Old isn’t cool online either, Lachlan. But what is?

There was an opinion piece in this weekends AFR by Alan Stokes in which the author discussed the current situation at Network 10 and what Lachlan Murdoch in his role as interim CEO should do to win back the 16-39 youth demographic to Ten.

Stokes argued, correctly, that Ten had made a strategic error in trying to force its audience to ‘grow up’ and embrace news and drama instead of the younger, light entertainment content that had defined the network for the better part of the last two decades.

He also suggested that Ten had for too long looked to the Simpsons and Neighbours as key pillars for 16-39′s despite the fact most of the coveted ‘youth demographic’ had moved on from these two shows and onto edgier alternatives.

Instead, Stokes suggested Ten draft in Family Guy (which Seven has the rights to in AU and runs on 7 Mate), up its weekly broadcasts of Glee and Modern Family and turn 7pm Project more tabloid. He also suggested Ten ditch the Mum and Dad dramas of House, The Good Wife (I’d throw Blue Bloods into this category as well) and scrap Good News Week.

To round it out Stokes’s plan was to beef up the presence of Masterchef and expand the remit of One HD to become more about blokes and less about straight sport.

I liked the thinking but the only flaw was it didn’t really investigate what a similar approach would look like online.

From someone in the 16-39 demographic I feel as a viewer that Ten has erred old (for a younger skewed network) for the last 3 years. Shows like GNW, My Generation, Simpsons and Neighbours just don’t – to me – feel relevant for the 16-39 audience anymore. The two biggest phenomenons for TV in this demo are Family Guy and Jersey Shore, and neither are on Network 10.

Online it’s hard to tell where Ten really is aiming at. The digital options are led by TV so it, as a digital product, hasn’t really found its own identity.

However, from all reports Ten’s digital efforts are lean on costs and strong on revenue relative to audience. It’s main activity in the last 24 months has been around Oasis Active (a singles site) and Our Deal (a group buying site). It has also bolstered its video offering and under CDO Nick Spooner, it has fixed up what, for all intents and purposes, was a pretty limp digital offerings pre his arrival.

If Murdoch wants Ten to really own 16-39′s online where would it start?

First of all it needs to become the definitely go-to when it comes to insights around this audience. It is not presently doing this. My feeling is to ‘own’ an audience you need to understand them better than anyone else – and that extends beyond knowing how they watch TV. You want to understand their opinions, thoughts, needs around entertainment and content and be excellent at selling this to advertisers and helping them create relevant communication for this audience. This starts with data, insight and information as well as creativity and an element of gut feel.

Secondly, it needs strong offerings in the areas 16-39 audience use heavily online – music, entertainment, social, video, humour – and areas that have social currency.

Thirdly, it might need to expand what it offers up online beyond straight extensions of TV programming – ie, licencing international sites that play well around these categories and audience or buying up local sites with established audiences and extending these into TV through the multichannels.

The core challenge is adapting as quickly as the audience does – which is difficult with 16-39. The categories of music, entertainment, humour, social and video have been dramatically changed through the web.

Ten or so years ago music was radically different to how it is now. The way its consumed, the way its purchased, the way its reported, the way its discovered. Entertainment is the same – most light/gossip entertainment 10 years ago was discovered often weeks after it happened through magazines or through TV reports. Now it’s instant and immediate thanks to sites like TMZ. Video is another on demand channel – torrents have meant people can download whatever they want whenever they want – which has wreaked havoc with programming schedules as consumers are not willing to wait 6 months for shows to arrive in AU.

Humour and memes online have become big businesses. Sites like Cheezburger, Texts from Last Night, Damn You Auto Correct and F My Life have anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 users every month from Australia alone. For many 16-39 year olds this form of entertainment has eaten significantly into TV. It’s edgy, topical and quick … it works for todays audience. Ten years ago this was a fringe activity online or relegated to joke email forwards.

And social and, in many ways, local are weaved within all of these categories now – a real challenge for a company built on a broadcast base.

If you look at Ten’s digital presence now it’s credentials in these areas aren’t as solid as they could be.

