Social Networks on the Go Sprite Yard, a mobile social network created by Coca Cola, will be launching on June 22 in the US. The social network launched in China last week and Coke hopes to have a global presence relatively quickly. Using simple bottle cap printed codes, Coke will give users the ability to win downloads, webisodes, ring tones, even virtual items in Second Life. However, with only one way to access the social network, will this ever be able to build a critical mass?
Old economy Coca Cola is definitely pushing the envelope in digital marketing and media. After having missed the boat on the Diet Coke and Mentos phenomena, Coke is making sure that they allow for their brand to be fully interactive. They've been one of the first to hop on the Second Life platform and with this social network, one of the first that I've seen to create a social network purely in mobile form. However, we've seen many problems with the mobile platform that may provide a difficult time for Coke to build an audience, at least in the US.
Segmented mobile carriers and lack of standards. CDMA, GSM, What? The US market has four major carriers and two major standards, whereas the rest of the world is mostly on GSM networks (the ones that T-Mobile and Cingular use).
Walled Garden Approach. I think that this primarily applies to Verizon. I can't type in a WAP enabled URL into Verizon without it going through some kind of Verizon proxy server to make sure that I'm not accessing T-Mobile's site through Verizon's network. I can't blame them but definitely a barrier to innovation.
Too many Handsets! The carriers aren't the only ones to blame here. There's so many different types of handsets, resolutions, color schemes, etc that to develop for mobile means that you have to develop for hundreds of different phones and types. QWERTY keyboards, keypads, a combination of both (Blackberry Pearl), etc. Agh!
But all is not lost. Coke will definitely be positioned for first mover advantage when things change with the carriers. I think they realize the value of content over their networks but the behemoths of companies are moving so slow that who knows when this might be. Some of the things that Coke has going for it:
Brand. I don't want to pull apart Coke's balance sheet but I'm sure Goodwill is a pretty hefty figure here. People will recognize Coke and realize that its okay to interact over your phone. But then again look at Bud.tv.
First mover advantage and campaign integration. The same message over multiple platforms. Coke's size and clout allow it to do this. Integrating their Second Life with their social network with their web with their print with their TV etc. creates for consistent messaging and a better user experience.
Mobile's Hot. Kids and teens (the target market) are probably regulated by what they can do at home. Parents have all kinds of mechanisms to restrict Web sites and watch what their kids are doing. But on mobile, you can go anywhere and do anything. Kids like that. Parents don't. But mobile has other advantages like constant communication and that wins out. I think that until someone creates a monitoring device for mobile (which will probably be soon) kids will love that medium more than the computer.
I think its great that Coke's taking the plunge. The pros and cons are fairly even. I'll track what happens in the space and to Sprite Yard and watch for the launch on June 22!
Break.com is considering charging users for content. WHAT? What happened to the currency of the Internet? Free? The only content we've ever paid for is going to the movies. We already pay for connecting to the Internet, how can you charge us more?
Break.com will attempt to address these questions and more as investors are going to start wanting to see some type of revenues from their investments. Break (one of the top 10 video sharing sites; 310 overall, but well behind #1 YouTube) will start charging a subscription fee for exclusive content. They've already created advertiser sponsored channels (more of an Internet model) for companies like Keystone Beer. Keystone gets to pick which videos they want for their brand sponsored channel. We've been talking about how to monetize online video for quite a while. Advertising can only provide so much for free especially with the coming glut of user generated video. The refreshing thing for professionals is that sites like Break.com and others realize the potential for professionally created content. Can Break get subscribers for professionally based content? Hard to say. After all, I'd say Internet video is more like television and we've never had to pay for television at least not in an obvious manner (meaning that we all pay for HBO but we don't really see that bill when we flip the TV on). As previously mentioned, theatrical films, some pay per view events, and recorded media are the only things we've ever paid for.
If Break.com starts charging what does this mean? Advertisers, who will probably snag the best content, will have their channels subscribed to more often not only because they have the best content but because it will be free. If a Sopranos type show appears online, then perhaps users will be compelled to pay for it. However, once it appears online, there's very little that companies can do to prevent it from showing up on the YouTubes of the world. Sure there's the DMCA takedown but not after a few million potential paying customers already viewed the content. And thus, I find that pure subscription will have a tough time finding an audience. Here's a solution. Remember watching soccer games on television (or am I in the minority on this one?) Soccer has no breaks so they only time to serve up advertising is up on the upper third dashboard next to time left, half, score, and station identification. Can't we simply overlay an advertiser over the bottom sliver of a video - we already see this with the station identification watermark in the lower right hand corner? If we do this, and I guess we should wait to see how Keystone turns out, will we be turning all of our great content into another Bud.tv fiasco?
Make Money with your Video - Vator.tv So this entire time we've been focusing on how to monetize your content online. Most of that is through ad revenue, but Bambi Francisco, originally from Dow Jones owned site Marketwatch has put a new spin on monetizing content. Her site Vator.tv allows entrepreneurs to post their elevator pitch while at the same time allowing investors to find start ups that they'd like to invest in. Definitely a different model than the ones that we were looking at, or are they? NBC and other networks have been looking at YouTube and other online shows for pilot ideas. In a way, post your content and if its good, a big network will pay for it.
Vator.tv, though is definitely an interesting play, although sometimes start ups are invested in because of the management team and not necessarily the idea. This provides the perfect forum since management needs to be somewhat coherent about business and not just all about the technology and Vator.tv provides that perfect medium to evaluate the people that you are investing in without wasting a lot of time.
What's next? The video resume? Aleksey Vaynor would say no. In our open world confidentiality is becoming more and more difficult. Start ups are having a tougher time keeping things under wraps. And likewise, HR departments, are having a more difficult time keeping candidates' information hidden.
Regardless, this is a great idea for this medium and I think the video resume would be as well, if it could be posted behind some type of password protected site for HR folks only. Will Vator be successful? Hard to say. Should they have an accredited investor check? Probably not (see bud.tv). Will wanna be entrepreneurs be watching Vator in a chance to rip off someone else's idea? Probably. How can we protect this? We can't, but hope that if you're video is on Vator and its a good idea you'll get funding before someone can rip you off.
7 Months for 10x Return in Online Video...Not Bad
You can make money in online video! WallStrip, the video blog about stocks and investing, has been confirmed to be purchased by CBS. Rumors have said $5 million was the purchase price. Not bad for a show that started last year in October and to date raised about $600K. As one of the producers of the show stated, its Pop Culture meets stock culture. If you might remember Rocketboom, the once popular daily video blog, starring Amanda Congdon, in which she left for ABCNews.com, this seems to be a similar play. Lindsay Campbell, WallStrip's hostess, discusses reasons for why stocks are hitting 52 week highs in a somewhat playful manner, looking at a company's customers, "man on the street" type interviews, and visits to a company's retail stores if any.
However, as many other bloggers have questioned, who is watching this? It's definitely an entertaining show, but true Wall Streeters won't have time to watch the 2-3 minute daily episodic. Even on Revver, where the show is hosted, the popularity of the show appears to be correlated with the subject matter. (Most watched is the ever popular Cramer, followed by AAPL (anything Apple is interesting), then of course Google, and then some of the pilot episodes). Alexa has WallStrip at 65,865. Surely better than Bud.tv, but worth $5 million? Others have speculated that CBS made the play to lock down charismatic host Lindsay Campbell, which could be true.
Regardless of reasoning, congratulations to the team at WallStrip for sticking it out and making it happen. Big questions remain though:
How WallStrip will continue to be distributed (via CBS.com?)
Monetization? (PreRoll, PostRoll?)
Demographics? (Who IS watching this?) The purchase gives hope to many of the other video blogs out there that would like to create some kind of liquidity event. I think execs at CBS were mainly into the content as opposed to the traffic and statistics. But the Internet definitely gives these execs (similar to film festival) a chance to see how content (which no one can predict) will do in front of an audience. I'm interested in hearing CBS's side to this story.....
Video Ad Overview So the big question of Web 2.0 is how to monetize the online video. Revver has tried to embed an add at the end of the video, Metacafe serves pre-roll, and VideoEgg has an ad overlay that plays during the life of the video. Recently served up are Adap.tv which provides some type of contextual ad placement in the bottom of its player as the video is streaming (via Mashable), ScanScout (via TechCrunch) offers contextual text overlays on the video, and more recently YouTube announced their inline and post roll advertising method. (via Mashable). Are video overlays the way to go? Possibly they could be. However, YouTube's demo doesn't make too much sense. As Michael Arrington notes, the ads served up via YouTube are not relevant to the video at hand and its way too easy to ignore them, while Mashable has the opposite view point. I'm not agreeing with either since I still feel that video ad models are interesting but as a user they are still ads. I'm a true believer that content is king and integration of the advert with content is the best way to go. Remember when Alias was sponsored by Nokia? Or the obvious product placement at BMW Films? I think that advertiser sponsored shows really build goodwill with audiences AND if an element of product placement is involved, great recall of products. However, while I am writing this I know that many are citing the huge bust of Bud.tv. Some products are definitely trickier than others.
However the question if video overlays work remains. And only time will tell. I think though that video overlays are a step in the right direction toward interactivity. As I previously mentioned, video games are the most interactive of movies where you make a decision nearly every second (or several times per second). As TV watchers, an extremely passive activity, we are not used to interacting with anything, whether it's ads or any other type of clickable. Video overlays are bringing us one step closer to that next generation.
