About Me 0067: 2010

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Making Money Off Youtube

After a week of on-and-off rumors about Google making an offer for Groupon, there are now multiple reports that the web giant is close to paying as much as $6 billion for the social-shopping service, which has been growing faster than just about any tech-related company in recent memory — including Google. If true, the deal would be almost twice the size of the search company’s largest acquisition ever (the $3.1-billion purchase of DoubleClick in 2007), and would be a gigantic bet on two trends that Google has so far failed to really take advantage of: namely, the movement of local advertising onto the web, and the rise of social behavior online.

Google’s $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube in 2006 makes a good comparison for its apparent interest in Groupon: At the time, online video — and just as important, the sharing and embedding of that video — was clearly the future of the web, but Google was a tiny player in that market and wanted to get big quickly. So it paid what seemed like a massive amount of money at the time for the startup, and has spent the past few years trying to figure out how to monetize that content.

The nice part about Groupon is, while YouTube was located more towards the social end of the spectrum and less the monetization end, the group-buying service is a monetization machine — although one that is also socially oriented, since it takes advantage of consumers’ desire to trigger discounts by forming a group. Clearly one of the big attractions for any acquirer is the fact that Groupon is bringing in an estimated $50 million in revenue a month, and expects to close the year with more than half a billion dollars in sales. That’s after less than two years in existence.

Why has Groupon been able to grow so quickly? As I outline in my latest GigaOM Pro report (subscription required), the startup’s rapid success is a sign of how explosive the power of social media can be when applied to a revenue-generating idea like coupons. As co-founder and angel investor Eric Lefkofsky described in a recent interview about Groupon, the company (which was originally called The Point, and focused on connecting people around social issues and activism) didn’t really take off as a business until it married the viral nature of a group-buying offer with the desire by local retailers to reach out to potential customers. Email is the company’s primary method, but it’s also fueled by social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

More than anything, Groupon has been riding the social-advertising wave, which is something Google desperately wants to own. In many ways, it’s the next step beyond AdWords and AdSense: While those products involve advertising keywords that sit next to searches and capture surfers who are looking for information about specific topics, Groupon reaches out to people who may not even know they want the item yet. The company’s DoubleClick acquisition gave it control of banner advertising, but banners are the past; social advertising is the future. As Macquarie Research analyst Ben Schachter said in a research note this morning, the purchase “is about much more than Google generating revenue from emailed coupons — it’s about Google’s ability to potentially access and utilize the social graph for eCommerce.”

The other important aspect of the deal is that it is primarily focused on local or regional businesses. Groupon has also started promoting national deals of the kind it did with The Gap, but the company’s real power is in helping small and medium-sized retailers, restaurants and other merchants connect with customers directly, and boost demand for their services and products. That’s a market Google hasn’t been able to really capitalize on, despite attempts to do so through its Places feature. That was the rationale behind the web giant’s reported interest in buying Yelp — a deal which didn’t go forward, for unknown reasons — and it is driving its interest in Groupon as well.

What would web advertising look like if Google were to acquire Groupon? Instead of just keyword ads targeted to what you searched for, you could start to see offers directed specifically at your location, or based on things you have searched for in Google Places, or places you have checked in at through Google Latitude, or services you have rated via the web giant’s new and somewhat underwhelming Hotpot recommendation service. Google’s knowledge of algorithms could provide better matching and sorting of those deals, and the search company could also use the knowledge that it gains from Groupon’s millions of users and advertisers to fine-tune some of its other locally focused services.

In a recent interview, Don Rainey of Grotech Ventures — an investor in Groupon’s largest competitor, LivingSocial — talked about a future in which consumers and local businesses could participate in a kind of real-time auction-style marketplace for deals on products and services, so people looking for deals on dinner tonight could survey the offers from local restaurants and pick the ones they wanted, and merchants could fine-tune their offers based on real-time demand. That is one future that Google desperately wants to be part of, and $6 billion probably seems like a small price to pay for a seat at that table. For more on Groupon, please see my GigaOM Pro report.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

Why Google Should Fear the Social Web

Lessons From Twitter: How to Play Nice With Ecosystem Partners

What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s Open Platform

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Groupon and TechCrunch

All this morning, I kept seeing a video of ALF pop up on my Tumblr and Twitter news feeds. Of course, I didn’t click on them because…y’know, ALF…but I totally should have. The video is outtakes from the series ALF in which you can hear the character’s creator and puppeteer, Paul Fusco, entertaining the folks on set by saying some truly offensive things. Serves me right for assuming it was mere needless nostalgia.

