Question: “As far as your business goes, which is proving the bigger challenge monetising existing content or increasing views?”
Answer:
One year after launching our syndication network, we’ve become one of the largest syndicators of video content online (for more on this, read a press release we issued or check out one of many sources backing this up). The focus now is on monetizing it, either via advertising or licensing deals… frankly, due to the lack of traction in the former (advertising) we’re now focusing on the latter (licensing).
As a result, on our end, we’ve stopped giving away our content for free (in the hope of speculative revenue share deals) and now demand minimum revenue commitments (so basically, ask for licensing fees). If I had plenty of money in the bank, I might be more willing to give it away… but even then, to be very honest with you, with YouTube commanding such a large market share, just because you sign a distribution deal with a new company does not mean it translates into incremental views, let alone revenues… I won’t name any names… but I do wonder how most of the other sites competing with YouTube (be it directly or indirectly) will stick around and be relevant - let alone competitive.
So since we are financing the company with debt (money I am fronting the company, basically, since we launched) and revenue from operations, we demand minimum revenue commitments to keep the lights on, so to speak, though we’ve kept the costs low by being smart about things, ie. not raising VC so having to spend it on expensive fax machines and cutting edge coffee machines, along with the latest deflingers.
What does this mean practically?
For purposes of illustration, out of 10 leads for syndication partners that we talk to:
- probably 5 balk when I demand for minimum commitments because “it’s not in their budgets”, but with all due respect to them, they’re the ones who made a mistake not to allocate any funds for content acquisition and instead prefer to burn money on non-differentiating things like servers etc. More f’n power to them… honestly. If I could get content for free, I would too…
- 3 consider it but balk, saying the timing is not right… it’s their loss… because their sites remain hollow ghost towns while YouTube continues to gather audiences and content… to see why these companies make a mistake, see this.
- yet 2 agree. But guess what, content is king and those 2 sites have something that differentiates them… unlike the 8 that sit on the sidelines with oodles of servers waiting to handle the load but have little to serve other than UGC or not-frequently-published video libraries of yesteryear, or content from our peers who publish a clip a week, maybe. I won’t name any names… but you be the judge.
Honestly, I don’t mind losing out on the 8 because there is so little good content being produced that invariably they come back at one point or another… and the 2 that do pay make it worthwhile. I can add up some of the revenue share checks from the smaller players and honestly, I can use some of those checks as coasters because the cost of coasters is greater than the amounts on those checks. Yes, the initial analogy I was going to use was R-rated… I cleaned it up.
The reason why advertisers are staying on the sidelines with online video is not a lack of streams, but a lack of trustworthy content… what has not helped is the backwards investing targets of VCs who have plunked down $2-5B in more platforms, file sharing sites, CDNs etc., all things that become commoditized and don’t differentiate anything that advertisers look for. Coca-Cola does not care about your back end, they care about the content, demographics, reach etc. That all starts with content…
We’re living in a very faddish, hype-driven world… and thanks to the souring US economy and abysmal VC investing in video (quick: name me a successful exit in video other than YouTube) the noise is going down, fast. Digg was fetching $300M last month… now it’s $200M. Honestly, in 3 months, it will be $100M and in 1 year, $50M.
Why? The US economy will make things change very quickly: growth will be less sexy because non-monetized growth will mean more costs and costs alone… and VCs will become more fickle about financing clunkers. Companies will have to compete for every inch (especially with a US Greenback that is puny relative to global currencies) so money losing ventures become losers, quickly.
Of course, this weakening economy also means that companies won’t want to foot the bill for content creation…
But what won’t change is the rush of users and audiences online… with voracious appetites for content, particularly video content.
So day in and day out, our content is worth more and we have more pricing power and leverage… but the fact remains, until we’re breaking even and laughing all the way to the bank… yes, it’s a constant struggle because the Web has trained us that content does not pay, apparently, aggregation pays… frankly, I think that is nonsense and as the Web develops and matures, this will come back down to reflect the real world.
Distribution is easier to come by than good content, largely because aggregators and distributors have been over-funded, but content has been under-funded, but additional distribution is not valuable because it dilutes your product. We’re awfully idealistic with online media… but ask yourself, if the Olympics really were on all networks (CBS, ABC and FOX in addition to NBC), the Olympics would win, but NBC would not. But the reason why NBC agrees to foot the licensing fee is because the scarcity forces advertisers to pony up. Right now, we don’t have any of that online.
So instead of following the institutional imperative, we’re going against the grain and now protect our greatest asset to make it worth something.
But distribution is meaningless if people are on YouTube and “the latest aggregation site that will reinvent everything” isn’t even being visited. Look at the latest stats: it’s brutal if your URL is not YouTube.com, and if your URL is YouTube.com, you are monetizing 3% of your content because only 4% of it is monetizable to begin with - yikes.
Bottom line: if you give something away for free, it’s impossible to come back and price it at something other than zero.
Despite the tough financial climate, the week ushered a sizable investment in content producer Next New Networks (N3).
Blue-chip investor Goldman Sachs and media-oriented Velocity Interactive Group (VIG) led a $15M Series B investment round in N3. VIG is the fund that was created by way of a merger between ComVentures and Jon Miller and Ross Levinsohn’s new endeavor. Miller was actually a member of N3’s board.
