. I’m kidding, Hirschborn is a riot… can’t tell when he’s serious or joking…
When it comes to the integration issue:
Lang: “What can we do with our brand… instead of using the acquired entity on a stand alone basis. The successful media companies let it be, they try not to win over control.”
Dyson: There’s no sense in the deal if you don’t give it money. Media can put in too much process, but the smaller firm has a challenge getting buyer to spend more after the paying price tag.”
True be that. At my old employer, for example (which is ironically now a part of FIM), the online publisher sometimes only publishes 1 or 2 new articles when back in the day it would publish 4-7/day… Of course, not my problem now, but that is something you see across the board.
Hirschhorn: Ask the right questions. Look for people on the buying side…
Smith: When we acquire audiences, the seller needs to know that they can’t control their audiences anymore, but sellers become the reps of the audience…” using MySpace’s Tom or Chris as example of people that then become reps of the audience to the parent company.
Kramer brings up the new GE fund, which I wrote about here and how it will affect the landscape.
Smith: CBS has done 4 deals since November, 2006.
Lang: “FOX made small acquisitions, but is not interested or a believer in minority investments… shareholders looking for value, and not returns. Long term value? Minority ownership does not give you any protection, it inadvertantly boosts value of the company you invest in and that runs counter to long term value for your shareholders.” This is consistent with what Ross Levinsohn would say about “we don’t lease, we buy,” by the way.
Hirschhorn: On IT and patents etc., he adds: “don’t need to own it, but do need to have a say in it.”
Smith: Lists Spotrunner as an example: “we tell them, ‘don’t exclusively work with us, be successful out and about, we need to understand what you do. Electric Sheep represents a toe in the world. We have cash, and we need to sprinkle our DNA and we need to be in the board room…”
Lang: “Of course, sometimes we have commercial relationships, but we don’t need to invest.”
Ali shitfs focus and asks what they look for when investing in US companies vs. around the world?
Dyson: ”A lot less ample opportunities outside, be it in India, Russia, Brazil, it’s much tougher… exits are harder.”
The panel gave a lot of good insight on what happens after deals materialize, so I asked them what was the biggest mistake an entrepreneur would make before, during dealmaking?
Just curious, no reason I’m asking, I swear.
Lang: “Mistake #1: Not being realistic about price or competiton, saying ‘we don’t have any competition…’ and mistake #2: just being way too influenced by VC who have a different mindset and push for a theoretical IPO.”
Hirschhorn: “It’s the old ’salary of stars’ problem, so mistake #1 - the entrepreneur want what company A got… it’s tough to have those competitions. Mistake #2 - there are always some management issues in term sheets… sometimes the best man to run after a deal is the chief product officer or a chief strategy officer and not the founder… yet the founder wants to be CEO.”
Smith: ”#1- Sometimes the buyers are great at telling you how to downsize business, not good at managing growth. It sounds funny but you need to have a 3 to 5 years plan… #2 - Truth is we on the buying side will make mistakes too…. speak up. But it’s a weird dynamic, both are in sales process… that song and dance has to stop. You are not doing any side a favor.”
Ali wonders how do you compete with Google who can spend anything on anyone? He lists MSFT’s turned down offer by DCLK who was not at all interested and favored Google, regardless of price.
Someone, I missed who, said: “It’s a bit like dating in high school… she tells you she’s not interested.”
Smith: “I think that had more to do with MSFT than Google…” though he was quick to add both MSFT and Google are great partners.
They were asked what they looked for in new deals:
Smith: “#1: We’re looking for reach/distribution. #2: We don’t compete with FOX, we compete with LonlyGrl, so we need new content, regurgitated content from TV does not work… we need to be in that business, the mentality to know how to do that…”
This was an eye-opener, I always thought that from an M&A perspective, if I wanted to sell WatchMojo.com, it would be more valuable to print companies looking to get more and more into the Web and video in particular, but it’s true that TV companies too need to understand that TV content repackaged online is not ideal… and even if it were, then it would eat away at their offline business, something I wrote here. But Smith was candid and humble to say that “TV networks can’t be close minded about this,” so I doubt all TV firms share this view…
Lang: FOX is looking for a) video applications be it content or platforms do things with video, b) international opportunitues and c) mobile.