But if you could build these, and pair them with a reinvigorated broadcast suite for this audience and Ten’s sales team the upside could be significant.

For brands and advertisers it would surely be appealing – if there was a network that could link them to not only the TV content that 16-39′s liked, but their favourite music sites, short form videos and entertainment outlets on the web as well, it would be an attractive proposition if integrated smartly. Much more exciting than a few banners on the web extension of a TV title. And Ten could pull this off as they have a solid presence in the ad market with trust that has been developed over decades.

Add radio to the above mix (Murdoch has a significant stake in DMG) and you could create a multi channel sales approach which blends TV, radio and web. Radio could offer brand extensions for both TV shows and web brands. It could play a pivotal role in creating real cross media brands.

That’s even more appealing for consumers,  investors as well as advertisers. Seriously.

 

Facebook – not so quietly killing email and messenger products

About 17 months ago I posted a blog about the dangers Facebook posed to the dominant Mail and Messenger products in Australia, owned by Ninemsn and Yahoo!

The full post is here – http://talkingdigital.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/facebooks-big-chance/

In it I wrote:  “Facebook – either by accident or design – now has its sights set on a bigger scalp – the local reliance on Yahoo! and MSN on traffic, revenue and engagement from their email and messenger properties.”

“For many, it’s replacing email and messenger – or at least reducing the user’s reliance on these tools.”

I went on to talk about both MSN and Yahoo!s reliance on these tools to beef up their respective network sizes. Their reliance on these 2 products is significant.

The reason I am revisiting this topic is because I now believe Facebook is a much larger threat to the big 5 than many think, and it has the power to become effectively a “4th Free to Air” … ie, a property that could command similar revenue scale to their FTA TV stations. 2011 is the year this will start to really happen. And it will happen quickly.

Why? Well

- it’s simple to buy
- minimal formats
- de-complicates a convoluted ecosystem
- creative agencies have ‘bought into’ it and have discovered ways to make money from it
- it’s a lower touch option for media agencies than a 50 line media buy
- brands have bought into it (most importantly) as usage is ubiquitous
- it’s a digital ‘champion’ that the new generation of ‘digital strategists’ actively lobby for (unlike most sites established pre 2004 which are often now considered ‘old’)
- It now has numbers that are starting to rival TV (ie big chunks of oncurrent users during key times – evenings, daytime)

The beauty of becoming a ’4th Free to Air’ is potential access to 100′s of millions of ad revenue and the very real opportunity Facebook and Google will command, between them, a monster chunk of Australian digital ad revenue.

Most of Facebook’s gains will come from the large ‘macro’ players – mostly big sites that have seen significant revenue as a result of large user numbers.

If Facebook can do this sort of ambush globally, it makes the $50b valuation that Goldman Sachs and their clients bought in at seem low.

So anyway, back to the original topic. That is, Facebook’s erosion of the Mail and Messenger products in AU.

Let’s have a look at some comparisons between September 2009 and January 2011. Numbers have been taken from the same source, Neilsen Netview.

MSN Messenger
Nov 09:  5.38m users
Jan 11:  3.57m users
Down 33%

MSN Hotmail
Nov 09:  4.07m users
Jan 11:  3.57m users
Down 12%

Yahoo! Messenger
Nov 09:  618k users
Jan 11:  473k users
Down 23%

Yahoo! Mail
Nov 09:  1.78m users
Jan 11:  1.48m users
Down 16%

These numbers aren’t great – but the core issue is these 2 products are absolutely key to boost overall network numbers and generate a significant amount of the time people spend on the sites (which is the widely accepted metric for loyalty and engagement)

Hotmail has been the foundation of MSN for years and it is being quickly eroded. Yahoo’s Mail product has never been a big player in AU but it’s still decreasing off a small base.

The big strategic issue is replacing the time people used to spend on these properties across the large portals and moving them into other areas – ie, decreasing your reliance on these particular properties for repeat visitation.

In September 2009 users spent a total of 1.96 billion minutes on the site. Of those minutes, 1.68 billion were on Mail or Messenger.

