I keep telling myself not to post monthly updates of WatchMojo’s growth trajectory, and I mean it, but then every once in a while something else happens that blows me away. This is one of those months. I just announced how our offline reach has soared to over 15,000,000 consumers per month (think big screens in malls, gyms, coffee shops etc. broadcasting our content) which combined with our online reach of 5,000,000 uniques put our total reach at 20,000,000 consumers. That is very cool.
But today, I ran our October stats and I was floored, first, the graph, then some perspective, and finally some lessons:
Monthly Streams
All-time Streams
This is freaking insane. When we launched the site in 2006, I used to look at the stats and I would ask myself: do people actually watch videos? And if they do, do they watch anything other than cats falling off skateboards (well, and porn)?
Eventually, we found out that we had to take our videos to where people consumed them. We did 550,000 streams in all of 2006, then did 13,000,000 in 2007. Then 2008 saw a jump to 28,000,000 streams and in 2009 we will do 55,000,000 streams.
We decided to brand the videos heavily to WatchMojo.com, with opening and closing bumpers and lower-third watermark and all. I thought it was crazy, I pushed for it because I figured if people pirated the content (who would want to do that anyway, was my own counter-argument) then at least we would get some branding. But today this means our brand has been seen some 87,000,000 times online alone.
That’s the thing, that is only online. This month I finally decided to run the numbers and see how much presence we had offline. I fell off my chair. Our videos - branded WatchMojo again - are seen in 2,000 retail locations and reach 15,000,000 consumers each month. I will never forget when a would-be investor called me up an hour after we chatted and told me he saw us in a gas station in Los Angeles, or when a former host of ours saw us in a bagel shop in Chicago, or for that matter, when I heard that my former boss curses every time he lands on a site and sees our logo display before a video loads up.
I always laugh when Google scores heavy in InterBrand’s top brand survey because they never set out to build a brand but did so by focusing on the nuts and bolts.
I always thought WatchMojo could become a strong brand (the logo was always intended to stick out). I also thought the company could be big, very big; but the company’s popularity, reach, brand and position in the marketplace is starting to floor myself. And I am a very ambitious and driven individual. I want to make WatchMojo as successful financially as it has been operationally, and I know there’s lots of work to do on that front, but still…
We’ve had to overcome a lot:
- being a content company, which in the 2000s gets no respect from the media and investors alike,
- the 2006 lawsuit which was frivolous and we won, but almost killed us before we really took off,
- talking to VC groups and then seeing them turn around and fund our “competitors”, which wouldn’t be the end of the world, if it weren’t for…
- … seeing those very same companies scale back or shut down, only to leave a bad taste in the mouths of other would-be investors,
- there not being any ad format in online video that is popular, efficient and effective enough to move the needle, the way Google’s text ads did for search, despite the hundreds of millions that hapless VCs have made in the sector,
- being unfunded (forget being underfunded, I mean literally not funded - ever), so always having one foot in the grave and the other foot on the gas pedal,
- the 2008 recession which basically almost killed everything,
- the 2009 advertising market crumbling in H1.
Anyway, I’m not complaining. In fact, I am very grateful.
As we finish Year 3 of WatchMojo’s operations, we have never laid off a single person and technically now have 50% more staff than we did last year (don’t know why I use the word “technically” since we do, in fact, have 50% more staff than last year this time).
Not only am I not complaining, I am counting my lucky stars that we:
- have such a great team,
- have an amazing product,
- provide a valuable service to countless other media companies, both new and traditional,
- are now finally counting amongst our clients marketers such as McDonald’s, Coca Cola, Coors Molson, Malibu Rum and many, many others.
How, on earth, did this all happen?
Well, for one, determination and persistence. I’ve written on that before, here, here is the quote from former President Calvin Coolidge:
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Determination and persistence is just one part of it, you need a lot of luck and timing… and of course, vision, ambition, execution and focus.
I have no idea what the future holds… but I used to think we would get a lot of “street cred” if we jumped off the bridge like many others and raised a boatload of money. The boat never came, the money wasn’t there… and some how we are now totally dominating the industry.
I’ve referred to Sequoia’s “Good Times RIP” presentation and the famous death spiral slide:
I was very concerned about not becoming Company A - you know, the company that didn’t take immediate action and lay off people so that maybe, just maybe, when the dust settled, it could become like Company A, who had the “courage” to lay off everyone and reset its operations.