Ali at one point asked whether companies can build businesses on top of other companies’ API, naturally Photobucket vs. MySpace came up, Lang deferred to Shawn Gold, who was sitting right behind me, but he did not want to address it (can’t blame the guy) though a Photobucket rep did say that “a) Photobucket is not a widget company and b) we hugged it out.”
Ali then asked about Skype/eBay:
Lang: That was lot of money. What was strategic rationale for eBay? Meg is hoping it becomes a communication tool… what you read is that it’s a whole new vertical business, that is a tough business with a lot of competitors…”
Incidentally, Lang mentioned that the Joost guys “are pitching the same technology… they keep saying ‘it’s the same thing we used on Skype,’ well, you would think that eBay would have protected itself then.”
This raises a couple of points: Mr. Lang is no doubt a smart guy, and I am not privy to the term sheet and contract of sale, but Joost uses P2P - like Kazaa and Skype did - but if eBay bought the Skype business, then using their expertise in P2P to do Joost does not seem, to me, to be a conflict of sorts. That being said, what I do see as a conflict is that the Joost founders are still technically involved at eBay… but then again, when you build and sell two of the most successful applications in the past 5 years, do you really care what anyone says?
Lang concludes “but I would not underestimate Meg and eBay… but it’s a pretty big price.”
Hirschhorn: “What are they gonna do with it… AOL bought Winamp. Yahoo! bought Musicmatch. What are they doing with it… I can see some things, but it’s sitting there.”
I really liked Hirschborn, but eBay viewed it as an entry point in a new business, but one that has hundreds of millions of users. Yes, it’s a big price, but eBay has high margins, spits out cash, is worth $40B and if it sits on his cash pile, that will hurt it more. Of course, $4B for any company with relatively small revenues is worth to be questioned, so I commend Lang and Hirschborn for not blindly sipping the koolaid.
I raised my hand to ask about Facebook, namely: “has Facebook priced itself out of the M&A category and on its way to an IPO? I wrote about this earlier here, and Ali did the honors of asking: “what about Facebook, how much longer before it’s acquired?”
Lang to Smith: “Is that one of your big deals? It’s a CMO’s dream…”
The room laughed, though if Smith’s for billions to buy, it’s not a bad place to park it. I do think that Facebook is on pace to be company of 2007, though it’s premature to say that for sure. See our post and audience poll here.
Smith: “You need to sell and buy from a position to strength… Myspace is a textbook deal: management core is in place… the reason why these so-called next generation networks are important, they do not incorporate traditional media tradition but they talk about it… That is very valuable.”
Dyson: “Should Facebook IPO?” Hmm. Maybe I should send her my post.
Hirschhorn: “I don’t know about IPOs, every public CEO I see is being walked into a courtroom with raincoats over heads, backdating is not a dating theme,” which drew a good share of laughs.
Lang: “Some companies have taken too much money, especially in these later stage financings at these high valuations. When you raise over $200M, it’s too hard to get a huge buyout.”
This was probably my favorite panel because the topic is what most interests me… definitely some good intel, and this panel, along with the entire conference only reiterated my belief in the value we’re creating at WatchMojo.com.
On that note, a couple of big announcements to come this week…
See all posts on EconSM here.
Moderated by Staci Kramer, the next panel was all about mobile:
- Peter Adderton, CEO Amp’d Mobile
- Marco Boerries, SVP Yahoo!
- Shawn Conahan, CEO Intercasting
- Larry Shapiro, EVP, Walt Disney
- Cyriac Roeding, EVP, CBS Mobile
This was a very lively panel, but frankly, it was so representative of the state of the industry:
The only clear thing in wireless market is an utter lack of clarity by people working in the space. Don’t get me wrong, everyone is pretty smart and accomplished, but they have yet to agree on anything, let alone standards, we’re saying yet to agree on what is the optimal course of action, so while we like to believe that wireless entertainment will be a $78B they’re saying it will be.
Unlike all of the other posts, I won’t even try to polish my notes, and this post is far more stream of consciousness based on comments and what not. Cleaning it up means I am changing way too much from what was said, and that is not something I want to do.
Boerries: Expect Yahoo! to shift most of its communities and social networks onto mobile, the pace of this happening remains to be seen.
