SavySoda has launched its latest iPhone app, that is causing quite a rumble. iPhone owners can download this unique application that you won’t be able to use on the bus.
This free vibrating massage “resembles those stubby four-legged back and neck messagers you’d pick up at your local store, and you’d place the iPhone on your skin for a gentle, continuous jolt. But then you can swipe your finger to the right for a, um, longer and more narrow vibrator with a ball at the end [cough].”
Digg this Blog
Share on Facebook
WatchMojo on Twitter
WatchMojo on YouTube
Add to Favorites
WatchMojo NewsletterDespite the fact that a lot of stats from online video are out there in public view, there are in fact few available metrics to compare oneself to.
So today we get some stats from others the video content production space, though I’ll be the first to admit that our content is nothing like Revision3 or Next New Networks. Oh, we also didn’t raise $9M and $23M respectively, but I digress.
Online video studio Revision3 said today its program views are up 140 percent, with 46 million views in 2008 as compared to 19 million views in 2007. Next New Networks claimed 300 million views in 2008. Yesterday Break reported 35 million plays of its branded content productions “in the past few months.”
WatchMojo.com did 28M streams in 2008, which was up from 13M in 2007, which was a 115% spike. All-time, we’ve almost hit 50M in 3 years, which I guess is not too shabby.
Of course, it’s worth adding that we don’t give away our content, we have been keeping the lid of syndication (speculative revenue share deals) in favor of licensing deals with guaranteed revenue. Also, these are audited stats, in the sense that on many sites we don’t have access to reports etc., so we don’t estimate what those streams are. Lastly, we also have a booming out of home digital signage network, reaching nearly 20M consumers each month in the US. Again, this number would be higher if we were giving away the content, which we don’t.
More on the challenges of online video monetization:
The real challenge is convincing advertisers to move away from their traditional 30 second spots. Part of that problem is agencies, which are used to TV, where they can quickly spend their clients’ money – and drive up billing fees — buying millions of impressions in one phone call.
It will be interesting to see if Next New Networks can continue its torrid stream count, so much of it seemed to have come from the Obama Girl gal, and let’s face it, once the honeymoon is over in DC, I doubt she will have as much traction.
I presume our streams will continue to grow quickly as we now have thousands of videos across thousands of touch points. As per revenues, despite the doomsay scenarios, 2009 is not looking bad at all… though admittedly we’re growing from a small base. The best part is that we have never raised a penny in VC so unlike Revision 3, we’ve not had to cut any costs or scale back headcount.
To be perfectly honest though, I think that for all video content producers, the challenge will lie in mainstream crossover appeal. Just because the heaviest video watcher on YouTube might know who you are means zilch in the long term, there are billions of viewers on TV and we need to appeal to this audience, too.
Mark Cuban has a piece up talking about how the Web fails to match TV’s distribution, focusing on content creators and how they’ll never reach the masses.
Internet Video. Its the salvation for content creators everywhere. Its the end to dependence on the big bad meanies, the cable and satellite companies. Right ? Hell no. The concept that “over the top” video creates a valid business alternative for content creators is as misguided an internet business myth as there is.
Cuban will have his share of denigrators and fanboys, but I think he sort of misses the big points here.
For many people who consume content, TV’s push model it antiquated. The fact that I am at the mercy of what network executives choose to air is plain outdated.
A lot of people (maybe the silent minority) like to pull media, and the Web is perfect for these people.
Secondly, and most importantly, I think he misses the bigger issue: video advertising is a myth. Yes, I said it. Let’s consider some facts.
One Strategy for Google
Google used a perfect storm to become king of the Web mountain, but it did so with a relatively speaking open strategy. Compared to today’s open standards, Google’s AdSense or AdWords are anything but, but at the time, the idea of creating virtual billboards around the Web on third party sites was novel. In other words, what made Google explode was not the fact that they successfully scaled GoTo.com’s pay per click model, but rather that they opened up their database of text advertising to third party sites who were dying for incremental revenue during the last downturn.
Google is the leader in search, and after acquiring YouTube, has become the leader in video.
