Author Archives: JoeDuck

Unknown's avatar

About JoeDuck

Internet Travel Guy, Father of 2, small town Oregon life. BS Botany from UW Madison Wisconsin, MS Social Sciences from Southern Oregon. Top interests outside of my family's well being are: Internet Technology, Online Travel, Globalization, China, Table Tennis, Real Estate, The Singularity.

Prediction: Google will buy Facebook for about 1.1 billion

Posted on by
3

Irrational exuberance in the dot com shopping aisles?

No, it’s a chess game and Google’s winning….again.

I’m really starting to understand what seems like irrational exuberance on the part of Google and the major players. A Google aquisition of Facebook would be consistent with what Robert Scoble suggested is happening: Google is building a moat around it’s advertising business.

Steve Ballmer also suggested this notion in his recent BusinessWeek interview, ironically fretting that Google could monopolize the media business. Yikes, Steve would really run out of chairs then?

I can almost hear Ballmer to Schmidt:
“Hey Cowboy, there’s only enough room in this here internet for ONE monopoly you, you, you dirty monopolistic sonofabitch BASTARDS!”

Schmidt to Ballmer:
“HEY! DROP that chair and step AWAY from the Vista Browser!”

Google, with tons of cash to burn and a staggering market cap, has far less to lose in the high stakes internet poker game than Yahoo, Ebay, or even Microsoft. Microsoft is bigger than Google and theoretically richer, but unlike Google Microsoft has yet to figure out good ways to monetize their (improving) search services and (not improving) content services.

Ballmer’s juggling how to preserve his big ticket MS Office and Vista projects. Yahoo’s worried about plunging valuations and people leaving and the fact that a billion represents a lot more to them than it does to Google.   This is almost certainly complicating the Yahoo Facebook negotiations right now.  Ebay’s pretty fat and happy where they are. Meanwhile, Google can focus in laser-like fashion on keeping Google in the driver’s seat with it’s superb contextual advertising monetization.

The best defense is a good offense, so they are buying up properties to increase their control over the advertising space and keep those hundreds of millions of eyeballs out of the hands of MS and Yahoo.

Will this work? I say probably not for similar reasons it was stupid for Yahoo to buy Broadcast.com years ago. Video is junky and won’t monetize well. It’ll be more of an encumbrance to Google’s core competencies than an asset. But … things change, and in the meantime it’s fun to watch this high stakes game of chess unfold.

It’s a show you won’t see on YouTube.

Zenrob: Can Youtube win 11 Superbowls?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m mangling his point a bit in that title, but Zenrob  has a great new post that does some math to ponder Robert Scoble’s question to me today:

“Tell me, is the $3 million for a minute of Superbowl ad time worth it? If so, why wouldn’t it be worth doing video advertising on YouTube?”

I said over there that I think it’s all about the math and the prospective math of these deals.  Robert’s great but I think he’s seeing this through his channel9/podtech video-enhanced glasses that make video seem more viable as a commercial medium than it really is.

To answer Zenrob’s excellent math question:
Else > 2*Youtubes > 10*11Superbowls

Facebook worth more than YouTube? Don says “yes”

Posted on by
6

Don Dodge over at Microsoft has a great little thumbnail analysis of the business prospects of YouTube and Facebook, and concludes both are way overpriced at current valuations and Facebook is more valuable at 700 million. He cites Scoble’s latest thinking on the topic as well though it seems to me Robert seems too supportive of buying anything that even smells like Web 2.0 and is still feeling a bit hostile toward his ex employer.   I don’t blame him for that since he was way ahead on the new web and blogging and Microsoft’s failure to “get it” must have been really frustrating.

He’s not doing an extensive analysis but this is the best actual math I’ve seen regarding these deals, which as Don indicates with his little summary, appear to be valued more like Granny’s china than businesses. Given the uncertainties I think he’s generous to go 20x expected earnings. The landscape is changing daily and it’s not clear people will stick to favorite sites the way they stick to favorite brands (I predict we the people will not show much in the way of online brand loyalty, and this will shake it all up a lot in the coming years).

Ballmer on YouTube Google “transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google”

Posted on by
Reply

This is a great interview by Business Week of Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer on Web 2.0 valuations and the competitive landscape up at the top of the heap, where Ballmer suggests only companies like MS, Google, Yahoo, and EBAY can even afford to think about doing the billion dollar deals. It’s a key point often lost on those who like to see valuations based more on financials and profits. Ballmer is noting that the competitive landscape can change these values.

But most interesting is this assertion:

The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google. So media companies around the world are all threatened by Google. Why? Because basically Google is telling you how much of your ad revenue you get to keep.They better get some competition. Us. Yahoo!. Somebody better break through or you can short all media stocks right now. As long as there are two, you can hold onto media stocks. Google understands that. And that’s one reason why they’re willing to lose money up front.

