Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

July 30, 2009

Monetizing Viral Videos

Filed under: Entertainment, Internet, Media — Tags: — Raja @ 11:39 pm

Here is an interesting business model for YouTube and other video sites. Allow the rights holders to place ads on the videos that use their content. Here is an interesting case study from Youtube.

Last week the world watched in wonder as Jill Peterson and Kevin Heinz’s wedding party transformed a familiar and predictable tradition into something spontaneous and just flat-out fun. The video, set to R&B star Chris Brown’s hypnotic dance jam “Forever,” became an overnight sensation, accumulating more than 10 million views on YouTube in less than one week. But as with all great YouTube videos, there’s more to this story than simple view counts.

At YouTube, we have sophisticated content management tools in place to help rights holders control their content on our site. The rights holders for “Forever” used these tools to claim and monetize the song, as well as to start running Click-to-Buy links over the video, giving viewers the opportunity to purchase the music track on Amazon and iTunes. As a result, the rights holders were able to capitalize on the massive wave of popularity generated by “JK Wedding Entrance Dance” — in the last week, searches for “Chris Brown Forever” on YouTube have skyrocketed, making it one of the most popular queries on the site.

This traffic is also very engaged — the click-through rate (CTR) on the “JK Wedding Entrance” video is 2x the average of other Click-to-Buy overlays on the site. And this newfound interest in downloading “Forever” goes beyond the viral video itself: “JK Wedding Entrance” also appears to have influenced the official “Forever” music video, which saw its Click-to-Buy CTR increase by 2.5x in the last week.

So, what does all of this mean? Despite compelling data and studies around consumer purchasing habits, many still question the promotional and bottom-line business value sites like YouTube provide artists. But in the last week, over a year after its release, Chris Brown’s “Forever” has again rocketed up the charts, reaching as high as #4 on the iTunes singles chart and #3 on Amazon’s best selling MP3 list. We’ve seen similar successes in the past with partners like Monty Python.

Entrepreneurial Lessons: Sampa

Filed under: Entrepreneurship — Raja @ 11:33 pm

Marcello Calbucci, CTO of Sampa, a personal homepage creator site, which will be shutting down soon wrote a guest column in Techcrunch on the lessons learned. It is always interesting to hear from entrepreneurs on the lessons learned from failures. You learn more from failures than successes.

Here are some interesting titbits:

Consumer startups are tough. You have two basic choices: A paid offering or a free offering (or freemium). If you charge people a penny, you’ll turn off the bulk of your visitors. If you offer free services, you might grow to be the next YouTube, Wordpress or Facebook. Most entrepreneurs are not risk-averse and the dream of being big is just too appealing and the majority of us take the “free-route”.

Once you offer something for free, all shades of people will try to benefit from your service. You’d think a service like Sampa with a strong family and baby branding would just repel small business, teenagers, criminals, etc. but that’s not the case at all. And I suspect most blogging services; photo-sharing or web-site building solutions face the exact same issue we did.

Most entrepreneurs and investors will look at data analysis and talk about averages or totals: Averages number of blog posts per user per week, average number of sign-ins per user per month, viral coefficient, total number of active users, etc. Entrepreneurs who are more sophisticated will split their “averages” and “totals” in two or three groups. For example, fixing one of the dimensions into users that sign-in 30 or more times per month (very engaged), between 10 and 29 times per month (engaged), and between 0-9 times per month (on the brink of leaving) and then run the averages and totals for the different groups (e.g. “very engaged users upload 25 pictures/month, engaged users upload 7 pictures/month, etc.”)

Very few startups actually look at demographic and psychographic data as a way to group their users. Primarily, because it’s hard to get gender, age, income, interests and intentions without asking the user, and once you ask them you might just scare them way or get the wrong information.