Another Strategy for YouTube
Technically, YouTube did the same thing by creating virtual projection screens by allowing for embedded videos… where things seem to have diverged on the openness front is YouTube absolutely owns the video market with 50% market share. Yes, I know, revenue wise YouTube is having some challenges with monetization, but seeing how it has a stranglehold on the streams, then this means that any other technology is at YouTube’s mercy and in fact dead on arrival.
Memo to Ad Vendors: No YouTube? No Dice.
You might have a great ad solution but if you don’t to test it on YouTube, you won’t have scale. Day in and day out, we get calls from “a great company with a great technology” that will allow us to generate a lot of video advertising revenue, but when you ask them if they work with YouTube, the answer is generally: no. Now we work with YouTube and they are our largest distribution partner by stream count, we like them and all so this is not a knock. I am mentioning all of this to come back to Cuban’s argument about how content producers are wrong about seeing the Web as salvation, on which point he’s wrong.
Content Creators Are Only Ones With a Shot in Hell
WatchMojo.com has built a library of nearly 5,000 clips, 500 hours of programming, and generated nearly 50M streams since launching in 2006. An experienced executive at a major media company recently asked me during a call: “are you guys like a big production company that is now moving online?”
Truth is, we’re basically a website that spawned a production company, and now has a considerable syndication network. The point is: because of the power of distribution online were we allowed and able to become relevant. We cut deals alongside with and with the traditional television and cable companies… so unless I am missing something, Cuban is wrong about content creators being delusional, I personally think that given YouTube’s position and power, the content providers have the ability to build a real business over time whereas the ad vendors are left outside looking in on the action.
Fascinating tell-all book on MySpace, found via Tech Crunch. Worth noting that MySpace’s position on the matter is: “This book received zero participation, zero access, and zero fact-checking from MySpace.”
The major tidbit is that in February 2005, Facebook founder offered to sell his new social network to MySpace for $75M. As obvious as this “error” might be today, at the time, MySpace was a subsidiary of Intermix (formerly called eUniverse) with little cash on the books, so even if MySpace’s Chris DeWolfe wanted to pursue the offer, I doubt they could. More importantly, I’d say, was DeWolfe’s decision to cash out when the company raised $11.5M from Redpoint (thus limiting his upside) and mainly, his decision to cap the value of MySpace in any sale of Intermix to $125M. But, you know what they say about hindsight.
On my end, something else stood out:
June 2005: Viacom and News Corp vie for acquisition of MySpace. Viacom too slow, News Corp. does marathon weekend deal to buy company for $580 million. Ross Levinsohn from News Corp. leads deal from their side. Tom Freston leads from Viacom.
It’s interesting to see that companies don’t change or learn from mistakes. Months after News Corp. bought MySpace, it also bought IGN, which Viacom was also chasing.
At the time, I was VP of sales at AskMen, who was just acquired by IGN a few months before in June 2005. The day the deal was announced, I happened to be in NYC. You’d think that Viacom would have learned from losing MySpace and moved faster on IGN, but it didn’t. IGN had filed for an IPO, but ultimately, News Corp. paid $650M for IGN. IGN had given options to us at AskMen after they bought us in a cash deal, so I ended up making 50% more from the IGN/AskMen deal via that acquisition. I always had a soft spot for Rupert Murdoch, even when his leutenants piled on and sued me the next year.
Note: my new company WatchMojo.com currently supplies MySpace with videos, so it’s nothing but love now.
Eric Jackson - who led the campaign to bring change to Yahoo - is looking for the next target. He’s looking at notable blue chips that have taken a recent hit, namely: Citigroup, Apple, GE, and many others.
Check out the list and vote for the company you think he should open a can of whoop ass on.
Personally, I am starting to think we’re in a deflationary period (and I don’t seem to be alone) and most of these stocks can be cheaper in the next few quarters relative to where they are now.
This is especially true when you consider:
- the actual stock market performances: the DJIA fell below 8,000 to 7,500, then crept back up to over 9,000 at 9,030 but has now tumbled back down to below 8,000 to 7,950 on Inauguration Day,
- recent real estate trends: I have never seen so many “reduced prices” on home “For Sale” signs,
- softness in so-called safe havens and growth markets, you are seeing a flight to quality evidenced by the drop in low-quality online advertising CPM rates.