Adderton: social media on wireless is about giving consumers choice, but that is at odds with companies and their desire to boost their bottom line.
Boerries disagrees, stressing consumer experience and needs.
Is social media a buzzword? Yes, all members agree, but ultimately it involves with the commucation that spawns from content, and this is why wireless is naturally a fit for “social media.”
Evolution of wireless communication from mere text messages to more.
Adderton: Demographic, content, platform come together, give choice and enable it, don’t editorialize it. Carriers are a couple of years away from doing so.
Comcast: great presence leveraged to create own middle ground…
$1T buying and investing in networks, handsets => we don’t have the consumer in mind… we cannot create experiences… why would they use this device, if we don’t address consumer needs, we’ll spend another trillion in networks…
Adderton: Yahoo! is friend or foe?
Boerries: Yahoo! is a partner, we compete with some, and not with others.
Example of how carriers are midguided, the famous “Vote” that on wrong carrier does not even count… perfect example of backwardness of model.
Advertising value chain not defined…
Roeding: Most successful wireless application is CBS Sportsline, sports is perfect, since it’s about a lot of data interacting with community exchanges…
Mobile is a pipe that is individualized, cross platform is the holy grail: TV/mobile/internet… only medium you can carry with you is wireless.
Adderton: iPhone will change the landscape… it’s an MVNO, I had no clue what that was, if you’re like me, here you go. But iPhone will change the landscape, in terms of user experience, and create standard for carriers and other platforms.
As the exchange flowed back and forth, Adderton sort of joked: Content companies don’t advertise Amp’d deck…
Like I said, this was a free for all, and that’s a good thing. Look for the video when Paid Content publishes it, I suppose.
Some related posts on HipMojo.com:
Lisa Napoli was the moderator for the next panel.
- Josh Deustch, CEO Downtown Recordings
- Courtney Holt, EVP MTV Networks
- Hadi Partovi, President iLike
- Tim Westergren, Founder of Pandora could not attend.
When answering to Napoli’s question of “A band that has really leveraged social networking?”
Deutsch: “Bias aside, Gnarls Barkley, with 3M streams on MySpace. Social media is part of their DNA.”
His label looks for partners and platforms to promote artists in a new way. Another example: Cold War Kids, they “across MTV to be #1 video in channel, but it was the most blogged band as well, is there a relationship? It’s worth looking at, though I am not sure if it is quantifiable?”
One laid back, but wise dude.
Holt: “a hit is a hit, and social media is one of the many pieces in a puzzle… it all works together, but quality wins at the end of day.” Holt talked a bit about ”how kids consume content, how there are 20-30 touchpoints,” and everything including social media is part of the greater consumption ecosystem. Bands need to be exposed to all. “A record that peaks at MySpace does not translate to sales, Go Kid Go, for example was popular on YouTube, then on MTV, the sales came after MTV.” Holt is biased, but there’s some truth to that regardless.
Partovi: “It’s hard to imagine an artist that only got big by way of social networking, it’s silly to look only at one medium. It’s the sum of all the parts that help bands break. The new tools help consumers get access in a better, more personal way. Look at Dane Cook, he’s not a band, but he did have the most amount of friends, he had popularity before and his social tools and methods only grew the popularity.”
Holt: “Tila Tequila did not get a label deal, cause it was no good. Good product and good marketing plan succeeds, one without the other does not work…”
Napoli’s next question: “How to compete with MySpace?”
Holt: “We don’t.” It’s ironic since everyone knows that MySpace was being looked at by MTV and News Corp. and in the end, News Corp. won the auction. Anyway, back to Holt: “MTV is not about social networking. Our core is great programming, it presents and programs. MTV is not everything to everybody. We have to own that. We’re not a utility, if we can combine our core in programming with utility, we will win. We want a social experience, but not to own the utility. I want everybody who are part of the MTV ecosystem to see Kurt Cobain playing unplugged,” in other words, finding, presenting and programming the content, and not so much the platform or utility that does that.
The questioning then morphs into radio’s future…
Partovi: “The ability to personalize playlists will not kill radio, some people will program themselves while others will want it done for them… but the Web will allow for others to be DJs, etc., and not radio stations alone to program music. The kid down the block can become a DJ, for example. Tools become source of music, but won’t replace radio.”
