Expert Lancer - Gadgets,Phones,Tech News,Cameras

Those Millions On Facebook? They Actually Visit, And It’s Not A Huge Deal Anyway.

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:33:29 +0000

Traffic numbers provided by companies should always be questioned — I mean, of course each company is going to try to present the data in a way that makes them look as good as possible. Which is what New York Times finance writer Andrew Ross Sorkin has understandably done, going to town on Facebook for how it counts its active users in an article out tonight called “ Those Millions On Facebook? Some May Not Actually Visit .” His main criticism is that Facebook counts 845 million monthly active users and 483 million daily active users, but gets to these numbers by including people who click “Like” or take another action on the web or mobile devices — but don’t visit Facebook.com during that time. Because they’re not visiting the home site, where the ads are, he suggests Facebook might not be making as much money off of them. First, I’ll look at what third party data says about actual Facebook on-site usage, then at the idea that these users not visiting the site is a problem, anyway. The article cites Nielsen , a well-regarded web measurement firm, to draw a contrast with Facebook’s own numbers. The filing said the social network had 161 million monthly active users as of December. Nielsen said 153 million unique visitors in the same period. From there, Sorkin goes on to guess that this difference might be due to the Like button and other off-site Facebook usage: “Assuming that Facebook’s United States traffic accounts for only about 19 percent of its business, that means the numbers are off by at least 40 million users from the 845 million Facebook defines as “active.” First, Nielsen is just one data source, which itself disagrees with the numbers provided by competitors. For example, direct rival comScore showed that Facebook.com actually had 162.5 million uniques in December . Nielsen and comScore use similar types of methodologies, which involve doing things like tracking a sample of internet users, and there’s no reason (that I know of) to think one is more right than the other in this case. So if Sorkin went by comScore’s numbers, he apparently would have guessed that Facebook was actually undercounting site usage. Another point on the comparison. Both of these companies track “unique visitors,” which are standards units of measurement that they separately define for all sites they track. The measure is a rough equivalents to the active visitors that Facebook tracks to Facebook.com, but we don’t know that for sure. But Sorkin does have a fair point in noting the differences between the results. There are probably some users, especially the all-important daily active users, who don’t actually visit places with Facebook ads every day. ComScore provides worldwide Facebook numbers, and it shows 794.3 million monthly uniques and 297.1 million daily uniques. That could indicate Facebook’s monthly numbers are high by a relatively small 50 million MAU but a huge 186 million difference in DAU versus daily uniques. But that point comes with its own qualification: comScore may not be able to track Facebook data equally in every country based on local factors, like lots of users getting on a single computer at an internet cafe. And there are also comScore data points in Facebook’s favor on this issue. There average Facebook user worldwide spent 11.6 minutes on the site per visit and December… and get ready for the kicker: visited 32.6 times. So if you’re an investor and you were worried that lots of users were clicking Like but not going to the site very single day, comScore seems to be saying that, well, they are visiting the site multiple times on some days even if they’re not on at every point of the calendar. This means they’d still be seeing a bunch of ads. But this is just comScore data, possibly as right or wrong as Nielsen’s. There’s a bigger point to Sorkin’s article, which he sort of addresses, which second-guesses the premise. Likes are actually quite valuable in and of themselves, because Facebook can use them to target ads, and provide the data to developers so they can build products that use Facebook to customize user experiences. Likes and other actions also generate content in the news feed that in turn makes the site more engaging. It’s hard to know exactly how valuable all that targeting and engagement activity is. But the Like buttons and other web-focused products are only part of what could be going on with Facebook’s web-wide play. It could turn on an ad network or a payments system that is available across the web at some point in the futre. These possibilities have been speculated about for many years now in tech circles, and Facebook has tried to avoid saying anything definitive. But the idea of an ad network for publishers — like, uh, AdSense, which Facebook chief operating officer helped build in her previous job at Google — seems pretty straightforward. Facebook could sell ad inventory on other sites on behalf of publishers, and give them a cut just like Google does with its Adsense publishers. And on the payments front, Facebook could expand its Credits payment system to the web as well. In fact, it already has in the form of games like FarmVille.com, Zynga’s web version of its Facebook game. That game relies on Facebook as the login credentials, so it counts as off-site, but it also monetizes via Credits, so Facebook still makes money. All in all, it’s reasonable for Sorkin to question the original numbers, and he might have a point. But third party data indicates that it might not be a meanginful one. And as far as this relates to prospective stockholders, Facebook is already monetizing traffic on the web via targeting, and could have ad plans for the future that would make this discussion moot. [Top image via NASA .]

The Samsung Doth Advertise Too Much, Methinks

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:57:20 +0000

At CES, the AOL booth where we worked, did interviews, and ate lunch was just a few short feet from Samsung’s huge Galaxy Note booth, where they were giving out free shirts printed with your caricature, drawn, of course, on a Galaxy Note. There was a line around this thing the entire time we were there, scores of people waiting for hours for their free t-shirt. Outside CES there were enormous banners in the most prominent and expensive ad spots on the convention center. Phone? Tablet? It’s Galaxy Note™! And just yesterday, in a grandiose ad rather out of keeping with their well-done “next big thing” campaign, the Note was made out to be the end of all our troubles, ending the tyranny of using our fingers and letting us circle and cross out and all those things you wish you could do on your obviously-now-obsolete iPhone. But I saw the Note at CES and formed my opinion in about five or six seconds: it’s weak. And that’s why this advertising blitz makes so much sense. First, let me just justify my judgment. At CES, I was handed a Note at some trade event. I felt it, hefted it: weird size, not big enough to make shows and movies and games pop, not small enough to be considered compact in any way. I was handed the pen, and made a few squiggles and letters. It was, like almost all active stylus LCDs, slightly laggy, accurate up to a point, and generally unsatisfying. And I’m in favor of using a stylus . The rest of the details will be in our full review when we get one for that purpose (I won’t be writing it), but as far as I’m concerned, it’s a pointless device. But that’s not what this article is about. The thing is all this advertising. It reminded me very much of movies recently where they don’t allow advance reviews, gag people who go to screenings, and saturate the airwaves with promotional material. In the case of the movie, it’s so people will form a resolution to see the movie before the critics start beating on it. And even then, that earlier drive to see it will often overcome bad reviews. Who among us hasn’t gone to a blockbuster regardless of reviews? Samsung is doing the same thing with the Galaxy Note. Although of course the European version has already been reviewed, consumers at large are not aware of that and likely think it’s a different product. Samsung is carpet bombing the world with Galaxy Note advertising so that people will decide they want it before they find out that it’s not, in fact, a killer product. Sure, it might be great for a few people who were looking for this kind of thing. But like the Flyer , HTC’s stylus-enabled tablet of old, it fails to deliver on its own promise. The screen and stylus aren’t new or interesting technology, nor is the OS. And as for the size, well, Dell tried it . But again, the point is not the device itself, which I obviously don’t like, it’s the launch strategy. Sure, other companies have big launches all the time. But this is the biggest delta that I’ve seen, I think, between the effort to promote and the real confidence in the device. I think they put all this weight behind the Note because if they didn’t, the thing would sink without a trace. This way they might sell a few. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But treating the consumer electronics world like the movie world and selling on hype alone isn’t likely going to be a winning proposition. Devices can’t succeed on spectacle, and the economics are totally different. Samsung makes a lot of great things, but the Note is not one of those things. It’s an awkward experiment that they felt could only break even on if they promoted it so relentlessly that people would have to believe it was a big-deal device. It’s a troubling trend and marks another point on the trend of CE companies competing awkwardly on either personality or spec. Few CE companies have any personality, unfortunately, and spec-sells are at best misleading and at worst a pack of lies. Samsung has no personality, and the Galaxy Note’s specs aren’t really salable. So they’re in the awkward position of selling by sheer visibility.

See the original post here:
The Samsung Doth Advertise Too Much, Methinks

Halliburton Dumps RIM, Chooses iPhones For 4,500 Employees

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:26:22 +0000

To say that RIM has had a tough time these past few months is an understatement, and today’s news probably won’t help raise the morale around Waterloo. According to AppleInsider , oilfield services giant Halliburton will soon be migrating their BlackBerry-toting workforce to run exclusively on a new fleet of iPhones. I can also imagine the conversation now. “Sorry RIM, it’s not you, it’s us… alright, fine, it really is you.” The news was sent out via an internal newsletter, which mentions that the reason for the switch was because the company “determined that the iOS platform offered the best capabilities, controls and security for application development.” It goes on to offer a basic timeline for the process — all 4,500 of Halliburton’s employee-operating BlackBerrys will be swapped for iPhones over the course of the next two years. So what does this development mean for RIM? Not much at all, if Halliburton was the only company to jump ship. It’s clear that they’re not the only ones in search of some greener pastures — Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer pointed out during the company’s Q1 2012 earnings call that nearly all of the top Fortune 500 companies “now approve and support iPhones on their networks,” including Credit Suisse, Kimberly Clark, St. Jude Medical, and Nike. Of course, that hardly means that all or even most of them will transition their workforce from one platform to the other. Still, it clearly shows that these companies are considering different, more compelling mobile options to help conduct their business. And with the first BlackBerry 10 device not slated to ship until much later this year , RIM may not have too many chances left to show off what they’re really capable of. In the meantime, RIM continues to illustrate how serious they are about the enterprise market with the launch of initiatives like BlackBerry Cloud Services , which allows businesses using Microsoft Office 365 more fine-grained control over devices and their data. It’s clear that RIM isn’t going to give up their hard-won enterprise segment without a fight, but if their recently leaked roadmap is any indication, they’re running awfully low on bullets right now.

Here is the original post:
Halliburton Dumps RIM, Chooses iPhones For 4,500 Employees

“Provacative” Publisher Creates Book That Lets You Talk Back To The Characters

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:07:18 +0000

So in the interest of supporting unique publishing methods and ideas, I thought it might be interesting to talk about Verdant Books and something they’re calling an “interactive novel.” Now my idea of an interactive novel is Choose Your Own Adventure, but this is something fairly unique. Ok. Here’s the premise: Hiram and Sibyl Eisenberg have fallen head over heels in love with Leif and Laura Wrightson. Leif and Laura return all the same passion for Sibyl and Hiram, yet all four remain committed to their spouses. What to do? The year is 1971, the place is California, and what never before seemed possible is suddenly irresistible. Camping on the shores of Fallen Lake in the high Sierra, one night they begin a new direction in their lives and those of their children, turning two marriages into one. Yeah, you read that right. Old Hiram and Sibyl are watching Mother Nature on the run in the 1970s. Hot stuff, right? So here’s where things get really weird. The author, Laird Harrison , is going to update a blog featuring the characters talking about things important to the story. Now, to be clear, I think this is the worst implementation of interactive function I’ve ever seen (especially since all of the “blog posts” (did they have blogs in the 1970s?) are password protected). But here’s what I’m really concerned with. So it’s going to get easier and easier to publish books. It’s already ridiculously easy, but soon everyone with an idea and dial-up will be able to upload an epub. There will be some good books and some terrible books and there will be varying methods for marketing these books, from the traditional display ad on Amazon to gimmicks like the one above. I do see the value in a sort of “meet-the-author” kind of website where you ask the author questions about his stuff and I do expect publishers to create more and more of this gimmickry in order to sell bits to an audience that is already wildly distracted, but I worry that, like the site that was going to sell soundtracks to books , this is a Bad Idea (TM). There are ways to change the monetization systems around the distribution of long-form writing. Selling 10,000 word articles about Afganistan for 99 cents a pop is a great model to bring monetary incentive back into reporting and journalism as well as non-fiction writing and editing. We are fast approaching a time when the devices we use to read books will be far more distracting than they even are today. I, for one, always intend to open iBooks or the Kindle reader on my iPad and instead check Twitter and email. It’s a sad, sad day when I long for a standalone, e-ink Kindle over a fully-featured Kindle Fire because I want to read more. So anything that will pull me out of the book experience is a negative, anything that keeps me reading is a positive. Gimmickry and “viral efforts” work maybe once in a thousand times. Good writing works every time. So let’s hear it for old Hiram and Sibyl and their blog and here’s hoping Harrison sells a few books. But I’d really like to raise a glass to good writing. It will save publishing, even if the publishers thwart it at every turn.

Read more from the original source:
“Provacative” Publisher Creates Book That Lets You Talk Back To The Characters

Social Ridesharing Startup RideJoy Raises $1.3M From Freestyle Capital, Lerer Ventures And Others

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:00:27 +0000

Ridejoy , a YC-backed startup that brings people together via ridesharing on long-distance trips, has raised $1.3 million in seed funding led by Freestyle Capital with Lerer Ventures, Start Fund, SV Angel, Founder Collective, Y Combinator, Ben Ling, Owen Van Natta and Joshua Schachter participating. The service allows drivers who are already planning to take a roadtrip to ‘sell’ their extra seats to other users. Drivers earn money on trips they were planning on taking anyway, and Ridejoy passengers get a door-to-door lift, in some cases for less than they’d pay for a bus ticket. For now, Ridejoy is focused on long-distance trips. Drivers and passengers can locate others going to the same destination online in advance of the trip. To find travel companions, Ridejoy members simply post rides offered or rides needed and can be paid via cash or credit card. Ridejoy will take a small cut of the credit card payments. In terms of safety, users are required to provide relevant work and education history, a photo, and with Facebook integration, a list of mutual friends. Ridejoy also implements a a user review system, so that drivers and passengers can check community feedback from previous rides; as well as a user reference system, which allows for friends to vouch for community members. Last year, Ridejoy debuted its service with BurningManRides.com — a site that helped people coordinate their trips out to the Nevada desert. 1600 people signed up, 1150 rides were posted, and 400 rides were completed over a three-week span. In a neat twist, five pilots offered rides-by-air, completing a total of ten plane trips. Ridejoy faces competition from Zimride . Ridejoy will use the new funding to increase design and engineering capacity and expand operations beyond the West Coast.

View post:
Social Ridesharing Startup RideJoy Raises $1.3M From Freestyle Capital, Lerer Ventures And Others

Kenexa Acquires E-Learning Solutions Company OutStart

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:10 +0000

In an effort to expand its reach into the e-learning market, Kenexa , a publicly listed provider of business solutions for human resources and talent management, has agreed to acquire Boston-based OutStart . Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. OutStart offers SaaS-based social and mobile learning solutions and will help Kenexa bolster its suite of talent management products, the latter company said in a statement. OutStart is said to have more than 300 customers, ranging from large global organizations to mid-size companies and government agencies. Kenexa says it expects to fund the acquisition of the privately-held software company with its existing cash balance. The company also expects the transaction to be at least neutral to non-GAAP net income available to common shareholders on a per share basis for 2012. Also read: Kenexa To Acquire Salary.com In $80 Million Deal

Read the original:
Kenexa Acquires E-Learning Solutions Company OutStart

Pedestrian Map App, Lumatic, Raises $800K From Joi Ito And 500 Startups

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:10:45 +0000

All the major map apps like Google Maps, Bing Maps, and Mapquest have walking directions as a standard feature, but the folks at Lumatic don’t think they are good enough. It is creating mobile maps designed for pedestrians, cyclists, and people who use public transit. Originally a TechStars company called Omniar, serial entrepreneur Scott Rafer (MyBlogLog, Lookery, Mashery) joined as CEO a year ago. He recently raised a seed round of $800,000 from Joi Ito’s Neoteny Labs, 500 Startups, Chamath Palihapitiya, Allen Morgan, Ted Rheingold, and other angels. Lumatic has an Android app which works right now only in San Francisco. When it gives you directions, it chooses routes which are optimal for walking, cycling or public transport. As you walk through the streets, the app displays a street-view with photos and arrows pointing in the right direction. The app is built on top of Open Street Map , but the user experience is centered heavily on using photography, landmarks, and visual cues to help people navigate cities. Fighting Google Maps in this category is going to be a tough slog, but if the app can gain a following there plenty of money in local commerce and advertising to make it a worthwhile pursuit.

See the rest here:
Pedestrian Map App, Lumatic, Raises $800K From Joi Ito And 500 Startups

Tech Bowl: Best Buy Spotlights Mobile Innovators, Founders In Super Bowl Spot

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:48:33 +0000

Every year, Best Buy runs a big Super Bowl spot, and traditionally they go the route of hiring a big celebrity to hawk their brand message. Last year, it was “the Biebs” and Ozzy Osbourne. This year, Best Buy has opted for something a bit different, choosing to highlight innovators and give more than a nod to geeks in its tech-focused Super Bowl ad. Drew Panayiotou, Best Buy’s U.S. marketing chief, told Bloomberg that the company had initially planned to continue down the celebrity track, but the outpouring of affection for Steve Jobs after the Apple CEO passed away was strong evidence that “Silicon Valley inventors are today’s stars.” So, this year’s Super Bowl ad opens with Philippe Kahn , the current CEO of Fullpower Technologies and the guy credited with inventing the camera phone, next there’s author, inventor, and futurist Ray Kurzweil , who shows himself the father of text-to-speech synthesis. The ad also features the key characters behind Instagram , like Kevin Systrom, Square, Shazam , and Words With Friends . It’s the most Silicon Valley/startup founders together in one advertisement we’ve seen, ever? Best Buy has been struggling over the last year, and many see the company as a foundering ship, so buoying itself on the back of inventors and innovators is certainly an interesting play. Best Buy needs to prove it can go toe-to-toe with Walmart et al, and the idea is to present the idea that the Best Buyers in blue shirts are some of the most knowledgeable geeks in the business. So knowledgeable, in fact, that all these inventors want to line up to back their brand in a Super Bowl ad. Of course, implied is the heaps of cash they were offered to join in on turning Best Buy’s brand around. ( Read more about Best Buy’s future here. ) As for the promo itself, Best Buy is giving a $50 gift card to anyone who volunteers to upgrade their phones from one of four national carriers at a Best Buy store near you. It was good to see Words of Friends founders/brothers Paul and David Bettner poking fun at Alec Baldwin’s now infamous cellphone on a plane incident, in which he refused to turn off his phone, because he was, of course, playing Scrabble With Friends. Pop culture, celebrities, and technology, all together in one weird self-referential celebration. Unsettling, yet geek-tastic.

Go here to read the rest:
Tech Bowl: Best Buy Spotlights Mobile Innovators, Founders In Super Bowl Spot

To Heck With The Super Bowl: GOG Features Sierra Game Three-Packs For $5

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:43:29 +0000

Good Old Games is running a $4.99 sale on multiple Sierra titles including Space Quest and Kings Quest. The games come in packages of three and are compatible with Windows (sorry, Mac users, but here’s a consolation prize ). Each package includes three parts of each series, including Police Quest, Space Quest, and King’s Quest. This includes such hits as the original King’s Quest: Quest for the Crown rendered in beautiful 16-color CGA, a game that literally made my jaw drop when I saw it boot up on my friend’s XT computer in about 1985. That, my friends, was true gaming, before the days of rail shooters and endless RPGs. Product Page via The Verge

See the rest here:
To Heck With The Super Bowl: GOG Features Sierra Game Three-Packs For $5

Apple Schooled Music Execs Then, Here Are The Lessons Online Video Should Learn Now

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:21:21 +0000

Editor’s Note: This post is written by guest author Peter Csathy , who is President & CEO of online video enabler and transcoding company Sorenson Media . Previously, he served as President & COO of online music pioneer Musicmatch. Thus, the following is written from the perspective of a long-time media executive, and meant to be a conversation-starter. Csathy blogs at Digital Media Update . Apple’s all-in-one physical flat-screen iTV is coming , make no mistake. And, when it does, it will represent Apple’s attempt to reinvent the television experience in much the same way it did for music. But, while media execs were hopelessly naive in Apple’s presence back then, they feel they are ready this time. They are determined not to let Apple rule the premium online video world like they did (and still do) for online music. The question is, do they have the will? Apple will, of course, follow its established playbook, which most CE companies inexplicably still do not follow, and seamlessly marry its beautiful hardware (the iTV) with its underlying software and services (in this case, movies and television) in the same way it did with music via the iPod and iTunes. Apple’s goal is to be the center of the online movie and television universe for consumers (just like it is for music). Yes, content is king to Apple, but only because content serves as the Trojan Horse consumers ride into Apple’s kingdom of riches (initially Macs and iPods, and later iPhones, iPads and the inevitable iTV). Ay, but there’s the rub. The content king-makers — motion picture and television studio execs — now know this. They have seen this movie before, and this time they are determined to monetize content more directly for content sake – for themselves. Apple transformed itself into the #1 most valuable global company and juggernaut that we see today precisely because those media execs handed Apple the keys to unlock music value in the online world. Steve Jobs wooed them with his charms, pitched a great story, and established the rules of the online music licensing game. Apple’s massive growth in the past decade all started there with its iPod-iTunes 1-2 knockout punch. That, in turn, led to the resurgence of Macs, which led to the iPhone, then the iPad. Apple would be a very different company today if didn’t get the music it needed 10 years ago. And, how did Jobs’ playbook work out for the labels and musicians? Not so well. Online music sales (and royalties) were an asterisk next to iPod sales. Don’t get me wrong. Rampant piracy — and the music industry’s misplaced attack strategy — destroyed significant content value. Nevertheless, the music industry’s negotiations with Jobs one decade ago resulted in a massive transfer of value and wealth to Apple. So, what lessons have media executives learned from this past decade? Lesson #1 — Dictate the Rules of the Game, Rather Than Have Them Dictated to You. Music execs were on their heels reeling in fear when Jobs approached them a decade ago with the promise of iTunes. They had no real experience with the Internet. They certainly had no experience with technology (many still do not) – and how it could be used for both good and evil. Piracy was rampant. Napster ruled the day (the bad one, not the good one). Kazaa’s Niklas Zennstrom was public enemy #1 (now of course he is a media insider with Skype, Joost and others). The music industry was understandably panicked. Jobs promised a way out – under three conditions. First, Apple must be able to sell individual tracks unbundled from albums. Second, its price for those unbundled tracks must be $.99 each. Third, Apple must define and control the entire online music experience. The music industry capitulated, and these 3 commandments are fundamental rules of the game that still largely rule the day. Well, those rules haven’t worked out too well for music creators and owners. Lesson learned. So, one decade later, media execs are striving to proactively dictate the value of their content and support multiple online experiences and business models. But, even now, they frequently significantly under-value their content. More on that later. Lesson #2 — Never Again Put Too Much Power in the Hands of One Distributor. Prior to iTunes, piracy was rampant, and only relatively small players (including my former company, Musicmatch) played legitimately in the online music world. Amid this backdrop, media execs empowered Apple to be the first and only established online music source and experience. As a result, iTunes incredibly still commands 60-70% of all online music sales. That represents incredible power in the hands of one. It represents a downright monopoly. Media execs are determined not to allow that kind of power in the hands of any single player in the online video world. They instead are committed to fostering an eco-system of as many legitimate distributors as possible. They actively license their prized motion picture and television assets to all those willing to pay. That’s why we already have myriad established behemoths in the premium online video game. We have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Google/YouTube, Comcast. The list goes on and on. Apple too is on that list, but it is behind the curve this time. Those same media execs who ceded control to Apple ten years ago have refused, thus far, to broadly license their crown jewels on Apple’s terms. But Apple — or more accurately, Apple’s massive hoards of cash – can be very persuasive. More on that later. Lesson #3 — License Broadly & Make the Licensing Landscape as Confusing and Opaque as Possible. Media execs aren’t panicked this time. They have a decade of learning under their belts. Yes, piracy continues to be rampant, but they now understand that it cannot simply be litigated into oblivion. The best defense truly is a better offense. Support better customer experiences, make your content available broadly to those legitimate distributors willing to pay, and experiment with business models and terms. That’s why we have over-the-top (OTT) “Internet TV” models in which content is monetized via paid downloads, subscriptions, and ads. We also have big cable’s “TV Everywhere” models in which consumers must continue to pay their monthly cable fees. And, coming soon, Google and others will become virtual cable operators that will also distribute live linear programming like ESPN. Apple too wants to be on that “virtual MSO” list, because that is the kind of premium content that ultimately moves mountains of consumers. Case in point: DirecTV’s “NFL Package.” This melange is great for the studios. No two content licensing deals are the same. Each negotiation takes place in a black box. No clarity. No certainty. Just the way media execs like it (I know, I have been there). Now THAT’s power! Right? Up to a point. More on that later. Lesson #4 — Be Audacious — After All, Content is King. Jobs ultimately taught music execs one fundamental truth – that content is THE key to unlock tremendous value online. The corollary to this is that without content, value is lost. That’s why all the deep-pocketed tech titans are lining up for a chance to play in the premium online video game. Just as it is for Apple, premium online video distribution is strategically central to their business. Apple? Sell its hardware. Amazon? Sell more goods and services. Google? Sell more ads. Comcast? Hold onto those cable subscriptions. Netflix? Survive! These players have inked a steady stream of significant licensing deals just in the past few months, the financial terms of which are almost never disclosed (remember, just the way the studios like it). But, one telling deal’s terms did slip out – Netflix agreed to shell out nearly $1 billion to stream shows from the CW Network. Think about that – if the CW can command those kind of numbers today, think about the price tag for real “premium” content like ESPN. And, we are still in the early innings of this premium online video game. Apple – with its head-spinning $100 billion war chest – is a lock to win (or at least be a massive winner in) the online video game, right? Most likely, the answer is yes. The inevitable iTVs will fly off the shelves. But, Apple isn’t alone this time. It is playing on a crowded field with other deep-pocketed and committed players (including CE guys like Samsung). Even more importantly, to really hit it out of the park, Apple’s coming iTV must be an experience. That means Apple must offer an extremely deep pool of compelling video content from the start (including sacred programming like ESPN). Otherwise, consumers will find holes, get frustrated, and look to fill those holes with programming offered by others. Each frustrated customer represents real significant loss, which is especially magnified in Apple’s case because of its closed product eco-system. For Apple, it’s not just about a single product sale (like an iTV). That sale, instead, marks the beginning or continuation of a long-term lucrative purchase relationship, which is the key driver of Apple’s stratospheric growth. That’s why Apple will be willing to strike very different content licensing deals with media execs this time around. Of course, Apple doesn’t control the content – the studios do. So, who really holds the cards here? Will the studios be as audacious as Steve Jobs was one decade earlier and demand terms that they believe reflect the true value their content creates for distributors over time? In Apple’s case, one truly audacious idea could be to seek a share of revenue for every iTV sold. Remember, not every license deal must be the same. Value means very different things to different players. If Apple, or any other online distributor, refuses to play, then they lose out. No soup for you! There are many others (including the studios themselves), but only one ESPN! Or, will media execs instead go for the quick-fix of easy money? After all it’s hard to say “no” to someone writing a big check. If they do go this instant gratification route (which is more consistent with their DNA), at least they should realize that their prized motion picture and television assets will be worth significantly more than they think in the online world over time. Avoid long-term deals! So, yes, media execs have learned their lessons well. Content is, in fact, king. Apple will continue to wear the crown, however, unless media companies have the will and creativity to take it back. After all, Apple made $46.3 billion this past quarter alone, a number that dwarfs global motion picture box office receipts for the entire year. Apple could buy Hollywood. But, will Hollywood let it? Excerpt image from SoulInTheMachine.com

Excerpt from:
Apple Schooled Music Execs Then, Here Are The Lessons Online Video Should Learn Now