Today, the French government announced that it will introduce legislation requiring Google to pay a fee to French media sites for listing their content pages. Google promptly responded that in this case it will stop listing French media sites in his search queries. CNN's report on the conflict can be read here: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/21/technology/google-french-links/index.html?iid=obinsite.
The proposed French government policy is completely stupid and extremely risky not just for the French media industry but for the whole country's image and relevance in the world. It is hard to understand the logic driving the policy - other than "let's grab cash wherever it is". Not surprisingly, Germany - another country with a strong statist tradition - is considering the introduction of similar laws. Google actually generates value to French media sites by driving interested browsers to them. If these potential consumers click on the French sites' pages, presumably, they will view relevant content and, along the way, generate advertising revenues. Why should Google pay the sites for listing them in the search queries? One could even argue that the opposite should happen....
One way to evaluate the likely outcome of the conflict is to ask: "who will lose more (Google or the site) if Google stopped listing the latter?" The answer depends on how exclusive and relevant the site's content is? If it is unimportant or non-exclusive (as is the case for most French or other continental media sites) then, clearly, the site loses more. The searcher will just go to the next item on the search list to find the same content, be it a blog, a competing site or another source. It is only when the site's content is unique and important that Google loses credibility by not listing it. But in this case, does the site really need a tax from Google? Clearly not. Google will accelerate the audience's reach to the site, which will generate more advertising revenue.
The broader question in this conflict is France's credibility and influence. For about a century the country has been steadily losing influence in the world partly because it refuses to endorse key features of modern civilization. Ideas such as "the market economy", "English as the language of international exchange", "Globalization and free trade", etc. are concepts that France is forced to adopt (usually after putting up a pointless fight) rather than enthusiastically endorsing them as drivers of progress. The current fight with Google - one of the first marvels of the 21st century's progress - is a similar pointless and embarassing move that has for only effect the setting back of France to the last century.
Monday, 22 October 2012
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Honesty's price: CNN and Media bias
A recent article in The Economist (Sept 21, 2012), "Unbiased and unloved" reports the stagnation of CNN's viewership relative to its competitors. According to data from Nielsen, from 1998-2012, CNN's daily viewership in the US has been relatively flat averaging 0.5 million viewers while its competitors, Fox News and MSNBC show steady growth. More painfully even, in the last few months, there is a decline for CNN while its competitors benefit - as expected - from the election period. Fox News has over a million daily users while MSNBC has just passed CNN at over 0.4 million.
The article attributes this decline to CNN's lack of political bias. While CNN clearly provides high quality news, often being the first to identify scoops, its commentaries are well balanced and this does not entertain the audiences. Indeed, there is plenty of research showing that people want to hear what they already believe, so an elaborate and objective political argument will appear boring to them. This may well explain the slow decline of viewership and is perfectly consistent with recent economic research on media bias.
What to do however? Should CNN also become a biased news provider. For one, it would likely lean on the left to compete head on with MSNBC. The two channels already share the same number of viewers as Fox News, so increased head-on competition wouldn't help CNN's case. Instead, CNN decided to experiment with diversifying its program offering by providing documentaries on top of news, but again, is this really a good idea when competition in that area (e.g. HBO) is far more sophisticated and already provides a broad set of alternatives?
I believe that the solution lies in debates! The channel could be an impartial platform for political debates between advocates of both the right and the left. There is nothing more entertaining than a good fight and, if it is organized well, the channel can make sure that the political affinity of the winner alternates, thus retaining its unique impartial positioning. A great example of this approach is the highly successful Munk debates series. In any case, it would be a pity to lose the unique honest news channel in the U.S. especially in these trying times in U.S. politics.
The article attributes this decline to CNN's lack of political bias. While CNN clearly provides high quality news, often being the first to identify scoops, its commentaries are well balanced and this does not entertain the audiences. Indeed, there is plenty of research showing that people want to hear what they already believe, so an elaborate and objective political argument will appear boring to them. This may well explain the slow decline of viewership and is perfectly consistent with recent economic research on media bias.