The role of A/R is brought up by an audience member:
Deutsch: “A/R function is affected the least. Social network tools open the A/R process even more. We don’t chase Tila Tequila, for example. Social networking changes marketing dramatically, but not the A/R. You still roll the dice on someone’s ability to write great songs.” Holt agrees, “marketing is part of the process, so overall the impact is not as profound, but it does help with engagement.”
Another audience member asks: “They Might be Giants used music as voice answering machine messages,” suggesting social media has been used for a while, and nothing new.
Incidentally, Partovi lists Dane Cook who “does a new voice mall call for his MySpace page” as well. Didn’t Cook get accused of copying jokes as well. All right, we’re kidding, we like Dane.
A great question followed up: “what are record labels’ digital plans to change the landscape to prepare for the Kodak moment.” If you don’t get the reference, for example, Kodak stopped investing a single dollar in analog, and fully went into digital at some point in the 1990s.
Holt adds: “Business is down 20%, CD business is off the cliff, the need to create access models is here.” The need for mobility of music comes up, with Holt crediting “Comcast + Rhapsody + Tivo” as a nice example of what needs to be done.
This was a question I wanted to ask:
“will we ever realistically have a solution, that is one box where a user can go to, enter the band or song and get that song, be able to listen to bits and parts for free, then download and own for life that song, with an easy ability to buy the rest of the album - if albums even exist then for new releases - as well as numerous albums or entire catalogues, and then is allowed to talk about the music, share it, reference it etc. etc.”
I don’t need to, cause the general theme is that the “relationships between artists, publishers, etc. have to change and will take a lot of work,” I am not really referencing the panel here, but everyone seems to look at others, which explains the neutral state of things, Napster, after all, was launched 8 years ago (and killed seven years ago) and we’re still wondering what needs to be done.
Of note, iLike crossed 1M users last week, Partovi said that he is “not worried about revenue now”… good thing, I guess, given how prevalent stealing music has become.
Deutsch: “There’s no fantasy, people will never stop to steal music. 3 million sales is the new 10M in terms of sales. We need to look to ad-supported models. Move from beyond just labels…
Holt: ”Opportunity meets challenge, record company is half the equation…”
A canuck in the room asks: “Is the Web not ‘do it yourself’ for musicians? All these middleman, are we seeing a correction? Or is there a place for everyone in the equation?”
Deutsch: There is a different skill set to create music vs. sell music.
And to cap it off, indeed Napoli is right, you better be a marketer to be a musician these days, or as I think: you better be web savvy as well.
Again, the solution in music is simple, but the current generation that is about to retire needs to go, the new generation that saw how “3M is the new 10M” will be very receptive to new models, while those who cling onto somehow putting the genie back into the bottle will never embrace the new reality.
I chose music over news, which is a shame cause I really wanted to see how news companies were tackling the new reality and challenges. Here’s a link to Paid Content’s coverage of it. And here are a couple of random stuff we’ve written on news and news organizations in the 21st century:
- Newspapers Online Revenues Slowing
- Are Magazines the CDs of the Media World?
- Understanding TV Executives’ Web Video Envy
- Stop the Newspaper Obituary, Please
- Will Digital Revenues Really Ever be Incremental?
- Monaco Media Forum Showcases Print Malaise
Staci Kramer took over the reins in the third panel, Social Media Meets Hollywood. Joining her on stage were:
- George Kliavkoff, CEO of NBC/News Corp.’s new site.
- Ilene Chaiken, Executive Producer the L World, CEO OurChart.com
- Alan Citron, GM TMZ.com
- Carson Daly, Host Last Call with Carson Daly
- David Eun, VP Content Partnerships Google
- George Kliavkoff, Chief Digital Officer NBCU
This was one of the panels I was looking forward to, given that our WatchMojo.com is a major producer of content. Nestled in between the TV content atop the content pyramid and on top of UGC, this one was of special interest to me.