In January 2011, users spend a total of 998m minutes on ninemsn, of those 670m were on mail of messenger. The time spent on mail and messenger has dropped per month by 1 billion minutes.  That is massive whichever way you try and cut the data. 67% of time spent on the site is across 2 products in rapid freefall.

What’s more, total time spent on the site between Sept 09 and Jan 11 has dropped by almost 50%

In September 2009 users spent 567 million minutes on Yahoo!7. 355 million of those minutes were on Yahoo! Mail and Yahoo! Messenger. This represented 63 per cent of total time spent on the site.

In January 2011, users spent 451m minutes on Yahoo!7. 254m were spent on Mail or Messenger. This represents 56% of all time spent on the portal.

This wouldn’t be news to either MSN or Yahoo!, and both for the past 3+ years would have been working on ways of decreasing their reliance on these 2 properties. Group buying, category based content specialisation and Video are 3 of the areas both are looking to to provide growth over the next 3-5 years. Both have made some excellent moves in these areas over the past 2 years.

Still, it shows how quickly Facebook has decimated 2 of their pillars and the significant impact this has on both inventory and time spent. Both ninemsn and Yahoo! have recently reported strong local numbers and EBIT, but there is still significant pressure to build these aggressively over the next 3 years and Mail and communications products (and their longer term health) play a pivotal role in user recruitment and retention.

If Facebook can continue to evolve its ad product, and hold audience in numbers and time spent, it might just get close to realising the potential its huge valuations place upon it.

For email and messenger the outlook isn’t so good. Messenger in particular looks terminal. Email – a touch better health wise – but losing relevance and more importantly, facing serious competition for advertisers wanting lower cost demographic targeting options.

Plus there’s the rumours Google will start adding display ads to GMail.

Interesting times ahead.

Leveraging the power of celebrity

I was in the US last week for meetings and couldn’t help but get caught up in the scale of the celebrity industry over there. It’s huge.

Discard the entertainment industry (which is another monster – especially on the West Coast), I’m talking about the industry surrounding celebrities and reporting on what they do,  what they drink, what they wear, what they have to say about things and who they’re dating.

Magazines, websites, radio shows, TV shows, columnists – all dedicated to reporting on the minutiae of celebrity.

By celebrity I basically mean any ‘public’ person – not necessarily gossip rag staples.

Revenue wise these businesses are viable – as there is an intense hunger for brands, especially in the US, to surround themselves with celebrity and those who aspire to emulate it.

And these are brands across the board targeting all kinds of people – Teens, young women, grocery buyers, young men, Males 18-35, the affluent, the middle class. Everyone.

These celebrities are influential. They can help make or break a brand and they drive immense public interest. For the past 60+ years they have fuelled an industry that exists around them, an industry that is viable and valuable.

Many of these celebrities are changing the role they play in the wider world of media – going from subject to media owner.

Martha Stewart and Oprah are two good examples of celebrities that have ‘become the media’ and own extremely lucrative media businesses which they also control.

There also Tyra Banks – who owns a production company but has also partnered wth Demand Media to build out her own Tyra media properties. Ellen De Generes is the same, partnering with AOL. Lance Armstrong has done the same thing with Livestrong. Jim Cramer is another with Mad Money. Charles Barkley with Turner.

The likes of Britney, the Kardashians, and various bands are also looking to build out their own presences and take advertising.

Plus think about people like Arianna Huffington with Huffington Post, Tina Brown with the Daily Beast – who have gone from Editor-In-Chief to media owners.

Social channels have allowed many of these celebs to have a more direct relationship with their fans/followers and have given them the confidence to look at developing direct relationships with brands and cutting out the intermediary. It’s almost like mass media has given them such a big platform that they don’t need them anymore – they’ve migrated many of their followers across into channels they control.

Which means brands now have the option of aligning themselves with a celebrity without having to endorse them. Brands can now place ads on these celebrities sites and reach an audience of scale in a context that is desirable.

It got me thinking – if this has happened in the US, when will it happen in Australia. Because it is a case of ‘when’, not ‘if’.

And who are the names who could develop their own media outlet and make it successful.