But, I also didn’t want to be Company B, who recklessly laid off people because it got scared.
Then it hit me, we were neither company A or B, we were a company that was largely off the radar, doing our own thing. We had written our own playbook and were in the process of writing our own history. We were, in fact, Company C:
I don’t quite know who is Company A and Company B in our world, and I don’t care, all I know is that we’re coming on strong. I have always said the beautiful thing about content is that it is not a zero-sum game, our wins won’t necessarily come at the expense of our competitors… but the more we compete in the marketplace, the more often we find ourselves winning.
Humble Beginnings
In 2006 the idea for Solution Networking came to founder - Brad Greene. The idea was born as a result of years spent collecting and listening to stories about and from people who were making a positive difference through what they do; what they offered and what they were proud of - and he realized that all these solutions could benefit from a broader audience and a louder voice.
The Long Journey
Brad discussed the idea with Tony Browne and Janelle Greene and the initial findsolve team was established. For the longest time, it was just these three. Brad concentrated on cultivating the vision and the evolution of the site; Tony on the business systems and IT infrastructure and Janelle on the findsolve message, publicity and marketing.
Together the three of them, holed up and focused on building a site to support the mission: to showcase and share solutions. Solutions for business, solutions for communities, solutions for the environment - any solution big or small that has solved a challenge, taken the world forward in a small way or been the impetus for a cause of actions was of interest.
As the concept began to take shape, our Lead Developer - Bjørn Erik Lie and a small group of passionate people joined the cause to develop, design and support the site and in August 2009 findsolve went live and was announced to the world.
The Goal
Many of the solutions we need are already out there — they just need a louder voice. findsolve wants to help make that happen.
To help communities and the environment showcase the solutions to some of the hardest challenges of all — we have made it “Free to Publish” for Not for Profits and Charities.
It is our mission to showcase and share solutions and we want you to be part of our Goal.
To provide your own company’s solution, and start growing you business, join findsolve today!
Launched in September 2009, by IT strategist and expedition rafting guru Brad Greene, Findsolve is the ultimate business solution platform.
“The advantage for businesses who sign up as the first in their category is that they will benefit from the worldwide launch of the site and begin to collect customer recommendations — and if they are good at what they do, they can stay at the top of our ranking system,” Mr. Greene said.
“No matter the size of the business, they will achieve popularity and better ranking by being the best at what they do, not being the biggest,” he concluded.
Brad began developing findsolve as a side-project while dividing his time project managing large IT projects and expedition river rafting in the wilds of remote Northern Canada & America.
Findsolve connects companies and business professionals in a social environment designed for interaction. Put simply, Findsolve will allow companies to post their solutions, ranking them by the number of customer recommendations and allowing people to find what they want, where they want, without trawling through search pages.
Chris Roberts, Founder of Engaged Marketing and University of Queensland Industry Fellow, said the internet was evolving rapidly and businesses were crying out for a better way to be found by those who are looking for them.
“You can pay so much for search engine optimization and still end up on the second or third search page amidst a list of web pages that might not be particularly relevant to the original search,” Mr. Roberts said. “findsolve is one of the best internet solutions I have seen — it puts everyone on a level playing field and gives the world a central place to look for quality information and solutions of any type or industry,” he said.
For more information, please visit findsolve.com
Have you ever been faced with a specific problem and asked yourself: “I wonder if there is a solution out there”. Well today is your lucky day!
Australian based findsolve.com is a B2B platform designed to connect businesses around the world.
If your company has a unique solution to common problems, offer it at findsolve.com and be connected to companies looking for your help.
findsolve - The Central Business District of the Web
Background
Mike Volpi was the executive at Cisco who ran M&A for John Chambers. His recommendations made millions for others (whose companies Cisco acquired) and helped make Chambers more and more powerful. Over time, he was asked by the founders of Skype, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, to sit on their board.
Then, Skype is acquired by eBay for over $2B in 2005, Friis and Zennstrom retain the underlying P2P platform, called Global Index, through their ownership of Joltid. In the sale to eBay, investors Index Partners and partner Danny Rimer make a killing.
Joost is Hatched, and Flops
Friis and Zennstrom launch Joost, a video P2P platform, using the same Global Index platform. Company raises $45M from a blue-chip roster of investors including CBS, Viacom, and many others.