Kliavkoff - who deserves some credit for making MLB.com the best sports league website around before moving to NBC - is now doubling up duties as Chief Digital Officer of NBC as well as CEO of the new NBC/News Corp. NewSite project, called by outsiders NewYtube…
Anyway, he started off with a refreshing take on things: ”the more time consumers spend interacting with our media, the longer they will watch it on the couch.” Of course, this got me to thinking: Interesting that the end goal is the couch, ie. TV, are TV networks aware that wireless and web (all broadband outlets) represent a challenge to TVs or not? I myself have long argued that what you see on TV and the Web will differ due to economics and what you will see on the Web and wireless will differ due to technology, but the fact is that content will overlap in many ways, and so long as TV heads see the TV as the end goal, they might be in for some hard times. More on this at the end, under the question I wanted to ask but never did…
Kliavkoff’s main theme was that:
- “NBC views the Web as the great marketing tool it is, and not a threat.
- The wisdom of masses will suggest who the best directors.
- Tens of millions of dollars required to market traditional shows, so any a network can get in data is perfect and welcome, in fact they have seen a correlation between blogs mentioning of shows, blgos mentioning of shows in a positive light, with a) SEO optimizization and b) ratings… lesson: the public knew the results before the results were in.
Then it was onto TMZ.com’s Citron, with whom I chatted the earlier night at the pre conference mixer. Naturally, Alec Baldwin’s tirade came up, Citron mentioned that the most powerful thing of it all is that “the feedback rolls in after we get a story and publish it, and then the comments ricochet around the Web.” He joked that TMZ knows when something is going to be off the charts when the “paparazzi or agent threatens to sue you or other sites start to ask for permission to use the content…
Should be noted that TMZ.com has been around for 18 months, and it has a lot of offline mojo going now. Part of the AOL Time Warner empire, naturally that helps.
Citron seems like one of those nice guys who’s just having a good time and gets the broader context of Time Warner and that TMZ is one small part, its success does not seem to have gotten to his head; you wouldn’t know that he could seamlessly destoy your reputation in a heartbeat with one video upload… that was a joke Allan (please)?
The L Word/OurChart.com’s Chaiken then was asked “Does every show need a social network?”
“No, every show has some manifestation in this medium, but does not need a social network per se. There was no social network for lesbians… ” - although what about dating sites methought, or even something like Craigslist.org? Then again, I wasn’t moderating the shindig…
There was a theme that the
- Web is a sandbox and a project could grow to be something more on TV.
- Can this medium be an end to itself?
- Can it have value just on the Web?
It was refreshingly honest and not a wrong perspective, rather, it’s a reflection of the “Hollywood crowd’s vantage point,” I’d say.
Carson Daly - who joked what am I doing here? - added that “as the Web grows, there will be more and more stand alone” properties and projects, listing Rosie Odonnell as one example. “She’s a premium personality,” indeed she is, indeed she is Carson.
I’m not a Daly viewer, mainly due to the time it’s on. When asked about the “importance of social media?”; Daly was quick to answer: “My show is on the middle of the night…” suggesting to one of the main values TV gets from the Web… reaching folks when the show is long off the air, though that suggests a threat to them as well.
I’m sure he’s got as many fans as he’s got denigrators, but the fact is he seems very down to earth for a young TV guy and the best part is that he seems to get the value and place of the Web in the landscape. I also did not have a clue as to how low budget his operation is, or maybe he just wants to portray it that way. In that light, WatchMojo.com just might be the Web’s answer to Late Night with Carson Daly. Oh-oh, did I just say that? But the point is that Daly seems to take a very hands-on and low overheard operation to his show, saying that he will scour MySpace, for example, to line up music acts himself. Daly will be working on some .TV domain name extension, will report as that comes up.
Citron then took over the mike and added something that is obvious [to some] but important: “I had a smart boss who once said that everythng is additive. Imus can go to the Web or satellite, and that’s positive thing.” He’s right, the Web does not take away, in theory, it adds to TV networks’ audiences, so I was priming myself to ask the question I never did… more on that later.
Google’s David Eun’s was an interesting addition to the panel, since so much of what his company is doing seems to be at odds with the TV networks vision of how and what the web needs to fit in their landscape. This of course, is evidenced by Viacom’s $1B lawsuit against Google’s YouTube.