Fascinating. He’s saying that Google’s trying to *monopolize* the media market. I certainly think there is some truth to this though we are way past the good old days where barriers to entry could let a big, rich, clever company – let’s say Microsoft – really do a good monopoly play on things everybody needed to use with computers. Part of the Google advantage he’s leaving out is that they really do intend to share most of the revenues with the producers and they have become so good at monetizing that, Google could argue reasonably, you’ll make more sharing revenues with Google than building your own advertising networks. My experiences comparing adsense returns to “roll your own ads” are fairly extensive and I can say that it’s very hard to beat adsense returns by creating your own advertising streams *even excluding the potentially huge cost of a sales staff*.

I think the main exception to Adsense as the best choice is what we see at super targeted niche sites like TechCrunch.com where they can charge about 10k monthly for a modest sized graphical advertisment.    Battelle’s Federated Media is hoping to bring this targeting advantage to a broader network of sites but I remain guarded in my optimism that Google’s highly automated and calibrated approaches won’t do a better job than humans do in most advertising spaces.

So, I think Ballmer’s right that competition will help publishers, but Yahoo and MSN sure better strap on the thinking caps and get their contextual advertising networks working much better than they currently work at providing revenue to all of us hard working internet small time publishing people out here.

Also, and this advice to MS and Yahoo is free and will knock Google out of the driver’s seat in a few months:  Launch your contextual ad networks with a 100% revenue share as an incentive for publishers to switch over.    At 43% of Google’s revenue Adsense is a huge factor at Google.

Google may not be evil, but their advertisers often are. Facilitators of illegal ads should be held accountable

Posted on by
Reply

Although I think Google really tries to follow the “don’t be evil” mantra I think it now rings fairly hollow (ha – especially if it’s ringing up a ringtone ad scam at Google Adwords).

The problems are click fraud and downright illegal advertising which is running rampant all over the internet. This is a great set of PPC fraud advertising examples displayed at Google from a Harvard Law researcher, a proverbial drop in the online bucket of fraud.

Google, as the 800 pound gorilla, is the major beneficiary but this is an area that is simply ripe for legislation to prevent the plethora of PPC fraud schemes, ringtone scams, false advertising, and many, many more from polluting the online advertising space.

Why is this such fertile ground? It’s the new and fascinating combination of young users, young advertisers, young and old scammers, anonymity, global reach, and more that make this a complex and growing problem. Google et al are taking a “let the buyer beware” approach which is both evil and ignores the fact that many of the buyers are kids who wouldn’t know a scam from a treasure trove.

Ironically the solution to the scam ads is very simple. One new Law: If you run an advertisement you are responsible for any refunds in the event of a dispute with the advertiser. Make the publisher deal with their friend the advertiser who they are implicitly endorsing by showing the ad. This would clean it up very fast.

PPC fraud solution is not as easy, though I’d consider this:

1) Have teams of objective ombudsman researchers evaluate the fraud component at the different search engines.

2) Engines must refund to each account this average fraud component.

This incentifies the SE’s finding out and killing off the fraudulent clicks quickly, rather than the current lackluster efforts to root out the problems.

Myspace users are getting older according to Comscore. Danah doubts it.

Posted on by
3

Myspace users are older than you think says a new comscore report. Yet Yahoo and Berkeley’s Danah Boyd, almost certainly the sharpest and most knowledgeable researcher in this space, is challenging Comscore’s finding.

It’s good to question methodology, but I think Comscore is “correct” here though Dana’s right that we need more slicing and dicing of data to assess the significance of this finding.

1) I’m pretty sure the methodology is very strong in terms of demographic specifics. I think they have a pool of people they interview or measure regularly and then mine this data from this controlled and “known”, but very large online population.

2) Users *are* visitors! They are using the term “users” in the normal metrics sense of “unique visitors to the site”. Dana is making a distinction between users and visitors as active vs passive participants.

We’d want to see more info about time spent at the site to generalize more about this but I don’t think this time issue would refute the “user demographic” they are talking about.

Of course, if young users spend 10x the time at the site as older ones it would make the Comscore finding less important. They don’t seem to suggest this is the case however, so until further notice I’m going to keep thinking “wow, Myspace is getting to be an olderspace!”

Update: Fred’s take on this seems to be that method is OK but this needs more elaboration in the press which he thinks is “conflating” the terms user and visitor. He agrees with Danah that “user” and “unique visitor” are not the same. I’ve never seen anybody make that distinction but perhaps we need a new term?

Seems to me that they have been working with *subscriber data* and thus are surprised by this user data. Subscribers are probably are younger than visitors and spend a lot more time at the site. Relevant, but does not dismiss the Comscore findings.

Update:  Mike Rubin at Comscore comments here.     Appears my analysis was correct – Comscore’s data is solid but reflects visitors and not registered users, and young people stay on longer.