Alan Kohler is one person who has already done this. He was the business reporter for over two decades and had developed huge trust with a national audience. He took the plunge and started Business Spectator and now it’s in a position where it would be scaring his former employer and its new CEO. He is one of just a handful of examples though.

Who are Australian’s in technology, fashion, sport, news and current affairs that could potentially walk away from network TV/print/magazine distribution and develop their own thing?

And is their an opportunity for someone locally to curate and nurture this and build the operations around these marquee names? Create a wide network of influence that when you look at the total audience, is significant enough to attract larger brand dollars.

I know Australia isn’t as obsessed with the cult of celebrity that the US is, but it’s still a country that champions the people it connects with. TV and magazines have always depended on marquee names that connect deeply with the audience – those names people allow into their lives/living room regularly. Digital hasn’t done that yet … it’s much more anonymous and much more functional. This has caused weak brands, weak engagement and low levels of loyalty across the board.

The question for brands is – do you want to align with an outlet that is more about straight function or utility, or do you want to align with an individual or outlet with serious influence and clout that guides the wider conversation. The question for brands comes down to ‘which one is going to reflect more favourably on my product and change perceptions in a positive way?’

What are your thoughts?

Huffpo = $315m. Local implications?

So yesterday AOL shelled out $315m to buy US news property The Huffington Post.

Some notable information around the purchase
- it was virtually all cash
- it was at a 10x revenue multiple and a 20x or more projected EBIT multiple
- the CEO has already left
- the Ad Sales boss won’t be coming across to AOL

So you have a business that has seen solid ad growth and organisation growth through the CEO and the Ad Boss – which has contributed a huge amount of value to the sale price of HuffPo – and these two people aren’t coming across.

Secondly – the purchase was basically all cash.  It’s a clean exit – no earn out and no risk for the investors and Huffington. Financially, it’s of no consequence whether the business performs as future performance has no impact on the sale price.

For HuffPo it’s a nice exit at a nice valuation. Both Yahoo! and NBC were looking at the site but neither were doing it in a particularly speedy fashion. Reports are neither would have given Ariana Huffington the kind of senior role she would have wanted. AOL did – she is now Editor in Chief of the entire company and therefore has properties like Engadget and TechCrunch reporting into her.

HuffPo is a relatively strong site – it’s pulling around 1.9m US people a day. It’s strong on SEO and it churns through content. It runs relatively lean and doesn’t have the content creation costs of most of its competitors. For AOL it’s a site that offers
- high media attention
- strong content learnings that play to their new strategy
- access to “influencers”

AOL has plenty of cash in the bank from their IPO so it needs to be seen to be investing in media businesses. Why? Because AOL has hung their hat on being a media business moving forward and secondly, they need to nurture a revenue stream to takeover from their still viable yet not future-proof dial up internet connection business.

Buy buying HuffPo and its other recent purchases,  it is attempting to establish a foothold within key sectors – women, local, influencers. It is these groups that account for a large chunk of ad spend, and it’s these groups that are underserviced generally when it comes to compelling digital ad options.

From recently being in the US, the only warning siren for me is spending such large money on a media business in a market with such low CPMs. In the US a $5cpm is a win – for Huffpo to seem like a smart bet it needs to be pulling $25-30m in EBIT within the next 24 months and for that to happen it needs some serious revenue. Serious revenue becomes difficult with such low CPMs. AOL must be hoping they can push these up over time with Project Devil.

Second question, will HuffPo be able to continue to pay writers minimal or no money when they have made such a public sell at such a large price to a listed company? It will need to hold contributors and if anything AOL will seek to make ‘operational savings’ by rolling HuffPo into AOL and will want to spend less, not more, ROI wise on content creation.

So – with all this movement around content in the US, and some local acquisition rumours floating around (plus the $40m sale of Spreets) – could we see similar acquisitions in Australia?

Maybe – who knows. It really depends on what company needs to make some bold moves in the digital space to redefine their relevance and plug the hole of legacy businesses that have kept them afloat but are at the end of their tenure.

To me, it feels that the company who needs to look at some bold strategic initiatives is Telstra Media and Sensis.

They have a big opportunity with their reach into households via the ISP business and they have deep pockets that would allow them to make such a bold experiment.