In the middle of 2008 we decide to do a qualitative analysis of our user base. People of all kinds were creating sites on Sampa. There wasn’t an automated way to know if it was a baby site, a family site, a small business, a technology blog, etc. We looked at more than 300 sites, randomly selected and created a spreadsheet with the category, the demographic of the author (if we could figure out) and we plugged that into our own analytic system to split our averages and totals for each site category. The results sucked!

Just 20% of our users were on the target audience. That meant 80% were not building any kind of family or baby site. Ok, maybe we can live with that. But it turned out that more than 25% were by pre-teens. There are two problems with that: First, It’s actually illegal in the US and most countries to allow a younger than 13-year-old to sign up to your service without parental consent. Second, pre-teens are not a great audience to build an advertising-based business model.

However the data showed an even worse picture. Pre-teens were a quick burning flame. They would come, upload lots of pictures, write lots of blog posts, “bling” their site, invite 20+ friends and they would be completely gone in a month. That behavior skewed our data enough that once we looked at our growth, viral rates, and everything else, our business didn’t look so great.

Being Proactive Can Backfire

Can you force users to comply with your Terms-Of-Service and still be successful on a UGC service? Yes, you can. Facebook manage to be very aggressive on the enforcement of their TOS, and so did Flickr. However, if you look at most Web 2.0 startups, they are not doing that at all. The most prominent case is YouTube, which allowed copyright infringement on their website and can plot a $1.6B exit based on their “turn a blind eye” strategy.

We didn’t do that at Sampa, and I’m sure we could have seen 2 or 3 times more growth if we had used the same strategy. We proactively removed pre-teens websites. They weren’t easy to find, but every time we found one, we would remove the website and notify the owner she was 12-years-old. They would be mad at us and tell that “Jamie, Emily and Sally also have a website on Sampa”, and we would say thank you and delete all their friends websites too.

Pretty much every Social Network-builder, website builder or content sharing site deals with the same issues we dealt with. A good number of entrepreneurs (and most investors) will be oblivious to those facts and just think that everything is going great and the growth is sustainable and proof they are creating great value and soon will be able to turn a huge profit or to sell for hundreds of millions of dollars, until someone takes the time to figure out what people are using their service for and finds out it’s really not what they thought it was.

Microsoft Yahoo Search Deal

Filed under: Internet, Media, Technology, Trends — Tags: , , — Raja @ 12:16 am

The blogosphere and the web is abuzz with the Yahoo - MS search deal.

Ballmer and Bartz. (Yahoo photo, via Flickr)

Yahoo has turned the clock back a few years to outsource the search and search advertising to Microsoft. If this sounds familiar, this is how Google became Google. It got its initial distribution by powering Yahoo’s search in the late 90s.

I understand why MS wants to do this deal. It is less clear to me why Yahoo did this deal. If it is for short term profits then it would have been better off outsourcing it to Google (which it tried to do but google got scared because of antitrust issues). If it is for strategic reason to fend off google, why let MS power the search instead of otherway around? In fact they have more leverage as they have the bigger search market share. After all Yahoo is a tech company. Search is the center piece in all of internet technologies today and Yahoo is outsourcing it to MS. There in lie some clues as to how Yahoo sees itself. It is signaling that we are not good at internet technology anymore and we just want to make money on the users that visit my site while they last. This sounds more and more like AOL to me. You know where AOL is headed.

It is a great deal for MS as they didn’t have to plough all the money to buy Yahoo and a take huge risk to make it work. They just wanted a better shot at competing with Google by becming the #2 player in search. They didn’t have to fork up a single penny to do this. What a deal!

Yahoo without the search asset is far less valuable. You don’t sell your core asset piece meal. Yahoo would have been better off selling the company as a whole. They should have just taken the MS deal offered last year if they are willing to this type of a deal.

July 28, 2009

Monetize the audience or content? I say monetize the access points.

Filed under: Media, Technology, Trends — Raja @ 5:15 am

NYT used to put some of its content behind the paid wall before making it all free. I think it used to be called Times select or something similar. Now there are rumors that they may be going back to the subscription model for some of its content.