What to do however? Should CNN also become a biased news provider. For one, it would likely lean on the left to compete head on with MSNBC. The two channels already share the same number of viewers as Fox News, so increased head-on competition wouldn't help CNN's case. Instead, CNN decided to experiment with diversifying its program offering by providing documentaries on top of news, but again, is this really a good idea when competition in that area (e.g. HBO) is far more sophisticated and already provides a broad set of alternatives?
I believe that the solution lies in debates! The channel could be an impartial platform for political debates between advocates of both the right and the left. There is nothing more entertaining than a good fight and, if it is organized well, the channel can make sure that the political affinity of the winner alternates, thus retaining its unique impartial positioning. A great example of this approach is the highly successful Munk debates series. In any case, it would be a pity to lose the unique honest news channel in the U.S. especially in these trying times in U.S. politics.
Friday, 14 September 2012
Election-time ad revenues in the US
The Economist has just published some figures on the size of the expected revenues from political ads in the coming election year: $5.2 billion - some 23% increase compared to 2008! What is cool though is that the share of online advertising has increased quite a bit. It now stands at 6% (still small) but at some $310 million, it is 10 times higher than the last time. It is also interesting that, while last time most of the online advertising was seacrh advertising, this time video sharing sites and social media have largely taken over the bulk of online activity. Of course, TV advertising still dominates at over 60% of total spending. Cable does well because it is good at targeting (part of the reason while online advertising also succeeds) but, interestingly, local broadcast TV is also making a killing especially in swing states. Hope it will lead to the right outcome....
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Virtual Worlds dying - but slowly
Out of curiosity I have done some online search about virtual worlds. I have also visited INSEAD's Second Life (SL) location and while there, I was wondering around SL's mainland, something I have not done for 3 years now (!). To my astonishment there was more life on Second Life than I expected. I had a particularly interesting time in a rock club where the music was exceptionally good and the DJ had a great line.... The club had a good dozen people dancing, quite some turnover and good looking avatars and all of this at around 9 am EST on a Tuesday. The SL mainland was certainly more active than 3-4 years ago when the virtual world fell off the Internet publicity cliff and sunk into the unknown.
Today, virtual worlds are dwarfed by more successful social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook and other sites having hundreds of millions of users. The odd article that you find about some of the early players that haven't shut down, like the one below on IMVU are misleading (and this can be gauged by one of the - only 3 - comments to the article):
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/20/imvu-social-world-crosses-100m-registered-users/.
But, despite this lost popularity to the masses virtual worlds are still alive and attract a small but devoted community. Who these people are is hard to figure out but my hypothesis is that they tend to be 'introverts' who appreciate the anonymity of virtual worlds and the idea that they can create their own realities. This group has always been the core of the user base - even when SL was on the top of the hype. Note that there still is tremendous creativity one can observe on SL: people create incredible things there. I vividly recommend an informal tour - if you have some time.....
Because the user group is small, I guess revenues are small too (the above article mentions $50 million for IMVU, which is insignificant compared to the billions that - say - Facebook gets). As a result the infrastructure is clunky, which in today's world means that only the real fans will join. This closes the loop: the community remains small and appeals to people who like small communities who don't mind the clunky infrastructure that much (in fact, they appreciate the tech barrier that keeps the crowds out). Revenues and resources are thin so massive improvements are difficult to pull off (SL, for example, hasn't really changed its UI in the last 4-5 years).