They have cross media access – mobile, internet, TV – which could become powerful. They could – if executed right – leverage strong mediabrands and make them bigger across channels.

It’s just some of these channels feel tired. They need a rethink.

But the opportunity is significant. What other media company in Australia has the potential network, deep pockets and clout that Telstra does?

Could Telstra do an AOL and look to reinvent what it means to both consumer and advertising market as a media company? I believe it can.

Is Hulu coming to Australia? And if so, what are the challenges?

Over the past week there’s been a bit of discussion around whether the US video entity Hulu has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with PBL/Nine about setting up a local presence.

This has been driven by SMH writer Julian Lee who claimed this happened last year (no source however) in this article – http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/freeview-says-industrywide-catchup-service-not-dead-yet-20110203-1afgc.html?skin=text-only

Right now online video is still very niche in Australia, and you could even argue it’s niche globally – especially when it comes to professionally made content that goes beyond 2-3 minutes.

Hulu revenues in 2010 were reported at $240m – which is barely a blip on the radar for the companies involved (One shareholder, News, reported revenues over $8b for Q4 10) and reports are Hulu is seeking a cap. raise around $2-300 at a $2b valuation to help fund growth opportunities.

One of these growth areas could be Australia – maybe. The big questions are
- What is the revenue opportunity in AU?
- How can Hulu work in a market like AU which relies so heavily on licensed programming?
- Would Hulu be a one stop shop (similar to how it is in the US – excluding CBS) or would it be limited?
- What benefits would Hulu get in partnering in AU aside on ground ad sales?

The biggest question is around Australian’s appetite for a video on demand service like Hulu and whether it can sustain itself and build into a significant business of a similar scale to Pay TV or at least the multichannels.

I wrote a piece 2 years ago crunching the numbers around what I felt was required takeup wise – http://talkingdigital.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/73-9-is-the-magic-number-for-online-video/

This required all internet users to spend around 73 minutes a week watching professional video for the industry to be at 10% the scale of FTA revenues. This is with pure advertising revenue.

Hulu in the US has introduced a subscription service – Hulu Plus. It’s a $10 a month sub service which gives you HD access across a wide range of devices including game consoles and tablets. A similar initiative locally is Foxtel on XBOX360.

You’d imagine for Hulu to be exploring AU they’d be wanting local revenues anywhere between $30-50m within 18-24 months. That sounds high but it’s necessary – if there is in fact a JV there’s at least 2 mouths to feed (Hulu and PBL). Plus the AU FTA market is so large any entrant looking to erode this would need somewhat audacious goals. So, how would they get there?

Well – let’s assume 15% of this comes from subscriptions. That’s $7.5m. That would need 62,500 subscribers to the HD service for an entire year assuming a cost of $10 AUD per month. OR – 750,000 monthly subscriptions in total.

If the other 85% comes from advertising, that would require revenue in the vicinity of $42.5m. At a $50cpm this requires 850m video ads to be served. With an average of 4 ads per show this means just over 210m shows a year would need to be watched on Hulu. In full. 17.5m full program streams per month.

With 2m monthly users this would require just under 9 shows per user watched per month. 9 shows at 25 mins per show = just under 4 hours on the platform per user per month.

I guess this is the key challenge – how do you get a user to spend this amount of time on one site every month? It doesn’t sound too ambitious – however when you look at the amount of time spent on most websites per month (ex. Facebook) it’s generally in the minutes. Not the tens of minutes and definitely not in ‘hours’.

Hulu coming to AU is a very exciting development if it is happening. It brings world class content and a great platform. It brings over 3 years of US learnings as well around UI and content. And it brings a more mature outlook to video in Australia which goes beyond hype and big future predictions (ie – mobile industry for the past 6 years) and focuses more on building a viable, competitive business.

Ninemsn would be a great partner as it’s a strong business with a strong exec team.

I feel the ad market is ready for something like Hulu. The big challenge – generate the consumer demand required to turn it into a $50m business within 18 months.

Newscorp Q2 very strong despite myspace woes

Newscorp reported their Q2 numbers earlier this week, and the numbers are solid.