Fred Wilson likes the FT.com model better. He recommends monetizing the audience as opposed to the content.

The worst examples of subscription services are those that break the content up into free and paid. It’s as if some content is worth more than other content. I think that is the wrong idea most of the time, and especially in news and news related content.

I like the subscription model the FT has been using for some time now. I may get the exact details wrong but its the idea that’s important anyway. You can visit the ft.com domain something like nine times per month for free. They cookie you and when you stop by the tenth time in a month, they ask you to pay. And many do.

This model recognizes a few fundamental facts about the internet. First, you need to make your content available for search engines and social media linking. That drives as much as half or more of the visits these days. And if you have an ad model at all, and most newspapers do, then you need those visits and that audience.

Its also true that the ‘drive by’ visits will bring new audiences, some of whom will become loyal and ultimately paid audience members.

The other thing I like about the FT’s model is that its an elegant implementation of freemium. The best freemium models allow anyone to use the service for free and then convert the most serious/frequent/power users to paying customers.

I think he makes an interesting point. FT model monetizes the regular readers and keeps it free for occiasional visitors. It differentiates the users into premium vs free, not the content. This differentiation is objective (based on the number of visits per month) not subjective as in the case of content. So it has somethings going for it. Is it the answer that saves the newspaper industry. Probably not. But it is better than keeping some of the content behind the paid wall.

I still think the right model involves making quality content ubiquitous and charging for convenient access via widgets, devices etc. So differentiate the access points not the audience nor the content. So monetize the where and how, not the who and what.

Order in Chaos

Filed under: India, Personal — Raja @ 4:07 am

I have been traveling in India for the last few weeks. The contrast between the economies of US where I live and India can not be more dramatic. Things looked pretty gloomy in the US when I came here and exepected the slowdown to be evident in india as well. I was quite surprised to see people are still spending and there is still tremendous amount of construction going on. Sure, the IT industry has taken a hit as it depends quite a bit on the US and the west. But the local econonomy is still thriving.

India is a very chaotic place. You will see this on the roads where 10 vehicles pass through the space meant for 2. It is scary for people from countries like US to experience. Heck it is scary for me who grew up in India and travel here often. But some how people get from point A to point B without losing their limbs. it is quite amazing. The same thing is true in life in general. For some one who is not familar with the place you would think the society can not function in this type of chaos. It not only functions but gallops. India is even more advanced in some things compared to US. For example, one can make reservations and book tickets for trains (and soon buses) online. I get a mobile alert  from the local repair shop where I checked in my laptop to fix its monitor. I can open a bank account without leaving my desk. A bank official came to me and took care of all the paperwork. I am serius. This is not because I am a big shot or anything. Almost anyone can do this. You can call the local grocery store with a list and they deliver for you (I know you can do this in US in some places). I can go on.

I see order in this chaos. I also see tremendous opportunities in this chaos. India is quite becoming. Some one said it is a functional anarchy. Quite true. I think there is no other way to grow this fast as a democracy.

Power of teams

Filed under: Internet, Media, Technology — Raja @ 3:40 am

Nexflix $1M contest to improve upon its recommendation system has just closed. Winners will be announced soon. NYT writes about how the competing teams teamed up to try to crack the problem.

 

Chris Volinsky, a scientist at AT&T Research, left, is on a high-ranking team in a Netflix contest. With him is Robert Bell.

A contest set up by Netflix, which offered a $1 million prize to anyone who could significantly improve its movie recommendation system, ended on Sunday with two teams in a virtual dead heat, and no winner to be declared until September.

But the contest, which began in October 2006, has already produced an impressive legacy. It has shaped careers, spawned at least one start-up company and inspired research papers. It has also changed conventional wisdom about the best way to build the automated systems that increasingly help people make online choices about movies, books, clothing, restaurants, news and other goods and services.

These so-called recommendation engines are computing models that predict what a person might enjoy based on statistical scoring of that person’s stated preferences, past consumption patterns and similar choices made by many others — all made possible by the ease of data collection and tracking on the Web.