Got a few *billion* lying around? Buy an internet company!

Posted on by
1

Here’s a nice list of internet purchases over the past few years. I’m starting to come to grips with the fact that even if you create a great company the payout is not that spectacular unless it’s the one in a hundred deal like a YouTube, Skype, Broadcast.com, etc. As one of the VC’s down at Mashup Camp pointed out those are the exceptional exceptions to the normal rule of deals worth millions, not billions. Even in those deals only a handful of people make more than a few million.

In a 20 million deal once you’ve paid off the VCs and generously dealt with other key employees I wonder what the average “founder payout” would be?   The average VC funded buyout is about 47 million.   This sounds high, but there are many, many VC fundings that end up dying.    Thus the ‘average value’ of a VC funded company would be way below the average buyout price if I read that number correctly.
As my old pal Rick likes to say “A million dollars isn’t what it used to be!”

NYT summarizes the Google Youtube deal

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a good summary of the Google YouTube deal from the New York Times.    They note that one analyst suggests this is not a spreadsheet valuation as much as a way to keep competitors away from all the juicy eyeballs at YouTube.

I still just don’t understand how any big player could not put the money to better use and grow their own.  I was under the impression that many used YouTube rather than Google Video because the latter took longer to post – presumably because they screened content more aggressively -I would have thought that Google Video would have tried the same configuration as YouTube before spending so much, but this also supports the idea that this was a way to keep MS and Yahoo (who is currently the video stream leader), from gaining the market share Youtube will now provide to the Google family of sites.

I don’t think this is a shark jump by Google, but I think this may go down as the most expensive “junk content” site aquisition in history.

Danny Sullivan says he does not have much to say about it over here at Search Engine Watch.  (Hey, I thought you left SEW Mr. King ‘o Search Optimization?!)

Mark Cuban to Google – you are crazy! JoeDuck to Google – just show me some money!

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Cuban, no stranger to online video having made about a billion in that field, challenges Google’s sanity in the YouTube deal here.

It seems to me Cuban’s been the most insightful of those reviewing this deal and my first reaction is “brilliant stuff from an insider”, but I also respect how clever Google is and will continue to be at re-railing the online train.

Big producers will do big deals with Google as they are right now.   The growing community of small time content producers (e.g me) is a lot more willing to share and forget about copyright encumbrances *as long as you cut me in on the action*.

If Google can monetize my stuff better or close to as much as I can then more power to Google.   I’m rooting for Yahoo! winning the monetizing battle though because …. I like them better and have stock.   But there’s room for both, and I think we’ll see in the coming years that the rising tide of online ads will lift most of the ships.

I’m confident I’m speaking for 80%, and probably 98%, of the long tail when I say that the long tail, especially in video, is going to attach to the entity that can best monetize their work be it professional full length movies or stupid cat trick clips.

Can the other 2% of content people sue them?  Sure, but not painfully enough to stop the online video train o’ progress, a train that’s sure to bring us the most garish, irrelevant, superficial, and poorly produced video yet seen on earth and then find a way to turn a few bucks on showing it off to people.    God bless America!

Web 2.0 Metrics? Aren’t we still trying to figure out Web 0.1 metrics?

Posted on by
Reply

Jeremy often asks the questions people will be asking next year. Here, Zawodny notes the difficulties as Web 2.0 brings a lot more than pageviews to the browser table and cites this article about how pageviews are problematic as a measure of online success.

There are challenges galore as we move to Web 2.0 analysis. The YouTube deal alone showcases how irrelevant a ‘page view’ may become to full analysis. There, advertisers will probably want a small clip inserted before the video as well as pay per click or aquistion modes of advertising – at least until all advertisers start demanding cost per sale terms.

I think commercial metrics will (must) trend towards firmly establishing costs per sale and/or customer aquisition. At the point where that gets good the advertiser really does not need more detail. Much of the current advertising mis-analysis industry is based on analysis of things that only indirectly lead to sales.

In many cases I’ve been floored by how mathematically unsound so called “objective” conversion studies can be. In Travel and economic development this relates to the fact that those sponsoring the studies typically benefit from high ROI numbers so a cottage industry of “impact inflation” studies and firms has developed that serves the vested interests rather than the taxpayers.

Non commercially focused website metrics are even more complex than commercial, since many bloggers would probably rather be read by a handful of movers and shakers who provide thoughtful commentary than by legions of regular Joes.

A blog read by all G8 world leaders would be about 1000x more influential in terms of changing history than one read by American Idol fans, but would probably have limited commercial value. How do you measure that? Perhaps Yahoo or Google need a “BigWhig Rank” that pulls in personal data and assigns importance to the … person?

Hmmm – they already have been nabbing your search streams so maybe next they’ll take your … soul! I think that is OK with me as long as it’s …. measurable!