Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Pepsi Abandons Super Bowl efforts for Social Media

Last December, after a 23-year relationship, Pepsi announced they will no longer advertised in the Super Bowl. So where is all that marketing budget going to? Well, Pepsi announced their plans to invest US$20 Million in their new Social Media Campaign: Pepsi Refresh Project, launched on Jan. 13, 2010.

The Pepsi Refresh Project aims to bring the brand closer to their consumers by pursuing a more caring and humanitarian personality. The idea behind the Pepsi Refresh Project is to provide a platform where users can share their ideas to improve/refresh their communities with all kinds of innovative ideas. Winning projects will be voted by the users online, the winners will get US$5,000 to US$250,000 funding for their project.

Reflections on Prof. Hanson Hosein’s Lecture (Seattle Town Hall – Jan 17th, 2010)

Over the last years, the dynamism of the media and communications markets has shown a vertiginous explosion. These new dynamics in the market have been driven by the wide spread of internet access and more affordable technologies, let alone a growing human trend to share, share and share.

These factors have created a different journalism model, a model that flies lighter and faster. This new model is a new economic model for communicators and audience, as well. If you think of the most basic economic models: monopoly, oligopoly and perfect competition, moving from traditional media to new media is not other than moving from an oligopoly to a market of perfect competition. In traditional media, the supply-demand model that ruled the world of communications was a clear example of a market dominated by a small number of sellers/providers. On the supply side, the oligopolists were the brand names: major National TV broadcasters, Radio Stations and Newspapers. Communication was in the hands of only few entities.

This translated into several characteristics of the market easier pricing strategies from the supplier side (even risk to collude), higher entry barriers to the market (expensive technology and high cost distribution),  and therefore, the message was easier to control. On the demand side, consumers of information were atomized, they had no chance to interact with the big players and they were not connected to each other. Instead, in the new media market, perfect competition takes places. High penetration of internet and more affordable technology to create content have create a new capability in our societies. In the new model, there are very low market entry barriers, anyone can be a creator and distributor of content, anyone can play along with the brand names, anyone can be an information provider. Demand is not a group of consumers that act independently without not knowing the other opinion.  A cross-fertilized demand that take collective action. Today, in the message is free and very hard to control. Supply and demand interact in this new model, they even trade roles. The same person can consume content and create content.

Innovation has removed  the entry barriers, but now there is a new challenge: how to win in such a competitive market? A market with infinite providers and demanding consumers that interact among themselves. Additionally, the cost of changing your information supplier is nil, it is not like buying a new newspaper, it is just the resources invested in a few clicks.

I can identify three pillars that enable communication in the Media Market: (i) Tools, (ii) Distribution Channels and (iii) Access to Information. You can even draw these three pillars in three-axe diagram and see how the triangle expands voraciously.

In this constantly growing “tools – channels - information” triangle a new sort of innovation is needed. This innovation should focus on creating content that is relevant and distinctive for consumers. Not all consumers, the consumers you want to conquer. The consumer, this is the audience, should be in the middle of this triangle. Today the fast pace of new media is frequently leaving the consumer behind. Creating content for the sake of content and not to satisfy an identified audience. Owning consumer-centric innovation in the creation and distribution of content should certainly be a point of difference to win in the new media chaos.

The Media Innovation Triangle (Graph)

- Toni Del Rio

Do You Live Social?

9:00 AM Wednesday December 30, 2009
by David Armano

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2009/12/do_you_live_social.html

Twitter is finishing 2009 with some smart moves. They just closed deals with Microsoft and Google to enable their real-time search that includes tweets. This is exactly what I mean when I propose that in this new market of perfect competition in Digital Media the new currency is information. This is a great example on how to use information to make a social media platform financially viable, versus charging users a membership.

The following BusinessWeek gives further detail on the Twitter deal with Google and Microsoft: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091220_549879_page_2.htm

________________________________________________


Content-Search Deals Make Twitter Profitable

Data-mining deals signed in October will bring in $25 million in exchange for rendering Twitter’s tweets searchable on Google and Microsoft Bing

By Spencer E. Ante

Twitter is ending 2009 on a high note. The microblogging site has reached profitability after inking $25 million of deals that make its content searchable by Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT), Bloomberg BusinessWeek has learned.