Net income was at $642m (up from $254m the previous year) and Operating income was at $1.29b (up from $712m the previous year). Revenues remained steady at $8.7b

It looks super impressive but it’s important to note that in Q2 2009 News incurred a $500m litigation settlement charge which impacted earnings. If you adjust the figures and compare the YOY increase it represents a 6% increase in operating profit.

Still – these are good numbers. Especially good when you take into consideration where the gains are coming from. News is seeing the majority of its growth from its television and cable television businesses – cable network programming operating income was up over 131m YOY, TV up $120m YOY. Filmed entertainment was significantly down (down due to lack of big blockbusters in Q2) and Publishing was flat after taking into consideration the 2009 Litigation settlement and costs incurred in the development of the tablet newspaper, The Daily.

News is seeing very robust growth from a media channel many are claiming is on its way to becoming redundant or at the very least disrupted. TV revenue is up just short of 10% YOY and Cable Network programming up 20%.

Here’s the thing – these revenue increases are by no means insignificant. Internet advertising (in the US) was up 11.3% for the first half of 2010. News is seeing similar growth from Network TV and higher revenue growth for Cable in these most recent numbers. This shows the death of TV as a relevant consumer medium AND robust business is greatly exaggerated.

Newscorp reports digital efforts under ‘Other’ and it’s basically the only stain on what are pretty solid results. Another quarter another loss – operating loss of $156m for Q2 “stemming largely from lower search and advertising revenues at Myspace.” ‘Other’ also includes the Fox Mobile (now offloaded) and Outdoor Advertising businesses which reportedly have improved revenue wise.

‘Other’ revenues when you take into consideration the above are dire. ‘Other’ for Q2 2010 sat at $319m total revenue, for the same period in Q2 2009 it sat at $447m. That’s a $128m drop across 3 divisions.  Now, also remember that reports are the Mobile and Outdoor businesses have improved revenue wise.

Adding insult to injury, significant costs were incurred in Q2 around redundancy costs (around $107m) and a writedown of the remaining myspace value ($168m).

With such large losses and a worrying advertising revenue trend, it is difficult to fathom how myspace can get out of the funk it finds itself in. It requires a significant turnaround with a radical and quick uplift in ad revenues combined with an equally radical and quick decrease in operating costs.

Chase Carey outlined that News may now be officially open to entertaining approaches around a myspace sale.

“The new MySpace has been very well received by the market and we have some very encouraging metrics. But the plan to allow MySpace to reach it’s full potential may be best achieved under a new owner.”

Carey told PaidContent, “It could be a sale, it could be an investor coming in to it, it could be us staying in with a restructured ownership structure with management. We think a fresh perspective would give them flexibility and an opportunity to get a new life consistent with the right-sizing of the product and the costs.”

Carey sounds bullish around the myspace redesign and product enhancements, that could be a pre-emptive sales pitch to warm the market or a legitimate change of heart from a few months ago when he called the site “a problem”. Regardless, he needs to stop the bleed and do it quickly. Without the ‘Other’ losses in Q2 Carey would have been bringing the market an operating income of over $1.4b. I know which number I’d prefer to present.

If it is on the market, what’s myspace worth now? Well – it’s a tough one to work out. You can’t apply an EBIT multiple as an EBIT multiple requires positive EBIT. This piece puts it’s value at $50m, a long way from the $10b+ some felt it was worth around 2008.

Want to know something crazy? $50m was reportedly what Tom Anderson and Chris De Wolfe demanded from News in salaries back in 2007 to stay at the company for another 2 years. Each wanted $25m for 2 years tenure.

Yahoo!7 acquires Spreets

AdNews is reporting today Yahoo!7 has paid $40m for Spreets.

Hate to say I told you so …

http://talkingdigital.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/its-good-times-for-the-au-group-buying-fast-followers

$40m is a cracking exit for Spreets and would have been purchased at a handsome multiple.