Eun started off by stressing that Google is in this for the long haul, despite its leadership position with YouTube: ”it’s ok not to be first, but you don’t want to last [in video], it’s very early.” You get a sense that YouTube understands its size will hurt its chances with the big networks, as YouTube is going for the middle part of the maket, the so-called torso area of the video landscape. Eun positioned YouTube’s value proposition quite well: ”Leverage the data and demo you get on YouTube to do your own thing.”
When Kramer asked about the legal cloud overhanging Google, “the IP issue is being worked out, but YouTube is about more than just copyrighted stuff,” once again hinting at torso power.
He conceded that no one has really figured out the right balance of ads and content in video programming, regarding “Preroll/Postrolls”, Eun added “No one knows. We want to experiment and try different combinations of things… we’re syndicating content and then embedding ads, then syndicated it to thousands of sites in Ad Sense, but in terms of how long should an ad be, the frequency, etc… all that remains to be seen.”
One thing is clear, YouTube “does not favor pre-rolls…”
Google would know since YouTube scaled because of that… though YouTube could not run ads because it did not have rights to the content.
Kliavkoff added that “users will tell us if (the ads) are too little or too much.”
There was some talk of whether online video is a manifestation of the “15 seconds of fame” syndrome, and whether only the incentive to be famous for 15 seconds will drive users to upload low budget content for free. What will happen when the “revenue realization kicks in?”
Eun said that the “15 seconds motivation does not go away,” let’s hope he’s right cause that drives YouTube.
All in all, a good panel.
My question:
It could be argued that print media companies (newspapers and magazines) underestimated the real threat and opportunity of digital, and when they realized how large digital media could be, it was too late and they got defensive. This explains why they are in trouble now. But the fact is that had they embraced digital, they would have chased high-growth opportunities that yielded low absolute revenues at the expense of their core offline business. So the question is: is TV willing to risk cannibalizing their $250B from offline - of which $75B is advertising alone - to position themselves for the smaller but high-growth online business?
Any takers? I would asked this question, but after putting the first panel speakers on the spot, I figured I should avoid being tagged the doomsday scenario questioner…
Related:
- Understanding TV executives envy and angst
- will digital revenues ever be incremental?
According to this article, the past two days’ gains boosted Amazon.com’s market capitalization — the value of all the shares trading in the public domain — from $18.3 billion to $25.7 billion, a gain of about $7.4 billion.
But more importantly, for Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon.com in 1994, that meant the value of his 101.3 million shares in the company jumped in value from $4.53 billion to $6.36 billion, a gain of roughly $1.8 billion.
Translation: Bezos owns 25%. I thought by now he would be down to 10-15%, but I guess it helps that he used debt financing early on.
Amazon’s stock price is deserving of a book story of its own. The stock peaked on Dec. 10, 1999 at $106.69. Then, the stock lost 94% of its value over roughly the next 22 months before bottoming at $5.97 on Sept. 28, 2001. Since then, the stock is up 951%. His net worth has been all over the place from $10.1 billion in 1999, according to Forbes, to $1.5 billion in 2002. Last year, Forbes said he was worth $4.3 billion.
This is hilarious…The Onion takes a nostalgic look at the little scooter that could…
In the second panel, Social Media Meets Marketing, moderator Jimmy Guterman sat down with:
- Simon Assaad, co-CEO of Heavy.com,
- John Battelle, Chairman Federated Media
- Shawn Gold, SVP MySpace
- Tina Sharkey, Chairman BabyCenter
- Rishad Tobaccowala, CEO Denuo and CIO Publicis Media Group
Simon Assaad is extremely well-viewed, respected and thought of in the advertising and publishing space. He and his co-founder have positioned Heavy.com as an uber cool and hip place to reach the 18-34 male demographic. I’m in the target market yet I do not really frequent the site, but millions do, and advertisers and investors are have taken notice. Heavy.com raised $20M which is a whopping amount of money for a site in its category.