What is interesting though is that virtual worlds do not disappear. They survive. We don't hear about them, we have few friends who even know about them. Yet they generate enough revenue not to shut down. Can this lead to a renaissance? Not if the above loop is closed. But is it? One of the clear barrier to the masses is technology. It doesn't work well enough. However, MORPEG technology is improving fast in a related and extremely successful industry: gaming. Billions are being invested in high-bandwidth 3D interactivity by the gaming industry. While virtual worlds are experimenting with the concept their underlying infrastructure technology is rapidly improved by a neighboring industry, exploiting the latest innovations in software, hardware and networking gear. Bottom line: the loop might not be entirely closed and a renaissance is possible. After all, the history of the World Wide Web is very similar (obscure for decades, only used by scientists and suddenly, with Netscape, breaking into the mainstream).....
Today, virtual worlds are dwarfed by more successful social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook and other sites having hundreds of millions of users. The odd article that you find about some of the early players that haven't shut down, like the one below on IMVU are misleading (and this can be gauged by one of the - only 3 - comments to the article):
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/20/imvu-social-world-crosses-100m-registered-users/.
But, despite this lost popularity to the masses virtual worlds are still alive and attract a small but devoted community. Who these people are is hard to figure out but my hypothesis is that they tend to be 'introverts' who appreciate the anonymity of virtual worlds and the idea that they can create their own realities. This group has always been the core of the user base - even when SL was on the top of the hype. Note that there still is tremendous creativity one can observe on SL: people create incredible things there. I vividly recommend an informal tour - if you have some time.....
Because the user group is small, I guess revenues are small too (the above article mentions $50 million for IMVU, which is insignificant compared to the billions that - say - Facebook gets). As a result the infrastructure is clunky, which in today's world means that only the real fans will join. This closes the loop: the community remains small and appeals to people who like small communities who don't mind the clunky infrastructure that much (in fact, they appreciate the tech barrier that keeps the crowds out). Revenues and resources are thin so massive improvements are difficult to pull off (SL, for example, hasn't really changed its UI in the last 4-5 years).
What is interesting though is that virtual worlds do not disappear. They survive. We don't hear about them, we have few friends who even know about them. Yet they generate enough revenue not to shut down. Can this lead to a renaissance? Not if the above loop is closed. But is it? One of the clear barrier to the masses is technology. It doesn't work well enough. However, MORPEG technology is improving fast in a related and extremely successful industry: gaming. Billions are being invested in high-bandwidth 3D interactivity by the gaming industry. While virtual worlds are experimenting with the concept their underlying infrastructure technology is rapidly improved by a neighboring industry, exploiting the latest innovations in software, hardware and networking gear. Bottom line: the loop might not be entirely closed and a renaissance is possible. After all, the history of the World Wide Web is very similar (obscure for decades, only used by scientists and suddenly, with Netscape, breaking into the mainstream).....
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Bogus viewership ratings
A few weeks ago, New Delhi Television Limited, India's oldest and largest news network has sued Nielsen, one of the largest and most prestigious international media research agencies for intentionally manipulating viewership ratings in return for bribes. Details of the news can be read here:
The lawsuit represents billions of dollars of potential losses for Nielsen, not even mentioning the loss of reputation, its core competitive advantage.
In all these cases, it is hard to make a judgment on who is wrong or right. The Indian business environment is known to be corrupt as many recent cases have shown, so it is conceivable that Nielsen executives fell into the trap of some local business practices. Courts will decide...
However, it is important to keep in mind that the lawsuit does not (yet) cast doubt on the rating methodologies that have been used for decades by Nielsen, although their implementation in the Indian market is being questioned. This is important because the advertising industry is undergoing a major shift in terms of budget allocation. Large sums are moving, in particular, from traditional media to online media. The speed of this fundamental shift is based on consumers' presence in the competing (or complementary) media outlets, which in turn, is measured by media analysts like Nielsen.
Marketing managers in all - especially large - companies are struggling to figure out what proportion of their budgets should be moved across media types. TV has been largely sheltered so far while print media had to face a harsher adjustment, although even here there are large differences. Mistakes can go in both directions: most companies tend to be too conservative although some others have been too bold. A recent example of boldness is Pepsi's shift of advertising budget from the Superbowl to sponsorship on social media in the "Refresh Everything" campaign. Sound media metrics are critical to make these decisions. Hopefully, Nielsen will be able to restore the trust of the advertising industry in its ratings.