The tape was discovered by YouTube user biohazardgraphics who claims he bought it off eBay 10 years ago. He or she posted it on YouTube a year ago where it went without much impact until earlier today when Badtvblog discovered it and brought it to the world’s attention. Hooray! Now we can all enjoy ALF saying the N-word and making filthy come ons to the Tanner’s teenaged daughter!

It’s pretty amazing. But, for my money, the best foul-mouthed outtakes from a dearly missed TV series remains the “dirty takes” from Better Off Ted’s insult episode. Oh. And this, of course.

(h/t Gawker.tv)

surface encounters rock tops surface encounters surface encounters review surface encounters review surface encounters review surface encounters review surface encounters surface encounters review surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters review surface encounters surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters review surface encounters complaints surface encounters complaints

Good news: School officials destroy girl's college plans over ...

Good news: School officials destroy girl's college plans over knife mix-up.

No, Snooki Will Not Be Dropping in a Ball in Times Square on New ...

New York City to Snooki: fuhgeddaboudit. MTV wanted.

Small Business News: Small Biz Tech Primer

Technology is vastly changing the scope and reach of small business not only in the world of marketing but in all aspects of operating your venture. From tech.

surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters review surface encounters review surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters rock tops surface encounters review surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Making Money Cash

Watching the recent product retraction of Google Wave convinced me that Google is fully infected with the same protracted, end-stage wasting disease that has consumed Microsoft for years: cash cow disease.

Cash cow disease arises when a public company has a small number of products that generate the lion's share of profits, but lacks the discipline to return those profits to the shareholders. The disease can progress for years or even decades, simply because the cash cow products produce enough massive revenues to distract shareholders from the smaller (but still massive) amounts of waste.

For example, with Microsoft, Windows and Office carry the company, roughly speaking, allowing the company to lose billions (that's with a 'b') on failed projects without incurring any serious backlash from stockholders. Without cash cows, Microsoft could not have launched a new cellphone, then canceled it a few weeks later, all while pouring more money into yet another generation of cellphone.

Cash cow disease costs stockholders untold (sometimes actively buried in accounting maneuvers) dollars. Consider Xbox, which consumed billions (that's with a 'b') before eventually turning a profit of millions (that's with an 'm'). If Xbox had been spun into a separate company, then Microsoft stockholders could have kept those billions (with a 'b') and let someone else decide to invest billions in trying to jump into the game console business.

Meanwhile, at Google, the cash cow is search-driven advertising. That allows the company to encourage engineers to waste 20% of their time on "projects", like Google Wave. Just like Microsoft stockholders, Google stockholders are expected to feel happy about the overall company profit margin and not inquire too closely into the massive amount of wastage.

Making Economic Sense

But wait, didn't Xbox eventually turn a profit? Doesn't Microsoft have to search for new sources of revenue? Isn't Google encouraging innovation that could pay off big someday? Am I mislabeling "investment" as "waste"? That's where the "cognitive decline" from the title comes in.

The problem with Microsoft's forays into phones and search, and with Google's forays into phones and operating systems (see a pattern here?) is lack of discipline. When you have a cash cow, you lose the discipline of having to make a good product and pay attention to your customers. Sure, Google and Microsoft can hire the smartest minds in the business -- but cash cow disease keeps that brainpower derailed into projects that don't have to stand the test of the marketplace (new programming language, anyone?).

How did Microsoft manage to acquire a relatively hip and happening company like Danger and turn it into a complete flop of a product launch with the Kin? To oversimplify: by having all the money the world. When your development decisions affect your ability to meet payroll quite directly, you see them in a very different light than when they affect nothing more than perhaps your next annual review or your status in the latest internecine company struggle. The economic discipline of the marketplace is lost for those afflicted with cash cow disease. A CEO can embark on a cellphone project for little better reason than that some obnoxious guy in a black turtleneck is doing well with his own cellphone.

Google offers their own unique twist on cash cow disease. Since their core competency is turning data mining into advertising dollars, they can actually claim that negative profits are the route to success. Thus, they can pay cell makers to adopt Android, and pay (in the past, quite enormous sums) customers to use their shopping cart option. Like pixie dust, potential future advertising revenues can be sprinkled on any revenue-negative scheme to make it look brilliant.