From 2000-05 I helped build the largest men’s online lifestyle site which sold for 27 times the invested capital for $13.5M. Heavy.com positions itself in the broadband entertainment space, a market that saw iFilm sell to Viacom $49M. At the other extreme Youtube sold for $1.65B, so it’s not surprising to see Assaad steer his ship away from content creation to aggregation, which is what increasingly makes up the site’s content. Regardless, Heavy.com has pioneered many “beyond the banner ad formats.” As such, it wasn’t surprising to hear Assaad say that the Web is different, but in the initial decade, we have had a tendency to try to frame things a tad too much in terms of traditional media, which distorts the value of the Web. He has successfully managed to lead Heavy.com into crafting radically different ad formats. For that he and his team get a lot of credit, and the site manifests the “content is advertising / advertising is content” trend.
Next up was John Battelle, whose position that niche audiences need a new ad model is right on. As Chairman of Federated Media, which reps many industry leading blogs, he’s preaching the “conversational marketing” mantra, stressing the need for experimentation and addressing the reality that the lack of time to get the message out is the main challenge he faces in the marketplace. There’s “no algorithm for conversations,” and that is an admission that scaling is harder beyond search, in display / banner ads, the next growth area of online advertising.
Shawn Gold was previously the Weblogs Inc. head of sales, and is now MySpace in the same role. Both are great platforms, but these also present enormous challenges with mainstream and traditional advertisers.
The site’s value proposition is clear, however, as evidenced by a recent case study with X-Men.
- X-Men had 2.6M friends after it created a profile on MySpace.
- 15% in exit poll said they went to see it due to MySpace.
- 50-50 split between men and women, the studio credited MySpace.
Of note, Myspace’s main page reaches 30M uniques. Which led to a comparison to the site’s reach to YouTube.
Picking up the baton, Assaad added “YouTube does 1.5B video streams a month, Comcast did that in one year on their on-demand” channel. If that number is true, it does say a lot…
There was also talk of live events, marked with the Live 8 event that pitted AOL versus MTV, which set the stage for Tina Sharkey, CEO of Babycenter.com: ”I was watching MTV and they were reporting everything but the concert, I was effectively listening to what the announcer thought was cool, what he wanted to talk about, simultaneously I was watching it on AOL and got to see what I wanted to watch.” That simple anecdote does explain the user-appropriated trend that has caught fire in the past few years, while user-generated gets most of the media’s attention.
AOL was not the content, “it was the enabler, the interface,” she added, and it did a great job easily outshining MTV, the previous generation’s music messiah.
While all speakers impressed, the shining star was Rishad Tobaccowala. Tobaccowala engages the biggest advertisers, and he offers a more pragmtatic perspective on things: “advertisers are not stupid. They want to embrace the Web,” but they need guidance and accurate facts, all obvious things, but things that are sometimes forgotten in a rapidly evolving media.
Prime time beats YouTube’s top 6 clips, so traditional advertising will not disappear, though online advertising will complement it. The “key in the market is moderation. Ask yourself: ’How does this fit with other things they do,” how can you give incentives for people to change their buying patters.
Assaad maintains that the “Web will drive TV more than TV will drive Web, due to broadband.” With the interest over video came the issues that made YouTube such a success, and the apprehension advertisers have in advertising alongside UGC: There seemed to be a need to balance “between control and facilitation… marketing is becoming faciliatation,” adding that the Web is more about marketing than advertising, especially in the areas of social media.
And it’s hard to talk about social media without talking about Second Life, with Guterman arguing that there are more marketers on SL than there are people… “what gives?”
Battelle reminisced about some of the similarities between SecondLife and TheWell, which consisted of a “devoted group of people who are going to inform the future of the online world.”
Sharkey interjected that “Cyworld is more important” than Second Life, referencing the Asian social network that is poised to clash with MySpace in North America.
Tobaccowala took it one step further: “I tell [marketers] to stay away, 90% of SL is press release induced, how is this going to help you sell and make money…” a comment that drew applause from the crowd.
Questions from the audience focused on the subscriptions vs. ad sales debate for publishers, to which Assaad candidly admitted: ”we had [a subscription strategy] earlier, but I was too yound and too stupid to know better,” I agree that online advertising will trump subscriptions, and Assaad put it quite succinctly. “Literally millions of free options, so subscription does not make sense, ads won’t solve everyone’s problems, not by a long shot…” but he seemed to hint that advertising is so lucrative at Heavy.com that subscriptions need not apply.
Tobaccowala did introduce a new term: “World of crapacopia” that he took from Ze Frank, which I will write on some more later.