“The Netflix prize contest will be looked at for years by people studying how to do predictive modeling,” said Chris Volinsky, a scientist at AT&T Research and a leader of one of the two highest-ranked teams in the competition.

The biggest lesson learned, according to members of the two top teams, was the power of collaboration. It was not a single insight, algorithm or concept that allowed both teams to surpass the goal Netflix, the movie rental company, set nearly three years ago: to improve the movie recommendations made by its internal software by at least 10 percent, as measured by predicted versus actual one-through-five-star ratings by customers.

Instead, they say, the formula for success was to bring together people with complementary skills and combine different methods of problem-solving. This became increasingly apparent as the contest evolved. Mr. Volinsky’s team, BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos, was the longtime front-runner and the first to surpass the 10 percent hurdle. It is actually a seven-person collection of other teams, and its members are statisticians, machine learning experts and computer engineers from the United States, Austria, Canada and Israel.

July 24, 2009

Twitter 101

Filed under: Internet, Technology — Raja @ 4:12 am

Twitter has launched twitter 101 a simple web resource that talks about how businesses can use twitter and includes some best practices and casestudies. It makes sense as most people and businesses still do not know what twitter is and they do not understand how to use it even if they heard the name.

But the blogosphere goes nuts about this development calling it the first step towards offering business servces.

July 23, 2009

Rise and fall of Friendster

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Internet, Technology — Raja @ 9:44 pm

Friendster founder Jonathan Abrams shares his thoughts with Mark Milian of LA Times.

Jonathan-abrams-friendster

Friendster founder Jonathan Abrams at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose in 2007. Courtesy of Abrams

Facebook, with more than 250 million active users, and Twitter, the fastest-growing social network, might be all the rage right now.

But they have to give props to Friendster, the social network that paved the way and contributed many of the key concepts behind online connections.

Before the founders of a little-known social network called ConnectU cried foul about Facebook stealing its ideas, MySpace was replicating then-top network Friendster, according to Friendster founder Jonathan Abrams.

“I don’t think there’s anyone who has had their stuff copied more than me,” Abrams said over lunch in San Francisco recently.

In a previous post on our interview with Abrams, he credits himself with the creation of the friend request system, a vital piece of the online social networking puzzle. But he soon learned that being first doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll come out on top.

Work on Friendster began in 2002. The site launched in March 2003 and by autumn, it had more than 2 million users requesting and accepting friendships and filling out personal profiles. The company was experiencing extraordinarily fast growth and was having trouble keeping up, Abrams said.

To fund the ballooning beast, Abrams sought funding from venture capitalists and secured enough to keep the ship afloat — for a while.

Within a few months of a successful fundraiser, Abrams was ousted as chief executive. He didn’t say whether the heave-ho had anything to do with the $30-million buyout offer he turned down from Google. But over the next two years, Friendster had four different people at its helm and a host of problems inside and out.

“I actually stuck around through 2004 and 2005, trying to help Friendster,” Abrams said.

The problems were beyond his control. Coping with the torrent of growth in 2004, Friendster replaced the shaky computer systems that had been running the site with “worse technology,” Abrams said.

Meanwhile, Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson, founders of MySpace, had built a competing product that …

… was just beginning to catch on. Other rivals, including Tribe.net and Google’s Orkut, were too complicated, Abrams said.

MySpace’s success, Abrams said, could be attributed to how overwhelmingly similar it was to Friendster, rather than trying to change the formula too much as others had. Add to that the crucial detail that for most of 2004, Friendster simply didn’t work for many users.

“MySpace wasn’t even amongst the first 50 copycats of Friendster,” Abrams said. “If hundreds of people are copying you, competing with you and your stuff is not working, you’re going to get in trouble.”

“MySpace was basically saying, ‘Hey, we copied it. And our site works. So, use us instead,’ ” Abrams said.