From the post published 18 January …

Of all the large media players, Seven will need to acquire to get into this space quickly; and Seven buying a company like, say, Spreets is a smart move. Most companies who need an investment like this aren’t going to want to build it from scratch. Seven buying Spreets gives them an instant, cash positive, asset that they can scale up relatively quickly using the media assets at their disposal via Channel 7, Pacific Mags and Yahoo. Seven has shown that it is prepared to acquire established businesses rather than rely on Yahoo! intl assets/kit repurposed for this market (as evidenced by their acquisition of Total Travel and OzTips)

Why do Seven need to be seen to be doing something? Because Nine and Ten have already made their moves and Seven will want to hold the perception with investors that they are a forward thinking, future proof company on top of viable digital trends.

It’s good times for the AU Group-buying fast followers

The hysteria present right now around group buying is at levels we haven’t seen since the Google IPO and the subsequent boom of search engine marketing.

I wrote about the group buying phenomenon and the local activity around the space in September of last year – http://talkingdigital.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-groupon-clones-are-coming/

This article revolved around the PBL/MSFT ‘Cudo’ brand launching and I made a few predictions that a load of groups would have their fingers in the pie of their own, or someone elses, Group buying company.

So – since then

- Cudo has launched and begun promotion via PBL assets
- Ten has invested in Our Deal
- Netus has invested in Our Deal
- Sensis has launched a Yellow Pages deals site
- JumpOnIt received $5m of investment from Amazon affiliated Living Social
- Groupon launched StarDeals in Australia
- Groupon sued ScoopOn
- GroupOn offered ScoopOn’s owner Hezi Leibovich $286k USD to sell them the groupon.com.au domain

That’s a lot to happen in 5 months.

But the big thing that happened was Google offered Groupon $6b for a full acquisition … and Groupon turned it down.

Now the rumour is GroupOn is talking to Goldman Sachs about leading their IPO, and the number being talked about in terms of a valuation is $15b. There is talk GroupOn will kick off the IPO boom of the next 18 months, where Facebook, GroupOn, LinkedIn and others are rumoured to be going public.

Google offering such large money to Groupon has legitimised Group buying and moved it from a new, interesting innovation to a must have digital foundation. Google, rightly or wrongly, has this sort of sway.

Group buying is appealing to many (especially bean counters) as the potential revenue upside is significantly higher than a normal ‘digital media’ business (ie one that sells ads next to content). Plus they’re low when it comes to ‘non-sales based’ overheads and generally pretty lean.

In AU there are a handful of these businesses that are not aligned with a larger play – namely ZoupOn, Spreets and Scoopon.

If I was the owner of any of the three businesses above I’d be feeling pretty good right now. There is no doubt all 3 will receive acquisition approaches at pretty solid multiples within the next 6 months. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one of them has a formal offer on paper with approval subject to due diligence.

Here’s the thing – there’s a few of the larger media companies that will need to be seen to be doing something within group buying. When this happens the market is whipped into a frenzy and offers can go from 8-12x EBIT to numbers more around 25-30x EBIT. Or more. Why? Supply.

Of all the large media players, Seven will need to acquire to get into this space quickly; and Seven buying a company like, say, Spreets is a smart move. Most companies who need an investment like this aren’t going to want to build it from scratch. Seven buying Spreets gives them an instant, cash positive, asset that they can scale up relatively quickly using the media assets at their disposal via Channel 7, Pacific Mags and Yahoo. Seven has shown that it is prepared to acquire established businesses rather than rely on Yahoo! intl assets/kit repurposed for this market (as evidenced by their acquisition of Total Travel and OzTips)

Why do Seven need to be seen to be doing something? Because Nine and Ten have already made their moves and Seven will want to hold the perception with investors that they are a forward thinking, future proof company on top of viable digital trends.

Fairfax is another business that would be closely looking and another business that needs to keep market confidence in their digital efforts high.

FD has made strong profit via its transactions division, and a group buying play is in line with a transaction based digital business. Like Seven, Fairfax has sound media distribution to make a current group buying play bigger. The issue Fairfax would wrestle with is the fact group buying is potentially ‘off brand’ when compared to its more high end print assets. However, the same would have been said when they purchased RSVP under David Kirk, and that buy has been a big success.