In October, Twitter said it had struck multiyear arrangements that make users’ short blog postings available on Google.com and on Bing, which is run by Microsoft. Those agreements carry sufficient value to help Twitter achieve a small profit for 2009, say two people familiar with the company’s finances, who asked to remain anonymous because Twitter’s books are not a matter of public record.

Like many social media startups, three-year-old Twitter focused early on adding subscribers rather than generating revenue. That’s left many analysts and investors wondering how and whether the company—often cited as a candidate for an initial public offering or acquisition—would make money. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone declined to comment on the company’s finances, but wrote in an e-mail that the company is proud of the work it accomplished in 2009. “We’re thrilled about the partnerships we’ve formed this year and we’re looking forward to opening Twitter even more in the future,” Stone wrote.

In exchange for making short blogs, known as tweets, searchable on Google, Twitter will receive about $15 million, the two people say, adding that the Microsoft partnership is worth about $10 million. “The deals were huge,” says one. “With two scoops of the pen, a lot of revenue came in.”

Telecom expenses slashed, too

Representatives of Microsoft and Google declined to comment. When the arrangements were announced, none of the companies involved disclosed their value. Tech blogs, including AllThingsDigital, had said only that the deals were worth several million dollars apiece.

Twitter also achieved profitability by reducing expenses, the people say. The company used to pay a lot of money to telecommunications companies for distributing billions of text messages over wireless networks. Twitter users can send and receive messages over both its Web service and text messages. Now that Twitter has become so popular, it has gained bargaining power with telecom companies and has managed to renegotiate so many deals with carriers that the company pays far less for the services. “Those used to be the biggest line item,” says one source. “Generally speaking, those costs have gone away. Now people are the biggest line item.”

Whether Twitter can remain profitable depends in part on how quickly it increases staff size. Twitter is one of the world’s most popular Web services, with about 58 million global monthly users, according to comScore (SCOR). Still, it has a relatively small head count. Approximately 105 people work for the company, according to a count of the employees listed on Twitter’s “about” page. Entrepreneurs and investors estimate that the annual cost of running Twitter is approximately $20 to $25 million. Since Twitter was formed in 2006, it has raised $155 million.

“Searching up-to-the-minute data”

At the time the deals were announced, executives at Twitter heralded the Google and Microsoft arrangements as a watershed. “We pulled off the unimaginable—announcing important partnerships with Google and Microsoft on the same day,” Stone wrote on Oct. 25 in “Twitter Week in Review,” a weekly e-mail that Stone sends out to the company’s employees, investors, and business partners. Bloomberg BusinessWeek reviewed a copy of the e-mail.

The payments Google and Microsoft were willing to make to Twitter underscore the growing value of the massive volumes of data coursing through Twitter’s network. Executives of both companies have said their technologies would be considered incomplete if they did not include the millions of messages that get posted on Twitter every minute. “We believe that our search results and user experience will greatly benefit from the inclusion of this up-to-the-minute data, and we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months,” Marissa Mayer, Google’s Vice-President of Search Products and User Experience, wrote on the Google blog on Oct. 21, after the deals were announced. “The next time you search for something that can be aided by a real-time observation, say, snow conditions at your favorite ski resort, you’ll find tweets from other users who are there and sharing the latest and greatest information.”

Tweets are also a valuable source of information on products, with consumers frequently using the site to share views on various products. That carries enormous value for Google and Microsoft. As a result of this information, search engine providers could sell more advertising and provide more relevant search results, generating more revenue when consumers click on their ads.

fees for commercial Twitter accounts

For most of Twitter’s three-year history, executives and company investors have repeatedly said they were focused more on growth than generating revenues or profits. That helped fuel apprehension over the company’s business model.

Over the last year, however, executives have started to talk about the various ways the company has been exploring to generate revenue. In addition to the search deals, Twitter plans an advertising program for early next year. The company also will charge for commercial Twitter accounts that would let businesses analyze tweet traffic.

Chief Operating Officer Dick Costolo, who joined Twitter in September, was key to getting the search engine deals done, one person familiar with the matter said. Costolo had helped found FeedBurner and worked at Google as an ad product manager after the company was acquired. At FeedBurner, Costolo developed a business model based on selling ads on Web news feeds.

The goal at Twitter now is to add advertising without disrupting the way the service works, Costolo said last month at a conference.”We want to do something that’s organic and in the flow of the way people already use Twitter—and not: ‘Here’s the tweets and here are the ads.’”

Ante is an associate editor for BusinessWeek.

Quick thought…

Content is information. In the Digital Media era, the most important good is information. Nowadays, traditional media, including newspapers and TV broadcasters, and new social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, are concerned about how to make a sustainable business model to monetize online content and services. Maybe the in this new era the currency is “information”, we all exchange information, we pay with information. For perspective, Facebook users are receiving an excellent networking service and in exchange users are providing Facebook with valuable information about trends and behaviors. Isn’t that a way to pay for Facebook service?

Now, as in any business, we need profits. In digital media, the name of the game is “information”. It sounds too simplistic to just start charging users for services to make this a sustainable business model. Instead, that successful business model will emerge from translating the information into a competitive advantage to win versus competition, in any area.

I think we need to shift our thinking from “when do we start charging users to make money?” to “when do we start using the information users are providing us to address market unmet needs and then, make money?”.

Food for thought…

- ADR

All the following discussion is merely assumptions of what would happen…

Maybe for the people above 25, Generation X or Digital Inmigrants, it makes sense to pay a reasonable amount of money to continue having the service, because:

a) They are more adverse to change, and therefore, they are willing to avoid going through a new learning curve.

b) They are used to pay for content, magazines, books, music (CDs, Vinyl, etc).

However, these are not the people that would make any business model sustainable, if any Social Media platform is thinking of continue existing in the next 10 years, then they should engage the “Digital natives”. These, contrary to the digital inmigrants, won’t be willing to pay for any of this services because:

a) They are not afraid of change, they like trying new platforms.

b) They have grown absorbing free content, wikipedia (vs. encyclopedias), limewire (vs. CDs), youtube (vs. TV).

c) They are more capable of finding new platform to migrate and substitute current, and they will find them.

On this last bullet, I would like to expand. In order for the market to provide alternative free platforms, there should be an incentive for creators to develop a “new free facebooklike model”. What is that incentive? Shouldn’t the business model leverage on that incentive?

I think that incentive is the amount of information you freely provide to social media. If so, why the business model is not behind using this information to reach consumers more effectively. Maybe advertisers should migrating from buying TGRPs from TV broadcasters to buying “more targeted reach” from Social Media.

One final thought, aren’t we already paying Twitter and Facebook with the huge amount of information we give them for free?…

twitter-tonidelrio-screenzoomHow much information are you giving to Social Networks?

When asked about the information we provide to Social Networks, most of us think about the marketing insights we give to the system. This information is used by companies to target users based on their preferences: favorite music, favorite brands, favorite food, etc.

The amount of information we “voluntarily” provide to social networks such as Facebook is humongous, and I am not talking about demographic information. First off, we give Facebook a name and a matching face to that name. We talk about our past: childhood, school, hometown. We talk about our present: “Today: Dinner at Lola with Dean & Corey”. We talk about our future: “20 days to Hawaii! Can’t wait!”

We even tell the system who are the most important people in our lives through our pictures and status updates. You think you haven’t done this? Just answer these questions: Have you ever told someone you love him/her on Facebook? Have you ever uploaded a picture under the label “My Family”, “My home”, “Our anniversary” and so on?

If you find this hard to believe, take a look at the too links below:

1) XBox Promotional Trailer of Prototype


Prototype

2) Promotional Trailer of the movie Flash Forward

FlashForward

Both require Facebook Connect and take a bit to load, but I am positive it will make my point across. Enjoy!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.