Looking at the situation from the inside, Abrams laughed at all of the colorful reasons that reporters and bloggers had painted for the mass exodus from Friendster to MySpace. Was it the allure of being virtual friends with fake celebrity profiles?

“Facebook, I think, eventually demonstrated that people do see value in real identities and real friends,” Abrams said. “I don’t know why people necessarily want to follow Ashton Kutcher. But I think that’s more interesting than following the pretend Ashton Kutcher, right?”

But Abrams conceded that MySpace’s targeting of a younger crowd could have contributed to its success. It boiled down to “bands and attractive, sexy people,” Abrams said.

“They opened it up to minors, which hadn’t even occurred to me for the legal and safety reasons,” Abrams said. Regardless, “the real reason that Friendster got supplanted by MySpace in the U.S. was that MySpace’s website just worked and Friendster’s didn’t.”

As we reflect on the roots of the social networking phenomenon, it’s important to note that Friendster is still around. The company is currently looking at ways to continue to grow its product in the Philippines and parts of Asia, where it’s still relevant. MySpace, meanwhile, is looking to redefine its public image. And Facebook, the worldwide leader, is fighting off Twitter, the current media darling.

Abrams is out of the game of trying to build the premier social network. Even as a user, he’s “a little burned out,” he said.

Instead, he’s focusing on his newest Web start-up, Socializr. The website aggregates event invitations you receive from friends using his former competitors, MySpace and Facebook, as well as his latest competitor, Evite.

Even if the social networking hype dies down, he thinks his new project will be safe.

“People aren’t going to stop having birthday parties,” he said.

How NOT to win friends and influence people - Guardian Case study

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Internet, Media — Raja @ 9:36 pm

The content of this post (originally titled ‘how scribd makes money’) was taken off because of legal threat from the technology editor at Guradian named Charles Arthur. Please see the comments below. This provides an interesting casestudy of how the news media companies do not seem to be learning from the past mistakes of the music industry. If using lawyers to threaten bloggers is their new media strategy then god help them.

Rebuilding AOL

Filed under: Business, Media — Raja @ 4:08 am

NYT has a feature on the new AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s efforts to remake AOL.

Tim Armstrong became chief executive of AOL in March after serving as president of advertising sales for Google.

Shortly after Tim Armstrong took over as chief executive of AOL, he asked to see the list of business deals that were being negotiated. He saw 900 of them.

It was too many by far. “If you looked through the deal sheet, would you have been able to see the strategy of the company?” he asked. “I had a hard time.”

The deals were small and incremental. At best, he said, “you would have thought it was a small- to medium-size Internet company.”

Mr. Armstrong wants AOL to think big again. Three months after leaving a senior job as Google’s president of advertising sales, he is formulating his ambitious recovery plan for AOL. He wants to make AOL the biggest creator of premium content on the Web and the largest seller of online display advertising.

Mr. Armstrong plans to outline his five-point strategy on Friday for the company at an all-hands meeting under a large tent on its half-empty campus near Dulles International Airport outside Washington. Beyond talking about business lines, however, Mr. Armstrong’s primary challenge is to address what he calls AOL’s “crisis of confidence.” He wants the weary and beaten-down company to grow again.

“AOL has a choice to make,” he said. “We either lose slowly or win quickly. We are choosing to win quickly.”

Nine and a half years after Steve Case combined the company with Time Warner, AOL suffers from myriad problems. It has long since lost the mantle of king of the Internet to Mr. Armstrong’s former employer, Google. It has suffered through wrenching waves of mass layoffs, management turmoil and constant bickering with its corporate parent. Time Warner plans to shed the unit by year end. Meanwhile, AOL struggles with the prospect of fading into irreversible irrelevance, a collection of tired brands for a shrinking core of customers hanging on mainly because they are too lazy to change their AOL.com e-mail addresses.