I don’t know, but I think a lot of the projected earnings that companies are still touting over the next 2-6 quarters will be reduced, and obvioulsy that means stock prices remain shaky at best.
Despite recent layoffs and the shuttering of unrelated businesses, Google remains as ambitious as ever to replace Microsoft as the most valuable technology company and become the 21st century’s version of Standard Oil.
The Google Drive, or “GDrive”, could kill off the desktop computer, which relies on a powerful hard drive. Instead a user’s personal files and operating system could be stored on Google’s own servers and accessed via the internet.
But while Google has surely helped push the envelope with cloud computing (Lord knows running a startup is easier today than a mere five years ago due to easier online collaborative tools), sometimes I think we’re all drinking too much kool-aid bong water if we think the desktop will die anytime soon… I mean, Google, can you please make sure that our files are always available in Google Docs first and that I can log into to Gmail all the time? Thanks!
After all, Google has proven to have an Achilles Heel, too: a few years ago it was buying companies like Dodgeball and passing it off as pieces of the puzzle of a grand unifying theory… then a short time later, it was something that was not even worth the $50,000 in annual costs to maintain.
Twitter is making the same mistakes Facebook did, which are:
- raising money instead of generating any,
- letting the valuation get ahead of realistic business prospects which will make any M&A nearly impossible,
- thinking that the “success” its had with its obsessive, early-stage adopters can be mirrored to the broader world,
- will obsessively create valuations based on online advertising estimates even though the company is at best a communications and/or e-commerce play,
- mistaking a API for others to use as a business model
- encouraging other businesses to build applications on top of their grid, without itself knowing that their business is/will be.
There are some differences:
- Twitter is more of a mobile app than Facebook is, and mobile, while wildly speculative, is all about hype and fads with very little to show for it. On top of this, the wireless world remains a largely closed one where to become a true success you need to operate in the world of carriers, something that is impossible to pull off.
- If Facebook really wanted to, it could put Twitter out of business by pushing their own status update feature (more people have a Facebook account than Twitter will ever have).
- Lastly, while over time a majority of Web surfers might have a Facebook profile and could stay somewhat engaged with it to varying degrees, the same simply cannot be said about Twitter. In other words, having a social network profile on Facebook is pretty vain, sure, but having a Twitter account is plain crass when anyone with common sense and objectivity thinks about it.
But, once again, don’t take it from me. When Facebook raised money at the $15B implied valuation, people said “this is the new way” and a bunch of other BS. A $250M valuation is a far cry from a $15B one, for sure, but in 2009, if Twitter is the new Facebook, then $250M valuation with $0 revenues is basically a $15B one that will corner Twitter before long.
Well put:
Unlike a lot of men in her position, Ms Bartz kept her power in perspective. She had groomed a successor at Autodesk and became worried that he might leave if she stuck around too long. So she made way for him and became Autodesk’s chairman. “There is a real difference between managing and leading,” she once said. “Managing winds up being the allocation of resources against tasks. Leadership focuses on people. My definition of a leader is someone who helps people succeed.”
Edward Richardson, 41, of Mayfield Road, Biddulph, was found guilty of stabbing Sarah Richardson to death.
The 26-year old hairdresser was murdered by Richardson when he was infuriated by her change in her facebook status- from married to single.
Richardson tried to kill himself after the attack and was sentenced to life with a minimum of 17 years in prison.
I am not sure social media experts ruined anything in particular, because real people are not even aware of them, but the problem with social media experts is actually:
- they want everything online to be offered for free, thus ad-supported,
- yet they want companies to pay them for their advise and services,
- they encourage things like social media (UGC, sharing, excessive openness that would make a hippie blush) that advertisers actually shun.
Also interesting to see what social media experts will say over the next few months and year as the social media hype goes fully off the rails and nearly every theory they pushed for the past few years gets debunked.
But back to the point: yeah, advising marketers to spend too much time worrying about Twitter which despite its growth remains a fad is a bit insane.
Read more on 2009 Year in Social Media from a non expert like yours-truly.