Eventually, they recruit Volpi to become the CEO of the fledging video startup. Volpi, Friis and Zennstrom realize that the NBC/News Corp.-backed hulu has stolen their thunder and try to right the ship, by dumping the software client distribution model and adopting a browser strategy. By then, Joost hits considerable headwinds and decides to dump the consumer strategy and focus on white label licensing.
Back to Skype, but How?
Friis and Zennstrom wonder what to do next. Their focus shifts to their one main hit: Skype, currently in eBay’s hands. Volpi, meanwhile, wonders if he did the right thing by leaving the friendly confines of corporate life for the rough and tumble world of startups.
All equally troubled by the turning of events, they meet to explore their options. How crazy would it be for them to hatch a plan to reclaim their crown jewel Skype… but how to do without triggering a bidding war with corporate and private equity giants?
The Plan?
Since Joltid retained the source code for Skype, eBay only had access to an executable program. They probably ask Joltid for the right to tweak the software, Joltid ignores their request or outright denies it. Fearing the worst, eBay starts to tinker with the code, Joltid jumps on opportunity to claim that eBay is violating the terms of the license, they sue to prevent eBay from both tweaking the license AND from selling Skype to anyone else (Google, MSFT, etc.).
Fearing that they might lose the case to eBay, how crazy would it be for Friis and Zennstrom to offer Volpi an offer he could not refuse:
Use confidential material information to sell Skype to a third party by convincing them that he had the secret formula to get around the technical challenges posed by relying on the Global Index, but leave enough of a trail so that Joltid could pursue Volpi and the new buyers Volpi shepherded to ultimately force eBay to instead sell Skype at a steep discount to them as part of a settlement?
This way, Friis and Zennstrom did not have to enter into a bidding war against the much deeper pocketed Google and Microsoft, and private equity players that would underwrite this plan would be once bitten, twice shy about pursuing Skype as well?
You could argue, would Volpi do this?
Honestly, I don’t think so. I also don’t think - judging from the legal documents that Friis and Zennstrom unleashed on Volpi - that this is a case of three buddies hatching a grand scheme, but it does make for a great movie script, doesn’t it?
- Volpi stinks just as much as Friis and Zennstrom.
- Skype Founders Are Destroying Their Reputation and Ability to Recruit and Invest in Talent.
- Joltid jilted eBay, Twice?
Sequoia had a mentality-shifting meeting 11 months ago with a presentation called Good Times - RIP. There’s a slide in that presentation that shows two companies (A and B) who make layoffs at different paces. I’ve modified added a third chart, below, for Company C.
At the time, I really considered making adjustments too, but as a company that never raised VC, I didn’t really see many areas in the firm that could be scaled back, let alone should. I think that applied to companies who had done small angel rounds or raised money from the Y Combinator’s the world, too. While we (both WatchMojo and all companies) aren’t out of the woods yet (and I reserve the right to make such changes in the future) I do think it was wise not to panic, either.
We’ve easily doubled our revenues in the past year while keeping costs largely flat. We’ve also doubled our streams and client base. In that period, a few other large content creators have also ceased operations. So between our organic growth and attrition, our influence in the marketplace has expanded quite a bit. I think we are the de facto supplier of premium content now. That’s right, we’re your pusher.
I think we’re not alone: a lot of companies away from the limelight and off the radar never had fat to cut and added some muscle in the last year. In the next few months and quarters as the economy picks up steam and M&A activity accelerates, get ready to hear of a whole bunch of quality companies you might have never heard of who actually grew nicely in the past 12 months.
As a side note, you can now comment on our blogs using Facebook Connect… I apologize for putting readers through the Captcha that even James Bond couldn’t decipher.
If you haven’t seen the new Showcase re-branding effort yet, you have to see this.
Canwest has decided to overhaul the specialty channel’s brand, focusing on popular shows like Showtime’s Weeds.
This week in the streets of Toronto, Canada, Canwest’s in house creative and strategic team decided to pull of a stunt to promote season 5 of Weeds airing Sunday September 13th. The unconventional OOH marketing effort had an installment of what looks like Marijuana plants in a high traffic location, with signs that look like what your Gardner would install after spraying pesticide on your lawn. The signs read: “Please Don’t Smoke The Grass”. I’m sure this created quite the buzz on the busy downtown streets and hopefully it will get people to tune in on Sunday night.
I’ve actually already started watching the new season illegally online, which I don’t advise anyone to do for legal reasons of course… But I have to say, this is one of the best seasons so far, the writing keeps getting better and better and the story lines and character development are some of the best on television.
Anyway, as much as I liked the old branding and positioning of the old showcase, sometimes change is necessary and I have a feeling this will be a good one!
Feel free to let me know what you think of the stunt they pulled to promote the new season or comment and tell me what you think of the season premier, I promise this season will not disappoint…
It seems everyone is talking about health care reform these days and I think we all agree that something needs to change. Obviously there are many possible solutions including applying for Canadian citizenship…lol!!! Another logical solution is tofind a job with great healthcare benefits.
A new analysis from BEA, conducted by Cato-at-Liberty, shows that the average federal employee makes a lot more than those of you in the private sector. Since 2000, the average pay of a federal worker is up 55%, compared to just 29% growth in the private sector. And this doesn’t even take into account the amazing heathcare package they provide.
So short of moving to Canada or driving to Mexico to buy your drugs (prescription drugs), becoming a federal worker seems like the best option and hey, you’ll probably get an increase in wages… As far as I’m concerned, that’s just a BONUS!
Obama’s expecting your resumé, so please try to keep it to one page…
I have been working on a few ideas for TV shows for WatchMojo.com. So I was curious to see what ABC’s Shark Tank would be like, because it sits at the intersection of a few things I am personally into: entrepreneurship, public speaking, investing, media and business in general.
Here’s the overview, then for reasons that are unexplainable now, my live blog on Episode 1 and my comments on whether I’d fund the company:
From Mark Burnett, executive producer of Survivor and The Apprentice, and Sony Pictures Television, comes Shark Tank, an exciting, new reality show that gives budding entrepreneurs the chance to make their dreams come true and become successful — and possibly wealthy — business people. But the entrepreneurs must first try to convince five tough, multi-millionaire tycoons to part with their own hard-earned cash and give them the funding they need to jumpstart their ideas.
Please note: Shark Tank depicts negotiations between entrepreneurs and investor ‘Sharks.’ The Sharks are investing their own money at their discretion. No offer is being made to or solicited from the viewing audience.
The Sharks of Shark Tank are:
- Barbara Corcoran
- Kevin Harrington
- Robert Herjavec
- Daymond John
- Kevin O’Leary
And now, without further ado, the contestants.
#1) Crooked Jaw
3 partners, with one lead founder who launched a clothing line around Mixed Martial Arts. He got his jaw broken while playing lacrosse.
Looking to raise 200,000 for 20% of the company, implying a valuation of $1M.
The shark with the expertise in the category, Daymond John, seems unimpressed. He shoots down Crooked Jaw, adding: “the brand needs legs.” The other sharks ask John how many of Crooked Jaws are out there, to which John mentions: “1 out 1,000, if not 10,000.”
Ouch.
The company has sold 1,500 units of t-shirts and hats but only has about $5,000 in sales to show for it… once he mentioned the figure, everyone bolted.
Worst sign: one of the sharks wanted to buy one of the shirts, but he won’t accept the money. The toughest part of a business is getting clients to pay for something, here you have a billionaire potential investor to pay for your good… take their money, it’s almost a test.
Would I invest?
Nope, at least not under those terms. I agree that the brand doesn’t scream MMA but this market is growing rapidly and with the right marketing mix and partnerships, the founder has some of the elements (like a story of how and why he started the company) to give it a run.
But I would offer them something like $20,000 for 25%. It’s not a lot of dough, but considering they have some products, it can be a decent seed.
Right now, CJ is NOT a million dollar idea, it’s a $100,000 idea. It can be a multi million dollar exit to another clothing company in the next few years, one that wants to capitalize on MMA by leveraging on whatever CJ will have built by then.
2) Lifebelt
Founded by Robert Allison, looking $500,000 for 10%.
The pitch: Can’t start your car without first buckling your seat belt. Traffic crash is # 1 killer, and the founder knows someone who lost a loved one.
Selling in Las Vegas for $229, includes install. He owns the patent and copyright.
Here, the investors have interesting questions and feedback.
The only thing of value is the patent, everyone seems to agree…
Of course, the valuation is “too high”. They all agree. Shocking.
One by one the investors bail. One shark O’Leary offers to buy the whole patent $500,000 and never wants to get another call from the owner. The other investor, Herjavec, offers $1M and offers the guy one call. The “never call me / you can call me once” is good TV but beyond rude.
We cut to break.
This show needs work, but as an entrepreneur and investor, I do like the premise.
I agree that the entrepreneur here is the human equivalent of vegetable lasagna… you need to be a salesperson and he ain’t one - this is something that Barbara Corcoran, yes, that Corcoran - stressed as a reason to balk.
He says no, he doesn’t want to sell 100% of the company, fearing they might put it on a shelf.
After a back and forth, Herjavec calls him stubborn, I agree.
Would I invest?
These sharks want control, I think because they don’t trust themselves.
So I would have left the guy keep 51% and offered $100,000 for 49%… not because I think this product doesn’t have legs, in fact the patent is worth more. But I can see that the entrepreneurs’ hard headedness would dissuade anyone else from investing, so $100,000 would help him with getting traction with at least 1 or 2 carmakers, rendering the rest history.
I would make him integral to the “story” and vision of the company but clearly this company needs professional managers and more funding. But with a founder like this, you do this in baby steps.
3) Susan Knapp, The Perfect Pear
- Looking for $500,000 for 15% for production, has $100,000 worth of orders for her food products. A typical sign of the times kind of problem: not enough credit.
- Company generates $700,000 of sales with 2.35% in net profit by end of 2009, with 10.5% profit in 2010. Profit margins are way too low.
- Knapp has invested $800,000 in the company.
- O’Leary urges Knapp to remove the emotions, offers $500,000 for 75%. Knapp says no thanks. O’Leary clearly needs control… what does that say? This is something I face too: people who don’t know me or know our business or our industry “needing” over 50% just for the sake of having control. Truth is, once you sell equity and bring on investors, you sort of lose control… so a smart investor wouldn’t need 51% to exert it, but I digress.
- Daymond John offers $500,000 for 51%, saying it’s better to deal with 1 investor instead of 2.
- Harrington offers $500,000 for 50%, Herjavec backs that deal, too. Not sure if he means he and Harrington will pony up $250,000 each for 25% each, or if he is competing with Harrington.
So as we cut to break: everyone other than Corcoran makes an offer of about $500,000 for 50%.
Want the truth, I still don’t know what on earth the food actually is… but I know it must be good because the investors are eating like they haven’t eaten in weeks.
- She counters with 49% to the investor. Herjavec says he is willing to “share responsibility but not give that control”.
- In the end, she says no to Daymond’s offer but agrees to selling 50% to Herjavec and Harrington for $500,000.
- Her goal is to make it into a $20M in 5 years. That’s it?
Would I invest?
Honestly, no. I like to eat food, not invest in it. The margins are too low.
4) Mary Ellen Simonsen, Sticky Notes Holder
- Seeking $100,000 for 20% for basically an add-on to a computer screen.
- Has spent $1,000 developing this product.
- 0 sales thus far, with O’Leary laughing at her. She is aiming to sell this for $10, based on surveys.
- This year, 400M laptops will sell… Herjavec is tired of hearing the “if I get 1% of blah blah” - I agree.
- Daymond John: “No sales + A Useless Idea = I’m out”.
- Barbara Corcoran urges her to take the QVC route, she seems the only gracious one, Harrington snaps: “this is why she’s here, someone in her family told her this was a good idea”. True, he may be right, but just because someone’s current idea sucks doesn’t mean they will always lay “stink bombs”. So I don’t see this founder ever going back to anyone else but Corcoran. She seems to “get that”, the others don’t. She’s also the lone female on the panel, maybe a coincidence? Who knows.
Would I invest?
Nope. I agree with the overall feedback of the investors.
5) Mark Furiga, Classroom Jams
- High school teacher for 8 years, built a teaching tool for students learning Shakespeare: music.
- He has written and performed these songs that capture the plays. He basically has a record label/publishing house. He is NOT selling the songs. The Sharks want the copyright of the songs, too.
- $250,000 for 10% of the company. Will then target history, arts etc.
- $499 for 30 CDs and a teacher’s guide.
- Make money by selling “class sets” to schools nationwide.
- O’Leary kicks out Furiga to talk privately. Again, he wants control but wants to avoid a bidding war. He is also a good salesman, turning the tables on the counter-party.
- The offer is $250,000 to fund his company + 5% royalties, but ask for 100%.
- He passes.
- The investors pile it on, “do you want to worry about the daily hassles of a business etc.” Smart negotiations tactic… they are making the same mistake again: arrogantly discounting the entrepreneur. If they are reading this, they should heed this advice, but of course, they don’t care what I say.