This year, AOL is expected to post revenue of about $3.2 billion, down 38 percent in two years. A majority of that revenue is advertising, but AOL’s 6.2 million remaining customers for its dial-up Internet service are highly profitable and the most avid readers of its content. About 200,000 of them cancel service every month.

Mr. Armstrong and a core group of managers brought from Google are trying “to change the DNA of the company,” in the words of Jeffrey A. Levick, a longtime aide to Mr. Armstrong who is now the president of AOL’s advertising unit.

“People put numbers on the board and I say, ‘You are missing a lot of zeros and a lot of commas,’ ” he said. “I don’t think people have talked that way around here since the days of Steve Case.” Investors just see zeros when they think about the potential value of an independent AOL.

“Expectations from myself and Wall Street for AOL are still dire,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Capital. Still, he said the choice of Mr. Armstrong to run the company “is far better than we would have expected.” And if Mr. Armstrong leads even a modest turnaround in AOL, it “could surprise people and lead to substantial upside.”

The market value of AOL after the spinoff to Time Warner shareholders will depend on how much debt Time Warner saddles it with. Mr. Greenfield said AOL may be worth $2 billion to $3 billion, far less than its $20 billion valuation in 2005, when Google invested $1 billion in it — a deal Mr. Armstrong helped negotiate.

Mr. Armstrong has long thought big. Mr. Levick worked at an advertising agency in Chicago when he met Mr. Armstrong, who was selling an early form of advertising for a tiny search engine named Google.

“Here was a man standing at a whiteboard drawing the picture of all advertising all coming in through one place, Google,” Mr. Levick said. “I don’t think even anyone saw how big this was going to be, but Tim’s plan was for this to be bigger than anyone’s wildest imagination, even the people at Google.”

Despite having the wealth that comes with being one of Google’s early employees, Mr. Armstrong, 38, said he was lured to AOL create a new kind of media company. “One of the biggest challenges in the media business is also one of the biggest opportunities,” he said. “If you tried to recreate AOL’s assets, it would be incredibly expensive.”

 

Before Mr. Armstrong can move forward with his strategy, he must stabilize AOL’s ranks. In the last three years, the company has had three chief executives and five heads of ad sales.

Mr. Armstrong’s regular Tuesday product reviews include the people who build and operate each product as well as their bosses. The all-hands meeting on Friday, which will be Webcast to all employees, will be the third such event he has held.

Mr. Armstrong’s five-point plan was also determined by a collaborative process in a two-day meeting in New York. The top 100 employees sorted through three dozen current and potential business lines for the company.

Mr. Armstrong asked simply, “What can we win?” Among the hot debates were what AOL’s role should be in social networking and in search.

Eventually, the assembled employees voted on their top five ideas. Separately, Mr. Armstrong wrote his top five on a blackboard, turning it so the audience could see it only after the vote. The only difference: Mr. Armstrong wanted to include AOL’s Truveo video search company in the top priorities. But he deferred to the group and assigned Truveo instead to a new unit called AOL Ventures, where he is putting noncore businesses, like the Bebo social network, that might eventually be sold.

Mr. Armstrong’s plan is to compete directly with Yahoo, Microsoft and Google to become the dominant network for display ads. Mr. Armstrong says the company’s technology, with the data it has on millions of consumers accumulated over nearly 25 years, will give it an edge.

“Nobody owns the display space today,” he said.

Where Mr. Armstrong will find much less competition is content, which most Internet companies find too expensive to produce. AOL already operates more than 70 specialized blogs, including Boombox (on hip-hop music), WalletPop (on personal finance) and Paw Nation (on pets).

Mr. Armstrong wants to cover more topics in more countries with much more video.

The combination of specialized content and display advertising, he said, should make AOL appealing to large consumer products companies with big marketing budgets like Procter & Gamble.

“If you ask P.& G. what companies have the products that make you feel most comfortable, with the best content and the best targeting, AOL is already on the list today,” Mr. Armstrong said. “Our aim is to move AOL to the top of the list.”

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress