Old Media Companies Try to Sabotage New Media Efforts

Given the number of "studies" I've seen that claim to show the "superiority" of print over online, I've gotten a sense of desperation on the part of publishers. (And given their financial results and dropping ad revenue, no wonder.) The latest has some interesting data:

Among Web users, nearly two-thirds (63%) of banner ads were not seen. Respondents' eyes "passed over" 37% of the Internet ads and "stopped" on slightly less than a third, McPheters & Co. found.

In contrast to online ads, TV and magazine ads generated a strong propensity to be seen and recalled. Full-page, four-color magazine ads were determined to have 83% of the value of a 30-second television commercial, while a typical Internet banner ad has 16% of the value.

Here are the major findings from the press release issued by the market research firm that undertook the study:

• Within a half hour, magazines effectively delivered more than twice the number of ad impressions as TV and more than 6 times those delivered online.
• Though TV doesn't deliver as many ads per half hour as do magazines, net recall of TV ads was almost twice that of magazine ads; magazines in turn had ad recall almost three times that of Internet banner ads.
• 85% of Internet ads served appeared on-screen and could be identified by brand.
• Among web users, 63% of banner ads were not seen. Respondents' eyes passed over 37% of the Internet ads and stopped on slightly less than a third.
• For Internet ads, almost all net recall could be attributed to ads that were seen.
• Internet video ads appeared much less frequently than banner ads, and their exposure skewed heavily towards young men. When they did appear they were twice as likely to be seen as banner ads.

In my experience I definitely avoid looking at banner ads. But there are some enormous suppositions and biases here:

• The report does mention online vehicles other than banner ads, but only mentions video ads as appearing less frequently than banner ads and skewing heavily toward young men. But that is one of the most desired demographics for marketers. And, apparently, it didn't seem to measure text ads, which are surely the most prevelant form of online marketing today.
• Recalling an ad is not necessarily the same as ad effectiveness. Consider the famous example of the hilarious Alka Seltzer ad series from the sixties. They had huge recall, but the company dropped them because no one remembered the product, just the humor. Also, if you find an ad irritating, is there any transference of that feeling toward the manufacturer?
• Although it may be in the study, I don't see any mention of the intent of the ad. Was it meant to sell product? Recall doesn't show whether people buy, or even if they become more inclined to favor the mentioned brand.
• Where is the audience spending its time? Even if magazine and television ads are more effective in a more extensive way than recall, is that the medium that consumers prefer to consume? If they read news and watch video online, then placing ads in print and on television starts reaching a smaller audience.
• That last point has another implication: cost. Print and television ads cost more to run than online ads. So how much does it cost to acquire and maintain a customer? That must be part of the equation, particularly when budgets are constrained. Even if one type of ad is five times more effective, what if it costs a hundred or thousand times as much?

And now for the really big point, in my opinion. Conde Nast and CBS Vision (described by CBS as a new research initiative to explore changes and opportunities in the media marketplace) sponsored the study. I've generally found that sponsored studies almost always mean that the results are only released when they support the underlying goals of the corporate sponsors. For example, can you imagine a drug company backing a study showing that a cheap alternative to an expensive prescription medicine was superior?

But publishers and broadcasters all claim to be interested in online as a medium. (Disclosure: I cover high tech for BNET, which is owned by CBS Interactive.) But this clearly delivers the impression that the sponsors are interested in having older media -- which deliver more ad revenue and profit -- shown to be superior to online. In other words, it's the old dog at the media companies trying to kill off the upstart medium, with the Internet still a business toddler compared to print and broadcast. How are the media companies ever going to make the transition they say is coming if they do everything in their power to defeat it?

This is why tech companies like Google and Amazon, which are big in online advertising and media, are likely to be the real winners in the media wars. They aren't spending significant resources and time trying to debunk the very businesses they say they are anxious to establish. And the financial results the market has been seeing is nothing more than the public results of the internal uncivil wars taking place in these companies.

No Money in Web 2.0

The Financial Times did a piece on the underlying profitability of "Web 2.0" and came to the conclusion that it isn't:

Many members of the Web 2.0 generation of Internet companies have so far produced little in the way of revenue, despite bringing about some significant changes in online behaviour, according to some of the entrepreneurs and financiers behind the movement.

The shortage of revenue among social networks, blogs and other “social media” sites that put user-generated content and communications at their core has persisted despite more than four years of experimentation aimed at turning such sites into money-makers. Together with the US economic downturn and a shortage of initial public offerings, the failure has damped the mood in Internet start-up circles.

Well, there's a surprise - companies banking on exciting technology are unpleasantly surprised when customers don't find it quite as intriguing. Features aren't the same as benefits, and the value the seller perceives may not be the same as what the buyer perceives. As "cool" as something might be, a company could find - they do find - that no one is interested in spending money on it. You'd think that people might remember the dot com bust, which was only seven or eight years ago.

What gets confusing with the Web 2.0 apps is that many seem so popular. So why don't they make money? Again, it's the perceived value, at least in part. But I've begun to wonder about the underlying psychology. People are used to being social without payment: they go to parties, chat on the phone, talk to a neighbor, and exchange recommendations with friends. The habit is, what, at least tens of thousands of years old? People assume it to be an essential right, and in that case, why would you pay for it? Now you're back to advertising, and that means that companies must decide that they can sell to the audience. Sounds like waiting for Web 2.0 success might take some time more, perhaps when Web 3.0 emerges.

If You Can't Buy Yahoo, Maybe You Can Buy The Customers

Microsoft is trying to pay users to shop online with its Live Search. According to a BBC story:

Under the cashback service, the software giant promises to pay back a portion of the purchase price of anything shoppers buy online from any of its 700-plus selling partners who are offering more than 10 million products.

Among the big box retailers who have signed up are Barnes & Noble, Sears, Overstock.com, Home Depot, J&R Electronics and a host of others.

Money will be paid either via PayPal, a cheque or into a user's bank. It will only be open to people living in the US.

The story then quotes Om Malik, a tech heavy weight and founder of GigaOm, as saying, "This is not going to affect Google. Google is so much better." I'd have to agree that it's no great shakes, but more because I think it's simply a bad business idea.

This is not the first time Microsoft has tried paying users to switch to its search technology. Last July there was a report on how it had fared. My comments then still go: this is bribing consulers, and the result is attracting only mercenaries who will be gone at the hint of the next offer. The only way you keep them is to keep increasing the incentives. In short, paying people is a tacit acknowledgment that you offer nothing else they might value. That means the cost of maintaining the customers will be extremely high and they will feel virtually no loyalty to the vendor, just loyalty to their billfolds.

Now lets add the new wrinkle. This is money back for purchases made from searches. Given that Microsoft wants huge markets, they are probably assuming that this should be a big part of the search business. But how often does a search end in an immediate purchase? I'm guessing fairly seldom. People and companies buy according to their own schedules, not to the seller's. What if they use search to get information and eventaully get around to buying days, weeks, or even months after? Google keeps that business and that means so many more times to help tie the customer close.

Furthermore, if this was such a good strategy, why didn't it work so well when Microsoft started it last year that they didn't need to try and buy Yahoo? What Microsoft needs is not an old strategy based on where they were, but a new, forward-looking stategy based on where they want to go. The more they stick with the old playbook, the more they are stuck in an old game, while Google and other companies are in a different open field using different rules.

Privacy May Dog Online Advertising

A Texas woman is suing Blockbuster for sharing details of her movie rental and purchase activities with Facebook through the Beacon program, according to the Associated Press. An Advertising Age article I recently wrote looks at the privacy issues that are likely to face those marketing online, and this is a great example. It's not that "real world" marketing is any better. In fact, much of it is worse in terms of the information it collects, coordinates, and uses, but because of the time spans between collection and use, and the lack of apparent connection, this has been largely invisible. However, the digital world is making this more obvious, rubbing the results in the faces of people. Those in marketing had best pay attention, because these are issues that can too easily bite when you least expect them.

Online Networking for Jobs

I had forgotten a piece I wrote for AdAge that was in the magazine last month, about using social networking sites to find a new job. Although focused on marketing people, the techniques and principles should work for anyone.

Loss in Confidence in Television Advertising

I hadn't run across this survey, but the Association of National Advertisers, in conjunction with Forrester, did a fourth biennial survey of corporate managers on television advertising, according to Advertising Age. The results aren't looking so good for the TV industry. In short, companies are looking to spend more online and less on television because in general - 62 percent of respondents - thought that television advertising had become less effective in the last two years. More than half reported that when half of all households use digital video recording, they'll cut spending on TV ads by an average 12 percent:

Eighty-seven percent of advertisers believe branded entertainment is the key to TV advertising in the coming year, and 65% of them are eager to try ads in online TV shows. And emerging technologies continue to lure marketers looking to experiment. Forty-three percent would like to try interactive TV ads; 55% are interested in ads embedded in VOD; and 32% would like to try ads attached to the set-top-box menu.

But what's bad news for television is good news for online. Maybe that's where the medium will eventually go.

Facebook Re-learns Basic Customer Lesson

I'd ask when will companies learn, but the answer is usually never. Facebook decided, again, to try and "monetize its assets" - that is, the users. It wanted to track what people did and exploit what it learned for its own ends. And, as newspapers like the Washington Post are reporting, those customers have forced the company to back down. Read the article to see how a man's surprise Christmas present for his wife (at least, I hope it was for his wife, and if it wasn't, it is now) became known to her and many others, as Facebook broadcast his purchase. Here's a quote, in the story, from a MoveOn.org rep:

"Sites like Facebook are revolutionizing how we communicate with each other and organize around issues together in a 21st century democracy," said Adam Green, a spokesman for MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group that has launched the petition drive to pressure Facebook to stop broadcasting members' purchases and using their names as endorsements without explicit permission. "The question is: Will corporate advertisers get to write the rules of the Internet or will these new social networks protect our basic rights, like privacy?"

It's not just about privacy, though. When you start dealing with customers, you are entering a contract. It's not written, but it's stronger than any piece of paper, because it involves their expectations and demands. Flub enough on your end, and you're ended, because the people who make your business possible will walk away with their money.

Unfortunately, businesspeople who damned well should know better let greed and wishful thinking get ahead of them. That's why there was a dot com blow up, and why the current credit crisis is in full bloom. And unless online companies start getting street smart and people wise, they're going to find that the market and even government step in to put bounds on what they can do. And no one should look to have those forces registered as friends that watch your every move.

US Gambling Stance Endangers Copyright

The New York Times has a great story about how US attempts to stop its citizens from using online gambling in Antigua could result in that country getting permission from the World Trade Organization to infringe on US copyright and sell copies of American products. Essentially, Antigua took the US to the WTO court, complaining that we were selectively allowing online gambling. So far, the US has lost the original case and an appeal, but has been ignoring the ruling.

But not complying with the decision presents big problems of its own for Washington. That’s because Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others.

Wow. The WTO is stuck because it must follow its own rules. The US doesn't want to allow offshore gambling, but by protesting and ignoring the ruling, it opens doors for other countries, like China, to do the same. And if Antigua gets permission to go ahead, what can the US actually do to stop sales and the losses that businesses would feel? This is the hidden problem of talking about completely open markets - eventually you get caught by the law of unintended consequences. Most countries that talk about open markets are all for them - for others.

Customer Service and Self Interest

I just received an email from the Financial Times informing me that I needed to update my credit card details to maintain my subscription. Simple enough, I thought. Ah, maybe not. The directions in the email had me click on a link and told me to update the credit card details. Unfortunately, nothing on the page mentioned credit cards. So I figured that I might try updating the account information. Fair enough, it seemed right, although I had to remember the answer to one of the security questions rather than just providing my password. (I wondered how many legitimate people were screened out and if the company ran into any poseurs.) Then I looked and there was still nothing saying credit card, though there was a link for payment details. Ah-hah! Success. This time.

But I've seen this problem many times before. A company will email a customer, asking for updated information or instructing them to do one thing or another, and then the instructions turn out to be wrong. Strategy is important, but companies gain and lose customers on the details. Those customers are rarely interested in the strategic directions. They want things done when they need them done. If a company isn't going to spend the short amount of time ensuring that instructions actually correspond to reality, then it's going to find that some number of people walk away because of frustration. This is unnecessary and it's far more expensive than the small amount of time needed to do thing correctly. A good proof reading would cost all of maybe $50, and a single subscription in this case is worth over $200 annually. A little attention to details is profitable, indeed.

New York Times and Reinventing the Newspaper

There's a reason that the New York Times has been spectacularly successful online compared to other newspapers - they're not trying trying to do what in web marketing used to be called brochureware. Reading a book on television is not compelling programming. Showing movie stills in a magazine is boring. Writing for the stage is different from writing for the page. Every outlet has its own structure, form, and demands.

Too many newspapers, magazines, and other publishers are just trying to take what they have and somehow do that "web thing." And while the TimesSelect premium online service isn't perfect, it's a lot smarter than most of its competitors. I just got a mailing from them that highlighted its video site (where you can find all those clips that they are trying, not with complete success, to integrate with their print stories online). What are they offering that's new? L'Eau Life, "a short animated film created for TimesSelect by artist Jeff Scher." That is the online counterpart - not translation or relocation - for that perennial favorite section, the comics. Now that's reinvention.

More Online Ad Acquisition Madness

Within a 24-hour span we've seen WPP, a British marketing services company, acquire 24/7 Real Media (search marketing, advertising management, and digital media), and then Microsoft spend $6 billion for aQuantive (digital ad agency, marketing technologies, and ad space wholesaler). What seems to be happening is the logical continuation of Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and the alleged merger talks between Microsoft and Yahoo. Everyone's trying to get into online advertising - because they know that companies will spend ad money somewhere and it's likely going to be increasingly for digital forms. It's one huge growth area, and companies want to get in line for the cash payouts, and to control important future directions of communications and business.

One good rule of thumb is that the more companies pay for acqusitions, the more they'll ultimately have to charge to recoup the price. Furthermore, the crossover between marketing services and underlying technologies that make digital marketing possible have been significant. That spells potential conflict of interest and growing costs, which, if taken to an extreme, could make digital advertising a lot less cost effective.

A New York Times article notes this:

“To effectively compete with the likes of Google and Yahoo, Microsoft needs to have a large base of advertisers,” said Anthony Noto, an analyst with Goldman Sachs. Mr. Noto said that Google had more than 500,000 advertisers and Yahoo about 300,000, while Microsoft has only a small fraction of that. “As long as that gap exists, they will have an inferior ability to monetize their own product,” Mr. Noto said.

Now aQuantive, which is based in Seattle, will bring many advertisers to Microsoft — and more.

I'd have to disagree a bit. What drives an online advertising business is not having a lot of advertisers, but having a lot of people who want to see those ads. It may be that Microsoft will get those people, but can they keep them? So far the company has done poorly in attracting audiences, so the question becomes whether they can maintain the viewers they will need for real success.

Microsoft Yodels Yahoo

(The following is a story of mine running translated right now in Newsweek Japan)

It only took one initial report a little over a week ago about potential merger talks between Microsoft and Yahoo to generate some of the biggest buzz the online industry has seen. Even as further stories suggested that the two companies were actually considering a strategic online partnership, interest was still intense because of one word: Google.

The search engine company has competed online with Yahoo and Microsoft and thrashed them both, becoming the premier destination for finding information and delivering ads. And so Yahoo and Microsoft hope that somehow the combination of the former’s audience – the top ranking web destination according to site ranking service Alexa.com, with visits from more than 25 percent of all global Internet users – and the latter’s technology leadership might let them compete more effectively.

Were this any other industry, the combined forces would be powerful: almost $51 billion in 2006 revenue and well over 80,000 employees. However, on the Internet, size isn’t enough. Customers must identify a company and its site as the preferred spot to get something done, whether to keep in contact with friends, share video, get news, or look for some piece of information. Lack that connection with people, and your business is bound for bad times. Microsoft and Yahoo is just one example in the online industry of how companies are trying to use alliances to gain a spot in the hearts of customers – though it’s not clear that the approach will often work.

Finding examples of corporations that are using acquisitions for greater customer contact is easy. For example, Yahoo bought the popular photo sharing site Flickr (recently closing its own service, Yahoo Photos, because so few people used it). News Corp acquired personal networking destination MySpace as part of Fox Interactive Media, the Internet division the company created in 2005. “That’s working out quite well,” says a top venture capitalist Todd Dagres of Spark Capital. “MySpace already had presence in the online world that Fox didn’t.”

The difference between these acquisitions and a possible Microsoft-Yahoo marriage is that they were targeted at popular but still niche properties that had enthusiastic customer bases. Amalgamating more broadly based companies, however, is too unfocused. Unless companies can catch the eye of the public, they will remain stuck where they are as their competitors blow past them.

Google is a danger to Microsoft and Yahoo because it competes with them in the vital areas of search engine services and online advertising, being far more successful at both. According to NielsenNetRatings, Google’s share of U.S. searches in March was 53.7 percent, while Yahoo had 21.8 percent, and Microsoft, 10.1 percent. So Google brings more people in who want information.