But you shelter yourself from the economic discipline of the marketplace at your own peril. If Google Wave had been a small company that had to actually convince people to pay for the product in order to meet payroll, the revelation that there's no "there" there could have been had in a fraction of the time -- and without costing Google shareholders a dime.

Stifling Innovation

Both Google and Microsoft proclaim themselves innovative companies that love competition. But the net result of cash cow disease is a waste of brainpower, and a decrease in useful innovation. A mere expression of interest by one of these giants in some particular burgeoning market is enough to dry up investment funds for any small company interested in the same market. For every failed Kin, there are multiple Dangers that could have thrived if Microsoft had had the discipline to stick to their Windows/Office knitting and restrict their other ventures to simply investing (rather than ingesting). For every magnificent Google Wave flop, there are multiple innovative new apps that could have been created (by the same people working in smaller companies) if Google had the discipline to focus on its core competency rather than creating and endless parade of "beta" apps.

The brain drain is also significant. Both Microsoft and Google would be significantly more profitable if they cut all the staff currently assigned to non-cash cow projects, but there would also be significantly more developers in the small-company milieu of software. Although lip service is paid in the U.S. to the importance of small companies, small companies are actually discriminated against in important ways. Google and Microsoft can afford H1B lobbyists, patent suites to use as weapons, high-priced legal guns, negotiate tax breaks with local governments, demand infrastructure changes, and great many other things that are impossible for small companies. The smallest companies (sole proprietors, where much true innovation begins) cannot even fully deduct their health care costs as business expenses, the most obvious example of the true (lack of) value the government places on small business.

But cash cow disease even significantly warps the ability of the rest of the market to innovate. Thus, the dream of many small software companies is completely divorced from any thought of actually staying in business and providing a good product at a good price to customers for years. Instead, the dream is to build something as quickly as possible that one of the cash cow companies will be interested in buying, so the founders can "cash out", leaving yet another half-assed product bringing down the property values in the software ghettos of Windows Live or Google Labs.

How long does cash cow disease linger? Just about as long as cash cow revenues sufficiently overshadow the enormous wastage. I can't see any cash cow company ever being motivated to give up their favorite drug any time soon. Neither Google nor Microsoft are close to being called to account, except perhaps in specific instances such as when Ballmer simultaneously plotted both employee layoffs (or was it merely a clever shifting of employees to contractor status to avoid paying them benefits?) and an inexplicable (except possibly as an ego booster) Yahoo! takeover.

The only encouraging note is that cash cow disease amplifies chaotic churn of quick and dirty software (soon, we'll all have our own "app stores"!) in the marketplace, leaving swathes of opportunities untouched. But these swathes are in areas that require slow and careful development, not quick and dirty. Few dare to tread there; we live in a world where long-term software development is overwhelmingly rejected.

The Florida Gators (7-5 overall and 4-4 in SEC play) actually were awarded a bowl bid with a hefty financial payout ($3,100,000) based on past performance.

No other explanation of why Florida is in the Outback Bowl really makes any sense.

Florida will be playing in Tampa against Penn State while South Carolina will face Florida State in the Chick-fil-A Bowl (awarded to the SEC’s No. 5 finisher) and Mississippi State (who beat Florida straight up and finished a game ahead overall) will play Michigan in the Gator Bowl (meant for the SEC’s No. 6 team).

Who cares that Florida was “less than Florida” this year. We all know they’ll rebound, and it just seems more like a big game with them than without them.

Pitt in the BBVA Compass Bowl

Who Should be Playing: Kentucky vs. Syracuse (SEC No. 8 vs. Big East No. 5)

Syracuse finished 2010 with at a better than expected 7-5 mark overall and went 4-3 in Big East play. Regardless of how good this was it still puts the Orange a step below Pitt who finished (disappointingly) 7-5 overall and 5-2 in conference.

Regardless, Pitt has been shuffled southwards to the BBVA Compass Bowl (meant for the No. 5 Big East team) while the Orange will participate in the first-ever Pinstripe Bowl (hey, that’s played in New York isn’t it?) that is supposed to be awarded to the Big East’s No. 4 finisher.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Making Economic Sense

Stifling Innovation

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The key to sales funnel success

Putting theory into practice

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Foreign Languages on the Web

Optimizing the Non-English Web

Going Local

Search and Social

Putting the “World” in “World Wide Web”

More Business Resources from Mashable:

For more Business coverage: