<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HipMojo.com</title>
	<link>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog</link>
	<description>Covering Online Video, Web, Search, Investing, Technology, Strategy, Investing, M&#038;A, Financing, VCs</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:40:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Why Online Video Businesses Are a Joke</title>
		<link>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/07/16/why-online-video-businesses-are-a-joke/</link>
		<comments>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/07/16/why-online-video-businesses-are-a-joke/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ashkan Karbasfrooshan</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet &#038; Web]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Online Advertising]]></category>
<category>Internet &amp;#038; Web</category><category>Online Advertising</category><category>Video</category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/07/16/why-online-video-businesses-are-a-joke/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve become reluctant to post much on online video&#8230; because invariably if I am not talking about a partner or competitor (of WatchMojo.com&#8217;s), it seems as if I am talking to a partner or competitor&#8230;  truth is I never am, but it&#8217;s hard for the post not to be read in such a manner&#8230;
But, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve become reluctant to post much on online video&#8230; because invariably if I am not talking about a partner or competitor (of WatchMojo.com&#8217;s), it seems as if I am talking <em>to</em> a partner or competitor&#8230;  truth is I never am, but it&#8217;s hard for the post not to be read in such a manner&#8230;</p>
<p>But, the feedback I get is that people like the angle of an insider&#8217;s take on online video&#8230; so here goes nothing.</p>
<p><strong>Here&#8217;s a simple post called &#8220;How to totally own the video market&#8221;.  </strong></p>
<p><strong>The Hypothesis </strong></p>
<p>Google was the first really successful ad-supported technology company.  By now it should be obvious the money will not be made via CDN, platforms or that kind of crap, but in ad supported video.  Google won&#8217;t really win, because they too will suffer from innovator&#8217;s dilemma.  It&#8217;s nothing against YouTube&#8230; but <a href="http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/07/youtube-lionsga.html" target="_blank">YouTube</a> needs to be a separate unit from Google and not a spoiled child withing Google.  Google did $17B in revenues in 2007; in 2008, YouTube might do $200M.  Before you know it, Google will sit on YouTube and suffocate it.</p>
<p>Anyway, given YouTube&#8217;s massive exit - from $10 for a URL to $1.65B in two years - VCs have sought to emulate it and failed furiously, frankly.</p>
<p><strong>The Problem</strong></p>
<p>The problem right now in online video is that unless you are a traditional media company with a sales force selling to big advertisers and a big audience, you are not really generating much by way of online video advertising dollars.  YouTube, for example, owns 70% of the streams with 35% market share and does $200M in total revenues (with about $65M coming from actual video ads by my count).  Total ad revenues from online video in the US market in 2008 are clocking in at $1.35B.  Not bad, but when you realize that online ads are a $20B business&#8230; $1.35B is rather girlish.  No disrespect intended to the ladies in the house.</p>
<p><strong>The Methodology</strong></p>
<p>Anyway, how can you kick ass?</p>
<p>Well, from my vantage point, I can tell you the problem from online video ad revenues (OVAR) is simple:</p>
<p>- not enough good content online; YouTube - the barometer of online video - has 96% non-monetizable content</p>
<p>- not enough frequency of new premium content</p>
<p>- even if the content is made and out there, it&#8217;s lost in the clutter, I just covered this point earlier tonight.  Go find it.  Hyperlinking back to my own posts is so 2007.</p>
<p>So&#8230; what would I do?  Simple.  I would borrow a page from Hulu - who raised $100M on a $1B valuation to license only professional content (hum&#8230; pardon me, but it&#8217;s worth noting that WatchMojo.com is a content provider to Hulu) - and<strong> sign exclusive deals for content</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>Get Into A Media Planner&#8217;s Shoes</strong></p>
<p>An ad buyer wants to know why he is going to make you rich.  <u></u></p>
<p><u>Rule #1 - You have to be unique</u>.  If your content is everywhere, it might be a good thing, but it also sucks ass.  Why should he call you, when he can call YouTube, for example, and get placement next to it.  Obviously he can&#8217;t, cause YouTube sells categories and not partner channels&#8230; but YouTube is still searching for the sweet spot&#8230; (don&#8217;t hold your breath).</p>
<p><u>Rule #2 - You can&#8217;t live in the ghetto.</u></p>
<p>If right next to your content is a link to crap, advertisers will walk.  It&#8217;s that simple.</p>
<p><u>Rule #3 - Ad buyers are not VCs, social media gurus, etc., they&#8217;re smarter.</u></p>
<p>Trust me:</p>
<p>- when ad revenues are bountiful, people are resistant to exclusive deals&#8230; but the truth is, unless you are Disney, CBS, News Corp., etc., you are not really generating much OVAR.  And even if you are those guys, it&#8217;s puny relative to your offline ad revenues&#8230; so YOUR strategy has to be different than theirs&#8230; but your strategy must understand why TV became a $70B ad industry&#8230; which means 10x larger than online video.  Sure, online video is less than a decade old&#8230; but at this rate&#8230; it won&#8217;t ever become as big as TV if the arrogance does not dissipate.</p>
<p>In fact,</p>
<p>- when ad revenues are scarce, people will give up exclusive rights for guaranteed revenue&#8230; again, not everyone would, particularly the media companies who make much more offline to begin with&#8230;</p>
<p>but&#8230;</p>
<p>- the bulk of traditional media&#8217;s content is actually abysmal for OVAR anyway.  I would get into all of the ways but that&#8217;s for a separate post (or a <a href="http://www.GranicusGroup.com" target="_blank">consulting mandate</a>, frankly),</p>
<p>- talking about &#8220;made-for-web content producers&#8221;, they will gladly give up exclusivity for revenue.</p>
<p><strong>The Game Plan</strong></p>
<p>If a company comes around and secures a large financing round - say $100M - it can basically take $50M and secure rights to content, exclusive content.  I know conventional thinking is that exclusive is bad and no one will accept to it, but that is BS.  Trust me.  We own one - if not the - largest library of high quality made for web content&#8230; and we&#8217;d consider variations of an exclusive deal.  We would.  It&#8217;s very uncool to say that online&#8230; but cool is passe.  Substance is the new cool&#8230; and will be over the next two years as the American economy continues to tank.</p>
<p>So with a war chest of $50M set aside just for content&#8230; you can create an environment with a lot of monetizable content.  As crazy as it sounds, apparently (I won&#8217;t comment as a partner, but I am using SAI&#8217;s figure) Hulu will make $40-90M in revenues in its first year&#8230; and while the content on their site is good&#8230; I reiterate, it&#8217;s not formatted for the Web and not optimal for web advertisers anyway&#8230;</p>
<p>That hits at the core of another problem: 99% of the aggregators in the video space have raised billions (in aggregate) but have not earmarked <em>anything </em>for content licensing.  Their business plans call to obtain free content but yet spend billions (in aggregate) spent on hardware, hosting, bandwidth, <strike>cocaine</strike>, etc.  So what happens is that the masses line up, upload crappy content but rightsholders of quality content sit back, knowing that speculative revenue share deals won&#8217;t lead to meaningful revenue.</p>
<p>I know much of what I say seems counter intuitive&#8230; after all, the Web is all about open <strike>and sharing joints</strike>&#8230; but trust me, the OVAR aren&#8217;t crappy because there&#8217;s an abundance of high quality, premium, professional content all over the place&#8230; OVAR figures are crappy cause the <em>content out there is largely crappy</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>I&#8217;m not writing this for someone to come along and sign me a check for exclusive rights to WatchMojo.com&#8217;s content (though I&#8217;d listen, frankly, so go ahead and email us at ash@mojosupreme.com).  But, since News Corp. and NBC are in bed backing Hulu&#8230; maybe the powers that be at CBS or Viacom or Disney or Time Warner or the big private equity firms, or frankly, a European or Asian media company looking West, might be interested in ponying up $100M and helping me help them build a real video business.</p>
<p>Hello&#8230; I think my phone line is not working properly.  Is my email down, too?  Yeah&#8230; thought so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://watchmojo.com/web/blog/index.php/2008/07/16/why-online-video-businesses-are-a-joke/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