After the investment, Goldman and VIG join Spark Capital, Saban Media Group and Bob Pittman (formerly of AOL and MTV) as investors. That’s as blue chip of an investment group as you can get for any media company. Spark Capital is a champion of media and content investment, something that is hitherto very rare amongst VCs, who prefer technology opportunities.
N3 - which CEO Herb Scannell described to me as Weblogs Inc. in video format (I asked him once if that would be a fair description, I am not sure if he introduces it as such) - has a range of properties which, when combined, have generated over 100M streams throughout 2007.
While the naysayers are quick to point out that this is a small number relative to TV reach, as a video producer ourselves at WatchMojo.com with a sizable library, I can attest to the fact that this is a very impressive number of streams over a yearly period. In the spirit of giving credit where it’s due, it should be noted, that Revision 3 has also crossed that threshold, too. So hats off to both companies. Broadly speaking, WatchMojo.com is similar to those companies insofar that we all create original content but we’re all very different. Ultimately, we all line up on the same side of the line of scrimmage in the sense that we all strive to convince marketers that online video is more than UGC or pirated content alone.
N3 has a fantastic pedigree of founders, executives and their investment DNA just got bolstered considerably.
Goldman Sachs, for example, invested $130M in Limelight… sheltered them for some time against the Akamai litigation. While the company’s post IPO life has indeed been challenging, it was a successful case study in how quickly Goldman could take a company to the public capital markets. This is no small consideration in light of the fact that the same markets are currently embroiled in the sub-prime mess. Of course, to paraphrase Mr. Miller, very few companies are actual IPO candidates… and it could be argued that N3 (or Revision 3) are no-brainer acquisition opportunities.
In fact, Revision3, too, has an all-star lineup of founders, execs and investors (it is founded by Digg’s Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson). They have raised $9M since launch, notably from Greylock.
Admittedly, my jaw drops a bit when I compare how much money I’ve invested in WatchMojo.com to build the library and get the traction we have… but I won’t lie: if you can raise that much money, hey, more power to you.
Many were waiting for the N3 funding news to materialize, in fact. I presume the tough climate added to the cycle time. But to raise $15M is impressive regardless of how long it takes.
Incidentally, last week I noted that Velocity Interactive Group was building a new media focused, online video-centric fund, and judging by their investment, their next investment would likely be in content.
It will be interesting to see what some of their next moves will be. If you take a step back and envision the “keiretsu” that they are building, I can imagine a few missing elements that they will be looking at filling - or reinforcing - in order to add velocity and momentum in the months to come
As a content producer ourselves, I did not specify that content would be the next piece, but knowing that Jon Miller was on their board, it was easy to see the pieces fall in place with content and Next New Networks being the “void” they were looking to fill.
Heavy Hitters
The $15M Series B pushes up NNN’s total funding to $23M, just over what Mania TV has raised ($22.7M), but still a bit less than what Heavy.com ($25M) and Ripe TV ($32M) have raised in the video content space.
Mania TV just raised an additional sum last week. This is a trend that will continue. While some, like Paid Content’s Rafat Ali, question the model altogether, and others, including Mr. Scannell or Blip’s co-founder and CEO Mike Hudack remain unsure of the model that will prevail, it is a given that online advertising will continue to grow, and that professional content will draw the bulk of video advertising.
Any way you dice it: to quote CBS Interactive CMO Patrick Keane: online video is where search was in 2002, and considering that in December 2007, there were more video streams than search queries, the best is yet to come, and investors are just starting to place bets.
In fact, while the numbers seem large, this is still far less than what the platform and aggregators have raised (see a list of funding by video company breakdown here), and it does reinforce what we outlined last year: VCs will focus more and more on content investments as advertisers reject UGC and demand premium content.
Technically, Wallstrip founder (whom CBS bought, incidentally) and TubeMogul investor Howard Lindzon was right in arguing that I was wrong on that point last year, but I think I was wrong in the timing. That did not happen in 2007… but 2008 seems to suggest that it is happening as we speak.
Believe it or not, there are more and more digital media funds being set up every day.
That this is happening against the backdrop of a financial meltdown is even more impressive.
Here’s the rundown of funding in the video space
While many people seem to suggest that the slowing economy will affect funding, it is certainly surprising to see players enter competitive and uncertain spaces with new, large funding rounds.
Examples:
- TidalTV raised $15M, it’s essentially a similar business to Joost and Hulu. Joost has raised $45; Hulu has raised $100M. Disclosure: WatchMojo.com provides content to both Joost and Hulu, along with 100s of other large destinations.
- Panther Express raises $16M. Last time I checked, CDNs were being commoditized. Limelight Networks debuted at $20/share in its much ballyhooed IPO, but it’s now at $7… “up” from its 52-week low because every day a new rumor pops up about a potential acquisition (last week MSFT, this week Level 3).
Anyway, more power to these companies and their backers. Online video streams surpassed search queries, so at the macro level, the market is steamrolling… but does that mean that we need more competitors at the micro level?
Time will tell.
From Dan Rayburn’s blog:
So with all that being said, below is what the going rate is for streaming media delivery. These figures are based on actual contracts and RFPs I have seen in the market and comes from customers telling me on a weekly basis what they are paying. Since last quarters pricing, which I detailed here, the biggest change is at the 50TB+ per month commitment. Anything below 50TB+ has pretty much been level all year. Only above 50TB+ and really at 100TB+ is where the price has dropped from last quarter.
Read the rest.
PLAY