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Facebook's stock price
Today's 8pm News on French TV reviewed the evolution of Facebook's stock price - an interesting move from a rather 'business unfriendly' medium. Or was it, maybe, jealousy the motivating factor? "See those 20-year billionaires in the US; their success is all bogus...."
Putting media bias aside, it is hard not to wonder about the steadily declining stock price of Facebook. The obvious answer is that the site has done badly in monetizing its huge user base. Advertising alongside Facebook pages doesn't really work and the company hasn't revealed plans on developing alternative sources of revenue. But this can barely be the cause of the recent slide for the simple reason that people knew this before Facebook's introduction to Wall Street. Also, let us remember that the user base is still very active - a lot of corporations and brands have most of their online presence materialize via their Facebook page. There doesn't seem to be an alternative website or medium emerging either, one to which people flee in mass.
My hypothesis is that what we see is simply the cash-out of insiders. They were patiently waiting for their shares and now they are ready to sell them and leave. In fact, the News mentioned that three of the top executives are leaving the company. All this of course worries uninformed investors in a pretty bearish economic climate which can reinforce the sell off.
Bottom line: let's not burry Facebook yet. After all, even at the current price the company is still worth - what? - 50 billion dollars?
Putting media bias aside, it is hard not to wonder about the steadily declining stock price of Facebook. The obvious answer is that the site has done badly in monetizing its huge user base. Advertising alongside Facebook pages doesn't really work and the company hasn't revealed plans on developing alternative sources of revenue. But this can barely be the cause of the recent slide for the simple reason that people knew this before Facebook's introduction to Wall Street. Also, let us remember that the user base is still very active - a lot of corporations and brands have most of their online presence materialize via their Facebook page. There doesn't seem to be an alternative website or medium emerging either, one to which people flee in mass.
My hypothesis is that what we see is simply the cash-out of insiders. They were patiently waiting for their shares and now they are ready to sell them and leave. In fact, the News mentioned that three of the top executives are leaving the company. All this of course worries uninformed investors in a pretty bearish economic climate which can reinforce the sell off.
Bottom line: let's not burry Facebook yet. After all, even at the current price the company is still worth - what? - 50 billion dollars?
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Olympics on new and traditional media
There is an interesting conflict between new and traditional media when it comes to global sport events, the biggest of which being the summer Olympic games. Old media buys broadcasting rights and airs events punctuated by advertising. As long as events are aired in real time there is no problem. However, if the audience happens to be in a different time zone media want to air the most important events in prime time (for best advertising returns). However, the experience might be spoiled by social media that operates in real time and may reveal results and key content by the time mainstream media broadcasts events. If you want your audience to watch Usain Bolt win the 100m sprint there is a problem: chances are people will check the event at work using their iPhones or YouTube on their desktops at work.
Data seems to indicate that for now this is still a contained problem: only a few percent of the (mostly young) audience abandons the core sport channels because of the time difference but with social media becoming mainstream this should change fast. For the next Olimpics, traditional media will need, not only be present online, but also, develop a smart bundle for its customers so they can benefit from the thrill of sports news as well as the benefits of picture quality, coverage, commentary, all in one's home comfort. How to price such a bundle and how to extract advertising revenues from it is a fascinating problem.
Data seems to indicate that for now this is still a contained problem: only a few percent of the (mostly young) audience abandons the core sport channels because of the time difference but with social media becoming mainstream this should change fast. For the next Olimpics, traditional media will need, not only be present online, but also, develop a smart bundle for its customers so they can benefit from the thrill of sports news as well as the benefits of picture quality, coverage, commentary, all in one's home comfort. How to price such a bundle and how to extract advertising revenues from it is a fascinating problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)