Juiced! Joost (pronounced Juiced) has been signing deals left and right with everyone from Viacom to CBS to independent filmmakers to now Heavy.com (via Mashable). It's being billed as "a new way to watch TV" bringing the best parts of the Internet (social networking, time shifting, etc), together with the best parts of TV (high production quality and quality content). Joost created by the founders of Kazaa and Skype (in other words pretty smart guys), could be the next YouTube killer? While Joost doesn't support user generated content (yet?) most of YouTube's traffic or at least a consistent portion of it comes from YouTube partners like CBS, NBA, and other established brands and Joost could be taking a large portion of those eyeballs away especially since YouTube's quality has been criticized as of late. I think that as an audience we seek a more interactive user experience. On one hand we have traditional television where we simply watch. The most interactivity we have is by flipping channels. On the other hand we have video games where we are essentially watching a movie but one in which we are making a decision every fraction of a second. The trend appears to be toward the latter, as we see an explosive upward trend in video games and a gradual downward slope in TV. However, to graduate everything to a video game would be much to extreme and I think that Joost will do a great job in letting people understand that if they are interested in the t-shirt that Matt Fox from Lost is wearing, they can pause the show and purchase it in real time and then go back to watching. Further the social aspect of TV watching will have content creators spinning even more elaborate webs than the ones in 24 or Lost, which will engage audiences. Ad model here? I'm not sure, I think that Joost will probably provide some type of interactive commercial as opposed to the traditional 30 second ad spot. Perhaps Joost can even provide some more power to the almost dead Bud.tv?
Keep an eye on this space as I can't wait to download my Joost trial now!
Monetizing YouTube? ... Not Yet
On YouTube's blog the "YouTube" team mentions that they are going to begin to share revenue with their more popular users outside of their "partners." Partners currently include the biggest traffic drivers to their site like the NBA, CBS, lonelygirl15, and NBC. Now they are going to share revenue with popular users like LisaNova, renetto, and smosh. Revenue share will include participation in Google's Adsense network. This announcement also comes off the heals of Afterworld (Bud.tv's foray into online video content) was announcement (via Mashable) as the first test of YouTube's ad program.
A few very simple questions spring to mind with these announcements. First and foremost: Why don't they share revenue with everyone? YouTube is easily gamed and they are sharing revenue with channels that have the most subscribers or views. You could easily build a bot to knock your views onto the Most Watched list or create many accounts to build your subscription list. And if its a logistical matter of paying out small amounts, have a threshold amount (like $5), similar to Revver. Secondly, this revenue sharing system (of clicking on AdSense ads) doesn't really work. Maybe its my content but I've tried it out (also via Revver) and perhaps its Revver's smaller advertiser base but I've never really had the desire to click on an image based Revver ad let alone a text based Google Adsense ad. Thirdly, most people watch YouTube content not on YouTube but via YouTube's embedded player. (See yesterday's post on Prom Queen and MySpace). Overall, though, I do have to applaud YouTube for making an effort. They're hit with a billion dollar lawsuit. They're probably getting a lot of heat from shareholders about their ROI ($15 million in revenue vs $1.7 billion purchase price). I'm not sure what this Afterworld model will look like but I hope it keeps the viral aspect of YouTube going with a way to embed the ad within the content.
The Results are in...Bud TV Falls So the results on the very widely watched (at least from a results standpoint) are in. Bud.TV viewership peaked at 253,000 visitors in February and has now dropped to 152,000 unique visitors good enough for ranking number 49,303 on the web according to ComScore Media Metrix. Bud execs were hoping for between 2 million and 3 million viewers on the online network which cost about $30 million. There's been a huge controversy over Bud TV's age verification scheme which asks you to put your drivers license since the attorneys did not want the alcohol manufacturer to actively market to underage adults and teens. However, despite this, Bud TV's free clips on YouTube have received little traffic with a few exceptions.
So the branded television network does not seem to work. Although 150,000 visitors is not bad, granted with a $30 million spend they should have received more. Personally I haven't watched any of Bud TV's clips until this post. Replaced by a Chimp and Afterworld are two shows that I've watched on YouTube. They are not bad although Afterworld seems like more of a slide show than a movie. There is no visible product placement except for the Bud TV logo in the corner. I'm not sure why they are not receiving the views that they were supposed to be receiving especially with all the hype surrounding it. Embedding is disabled for Afterworld, but I don't think that's the issue. I think one of the issues could be the pacing and the length of the shows. On average each show is about 3 minutes, where as Prom Queen is two minutes, although we don't know how Prom Queen is doing yet. "What Girls Want" is pushing 7 to 8 minutes! Replaced by a Chimp also adds about a third to its run time by putting their credits on as a post roll. While viewers probably click off at this point, potential viewers could be dissuaded by such a long run time. OR could it be just a critical mass thing? OR could this really be the Long Tail? Afterworld in YouTube terms is still in the top 10 subscribed and viewed. MySpace took a while to take off, maybe Bud TV needs to just keep at it and eventually a "tipping point" will occur? We'll be watching.