News Ltd has its toe in the water via Netus’s stake with Our Deal. Like Seven and Fairfax, investors are looking closely at News and their longer term value hinges on their ability to demonstrate competency in a digital sense. Especially after myspace.

Other people that could be looking at this area are Hannan’s IDM, Lachlan Murdoch’s Illyria, James Packer’s investment group, David Kirk and his new investment vehicle and even companies like Salmat or Wotif. There is never a shortage of funds for something that is red hot and considered minimal risk (again, rightly or wrongly)

Time will tell whether group buying is a sound longer term strategic investment and whether the concept is sustainable in a consumer sales and trade sales sense at current competitive levels. But there can be no denying that right now the investor appetite is at levels we haven’t experienced for a long time and the next 6 months are going to be very interesting.

The big loser. Yellow Pages. Group buying is another bullet for a business that has been bleeding for the past 10 years.

Ad exchanges – What am I missing?

I was reading this article about Ad Exchanges in the US and this line grabbed me.

“CPMs on exchanges that use Triggit have risen to the point where they now average $3″

$3?

That’s $3 pre the exchanges cut (and anyone else using it). Maybe the publisher might see $1, $2 max.

So for a piece of content that generates 100,000 reads, that’s $100-200 in revenue. The economics of these exchanges seems to make little sense for publishers. And ultimately, they will make less sense for users and they will get more ads, and poorer quality content (as content is expensive)

2011 is seemingly the year of agency DSPs. I get the appeal for an agency (incremental revenue stream and the ability to cut out the network middleman) – and I get the appeal to a publisher with loads of remnant cheap inventory (the chance to make a few cents extra for minimal cost). But I don’t see how sustainable it is for the companies creating the content and generating the pages.

There’s talk that the larger publishers will set up their own networks, their own DSPs, private ones. Again, I understand the thought (when they’re giving their inventory to network x who sells it at a 1-200% margin through a loose ‘blind’ buy) but this will ultimately have to erode the areas they’re making a strong CPM.

At $3 cpms no one is making any money. They are losing it.

Maybe instead of focusing on this race to the bottom (which somehow hides behind technology that does no favours to the content creators/site owners) we should be focusing on ways to generate more value.

If DSPs and networks are the future of online advertising, it’s a pretty dark future for everyone involved. I don’t buy the argument that it makes things more efficient. Sites shouldn’t just sell pixels, they should sell context and insight. These things don’t come with a network/automated play.

Here’s the thing – in the media world only the digital side is choosing this ridiculous race to the bottom. Outdoor, radio, TV, print, magazines would never consider this approach. 99% of them don’t let anyone sell their assets besides their own teams.

Selling on price seems to be a last resort when you can’t demonstrate value elsewhere. Is digital media becoming so devoid of value that many just throw it out there into these mass exchanges and hope for a few cents after everyone takes their share? How sustainable is this?

 

Michel Gondry directs an episode of Jimmy Kimmel live

I saw this across the web last week and thought it was great.

To promote The Green Hornet, Michel Gondry guest directed an episode of Jimmy Kimmel live. The same Michel Gondry who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Be Kind Rewind, who has also guest directed Flight of the Conchords and has created music videos for the White Stripes, Chemical Brothers and the Foo Fighters.

http://www.movieviral.com/2011/01/15/michel-gondry-directs-jimmy-kimmel-live/

As part of a campaign I think this is excellent. It’s creative, clever and memorable. Personally this is a noteable form of marketing that doesn’t rely on a new technological channel to brand it as ‘innovative’. At the end of the day it’s just GREAT content. And people want great content.

There has been a lot of buzz around this since it aired on Thursday night (US time) and over the next 5 days it will only continue.

The beauty of this, like Old Spice and even things like Terry Tate Office Linebacker, is it focuses on great (I mean really great) content first, then channels second. Why is it that so many campaigns now are channel first, compelling ideas second?

We all know a shitty movie is no better at the cinema than it is at home. Why? Because you can’t poish a turd. So why is it that we think a poorly executed social media initiative with some amateur created content is going to work simply because there’s 9m people on Facebook?

Channels can’t help you if the campaign idea is a dud.