Then it delivers small ads whose content matches the search terms that users choose. The result is advertisements that people often actually want to read – and many advertisers willing to pay lots of money to Google. According to Karsten Weide, program director of digital media and entertainment at market researcher IDC, Yahoo was the online advertising leader until 2005, when Google blew past them. Last year, according to research firm eMarketer, Yahoo had 15% of U.S. paid search advertising, compared to Google’s 58.7%, and next year it projects Google as taking over three-quarters. “It’s dominant already and growing so fast that it will be difficult for the other players to catch up,” he says.

That spells trouble for the other two. According to Yahoo’s 2006 annual report, 88 percent of the company’s revenue came from advertisers. And while 80 percent of Microsoft’s income is from selling copies of Windows and Office product families, the company sees its economic future elsewhere because the old software lines are now mature businesses that are unlikely to offer high rates of business growth. Before becoming vice president of media development at PodTech.net, Robert Scoble was a Microsoft developer who also wrote a popular blog about the company. He remembers upper management stressing two years ago “that the growth of the company will come from advertising, not from selling another copy of Windows or another copy of Office.”

Yet Microsoft’s online advertising revenues have been flat at about $2.3 billion for the last four years while the industry has grown at an annual rate of over 30 percent, according to Weide. That means the company has faced a constantly declining market share. “I’m at a loss,” he says. “How do you pull zero percent in a growth climate like that? It’s an accomplishment in itself.”

The problem is that bigger is not necessarily better on the Internet. The attitude comes from an old strategy of traditional industries. By acquiring other businesses, a company could create economies of scale, driving down manufacturing and distribution costs and pressuring competitors. On the Internet, though, a small and reasonably funded company can quickly reach millions of consumers: look at MySpace or YouTube.

Microsoft’s difficulty is that it understands selling packaged software, not the media world of online, so it tries to copy someone else’s success. According to Scoble, Microsoft is preoccupied with FOG – fear of Google. “Microsoft has some technologies that are really good, but they’re in clone world right now,” Scoble says. “They’re trying to clone everything that Google is doing.” For example, Microsoft is emphasizing online ad sales and even giving away use of software business applications on its Live.com site. Unfortunately the drive to copy another means that the company remains reactive to the Internet and not developing the new services that will catapult it to the lead among consumers.

Yahoo has a grasp of media, but can’t force how consumers will react. Look at its acquisition of photo sharing service Flickr. That step was necessary because Yahoo’s own photo sharing service, Yahoo Photos, simply never caught on with users. “Now you’re going to bring that together with a behemoth like Microsoft and be able to operate in a nimble and innovate way in an industry that really thrives on rapid [change]?” asks Willan Johnson, formerly a vice president at Yahoo and now general manager of SupplyFrame.com. “Many have speculated that if that deal went through, you’d want to buy Google stock.”

In the view of Kim Caughey, a senior investment analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group, the combined entity would have a hard time hiring the “cool people … to continually create new products to drive people to your web sites and capture eyeballs.” They would find a large-scale company a bad fit. “If they have a really great idea, venture capital will give them money,” she says.

Smaller entrepreneurial divisions might do the trick, but large companies typically don’t have interest in such endeavors because the returns are too small. Scoble found this when he worked at Microsoft and in 2005 urged management to consider purchasing such companies as MySpace, Flickr, or Internet phone service Skype when they were much smaller and less expensive to acquire. “I was telling them to pay attention to something that hadn’t yet sold for $20 million,” he remembers. “I asked, ‘Why aren’t you doing things in this market?’ and the answer was, ‘We’re too busy … running multi-billion dollar businesses.’” By the time large companies see the value, it’s often too late to acquire the truly innovative businesses that are now literally worth billions of dollars.

There still might be sense in a close alliance between Microsoft and Yahoo, even if not for an online consumer market. Caughey says there might be natural synergy for corporate customers – an integration of Microsoft’s commanding presence on desktops with Yahoo’s search technology. The two could become a way to pull together data scattered throughout a large company in the form of word processing documents, spreadsheets, and other files – an area that has caught Google’s eye. Or Yahoo and Microsoft could develop software and systems that would allow others to create the next big thing for consumers. Maybe even Google developers could give the products a test. They probably wouldn’t have to search too hard to find them.