- This is not a good deal, obviously… and Furiga makes a counter offer that he too be an owner. O’Leary has absolutely no respect for the entrepreneur, adding “what you’re asking for it un-American”. Herjavec offers $250,000 for 100% and offers Furiga to “earn 49%” over time with his work over the years.
- Now O’Leary and Herjavec butt heads.
The thing is, neither deal is good. These are typical investor tactics: they know you think you have no alternative, so they lowball.
O’Leary, while downright offensive, is good TV. Just not sure I would ever want to do a deal with him.
- Furiga starts to talk, Herjavec sweetens the deal for $250,000 in exchange for 51%. O’Leary turns on Herjavec: “you just saw greed”. Furiga continues… and makes a mistake: “I like the idea of having 5 business partners”. Which is ideal but foolish. That is too many cooks in the kitchen.
- The competing offers are “100% for $250,000 + 5% royalties” OR “$250,000 for 51%”.
- Decision time: he goes to sell $250,000 for 100% with 5% after getting shot down for 8.5% royalties.
Would I invest?
Sure. I would keep him on as an owner. I don’t understand why the sharks were so against that. I would have actually offered him the $250,000 for 51% and given him 2.5%in royalties. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly not un-American.
And we’re done.
This show needs a lot of work, but the potential is there. Hmm… maybe a derivative version for our own WatchMojo.com show? We shall see.
Better question: why did I love blog this? Don’t I have my own business to run?
Last week, I attended an intimate gathering in Tribeca, called “The Coming Revolution in the Publisher/Advertiser Relationship and How to Prepare”, hosted by Derek Smith of Alcove Networks, and featuring Razorfish’s Matthew Greitzer, who has been featured in the 40 under 40 in Crain’s.
I took down some notes on my Blackberry, here are 11 themes:
1- Advertising is a $450 billion market, excluding classifieds, “push advertising” alone represents $350 billion.
2- Borrowing a term from others (including Guy Kawasaki, Jack Uldrich and Nicholas Imparato) Greitzer argued that we’re currently in a “Curve Jumping” period where a massive amount of ad dollars are shifting from analog to digital media, and even within digital media, where dollars will move from search/text to video/content integration. I am paraphrasing the second part, but it’s worth noting that Greitzer’s official title is that of VP Search Marketing, and he was talking about online video and content integration - two things that are seemingly at the other end of the spectrum relative search marketing.
3 - It was also the first time I heard the term decoupling audiences, though the concept is anything but foreign, to define it, instead of trying to paraphrase and remember, I will copy and paste this passage from Joe Mandese here: “decoupling audiences from content and are blurring the roles among publishers, networks and agencies” who in turn is quoting Havas Digital CEO Don Epperson.
4 - For 200 years, we have seen an evolution of newspapers to magazines, then to radio, on to television, and now onto the web. Nothing new there, granted, but worth noting how each subsequent media outgrew the previous one by a healthy margin. This is interesting because even I don’t think online will become larger than TV, though I’ve ran numbers suggesting it’s all possible: online surpassing TV by 2021.
5 - Another theme throughout was how content serves as a proxy for audience, and this is why I am personally bearish on social media… because quality content is what advertisers want to associate with.
6 - Trivia time: First banner ad was AT&T on Hotwire on October 24 1994. More here.
7 - Behavioral marketing made advertisers not care about content, but rather, the audience. This led to the explosion of the ad network business. Ad exchanges flourished, and for a while data overtook content.
We know the advantages of the Web, but with television being so much bigger, this poses unique challenges:
- You cannot yet apply a data centric approach to TV buying.
- Unlike online, you cannot optimize ads on the fly.
- Online, the quality of content can be measured and priced objectively.
8 - But in the end, mass reach is a commodity. I actually agree with this a lot. A marketer can pick up the phone and buy 100M uniques and pay penny CPM (if not CPC).
9 - Customization comes into play and that is where premium pricing is possible: Integrated and customized sponsorships are the big opportunity of the future.
10 - Publishers are in data business, and demographics don’t count as much as they once did. Advertisers are in data market as well, in fact, everyone is in the data business these days.
11 - All of these changes (which have already begun) will accelerate in the next12 to 24 months. In 5 years, all will be digital.
You can interpret this as all media will be digital, or all platforms will be digital. That is a post for another day.
PLAY
