Watching the Shorty Awards live from Mogulus…
I have to say that it works pretty pretty well. Here’s the link for the live feed.
The only thing is that the event is not THAT fun…
Watching the Shorty Awards live from Mogulus…
I have to say that it works pretty pretty well. Here’s the link for the live feed.
The only thing is that the event is not THAT fun…
I received this spam this morning. I found pretty funny the fact that it starts pushing the idea of a merger between Microsoft and AOL… And we all know that it would make a lot of sense for Microsoft to acquire the content business from AOL… So, spammers future competitors of SAI and PaidContent?
I’ve highlighted the funny pieces:
“Dear Sir/ Madam,
The prestigious Microsoft and AOL has set out and successfully organized a
Sweepstakes marking the year 2009 anniversary we rolled out over
US$400,419,864 for our New year Anniversary Draws. Participants for the
draws were randomly selected and drawn from a wide range of web hosts
which we enjoy their patronage.
The selection was made through a computer draw system attaching
personalized email addresses to ticket numbers. If you ignore this
message, you will definitely regret it later. Microsoft and AOL are now
the largest Internet companies & in effort to make sure that Internet
Explorer remain the most widely used program, Microsoft and AOL are
running an e-mail beta test.
Your email address as indicated was drawn and attached to reference and
ticket number 008795727498 with serial numbers MIC-AOL/8303/09 and drew
the lucky numbers 04-18-35-38-53-46 (12) which subsequently won you £
1,000,000 ( One Million Great Britain Pounds) as one of the jackpot
winner in this draw. You have therefore won the entire winning sum of £
1,000,000 (One Million Great Britain Pounds) the draws registered as Draw
number one was conducted in Liverpool, UK on the 6th of February,2009.
These Draws are commemorative and as such special.Please be informed by
this winning notification to file your claims immediately. You are advised
to make contact to your referred agent who shall by duty guide you through
the process to facilitate the release of your winning prize.
To file for this claims, Please Contact your referred agent with your
verification information as required on the form below, beginning the
claims of your winnings funds as conducted by the lottery company. We
dedicate our special thanks & gratitude to Bill Gates {Now Retired from
Microsoft Corporations} .We wish you the best of luck as you spend your
good fortune in this season.
Note: You have Two (2) weeks from the date of this publication to claim
your prize or you may forfeit your winnings. Thank you for being part of
our commemorative New year Anniversary Draws.Find below your referred
agent and the verification form:
Address: 18 South Drive, Hepworth,Diss,N0rfolk, IP22 2HF, UK
Contact Agent: Mr. Frank Powell
Tel: +44 703 593 0585
Email:frank.powelldesk@yahoo.com.hk
Name: …………………………….
Country of Origin…………………..
Place of Residence………………….
Occupation…………………………
Sex/Age……………………………
Telephone/Fax………………………
Winning Email ID……………………
NOTE: DUE TO FRAUDSTERS, WE HAVE DECIDED TO EFFECT TRANSFER TO YOUR BANK
ACCOUNT ONLY AND WHEN CONTACTING YOUR REFERRED AGENT, DO QUOTE YOUR TICKET
NUMBER AND SERIAL NUMBER FOR SECURITY REASONS.
Mr.Kevin Turner
Public Relations Officer
©2009 Microsoft Corporation”
As we know, ad network is a big word that covers multiple realities. You’ll find horizontal ad networks (scale and reach across multiple content sites with no discrimination on the content type), vertical ad networks (that represent sites mostly on the same vertical or segment), behavioral ad networks (buying data from publishers enabling them to then reach a particular audience when the user is not any more on the origination site) etc.
These networks can sell premium inventory, remnant, data, video inventory or push out market exchanges that help publishers to connect with advertisers etc.
The vertical ad networks focused on women really started to take off in late 2005 and 2006 reached a peak early with very high transaction price and multiples (a good example is the $85m round raised by Glam early 2008 as a public valuation north of $450m – see the TechCrunch post there).
Still looking at our ComScore December figures (they’re here), we can identify a lot of them highly ranked. Some of them are part of other networks. For all of them, the game is to add properties and have them sign traffic assignment letters for ComScore and Nielsen, enabling the network to show bigger and aggregated traffic figures.
Current Women Networks
Here are the main ones:
Challenges ahead
The CPMs are dropping: Obviously the biggest challenge for all these networks is the proclaimed dip of CPMs on display advertising. The success of a vertical network is to justify the cut of 50% by the ability to reach larger ad buys (because of the scale) while not having too low CPMs (because of the proclaimed vertical and niche reach of women “24 to 49”). But the model was completly perversed by Glam when they aggregated very low quality sites and small blogs. Also, the decrease in CPMs is already having a big impact on all the ecosystem: most of the networks are now focusing back on the key sites on the network and don’t give anymore guarantee to publishers).
The value of ad networks is blurred: Because of the Glam / iVillage competition that drove both of them to aggregate as much as they can, despite the quality of the site or the relevance of the network, advertisers are more and more reluctant in buying a network inventory unless prices are slashed (but in this case, we’re getting close to the horizontal networks and the whole rationale of building a vertical network, based on the ability to command higher CPMs, is crushed).
ComScore and Nielsen: I’m very convinced that most of these aggregation strategies were in large part driven by the ComScore and Nielsen games (i.e. how to appear the biggest women network on ComScore to the attention of the 21 years old agency planners…). ComScore already announced to its members that it intended to break down the Women vertical into a lot of different subverticals (health, food, fashion and beauty etc.). That also might change the networks strategies when they realised that once sliced and diced, they’re not this impressive…
Stay tuned for the Part 3 on The Women Content Sites
Just heard that Martin Schaedel, a very interesting, cheerful and attaching guy, died in a plane crash in Santa Monica yesterday.
Martin was a modern incarnation of the concept of “international man of mystery”. He was always in or out of airplanes, always traveling to exotic places and always happy to meet new people. You could spend hours building conceptual business plans and doing small talks. Time usually flew with him.
He was also very curious and enthusiastic. And always pushing people to get to meet together. I’ve never met somebody who was such an incarnation of the 7 degrees theory…
Anyway, so long Martin… You’ll be truly missed…
More info there http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-planecrash29-2009jan29,0,2393886.story
Also see the post from Fred Wilson there and the Twitter storm here.
The December figures from ComScore have been published pretty recently. One of the most sought after category across the Internet BtoC content publishers is the woman audience, which has gained +50% over the course of the last 15 months, from 72m UVs in October 2008 to 102m UVs in December 2008. In the meantime, the total audience on the internet only went from 182m to 191m UVs .
In the gigantic and much too broad ComScore “Women” category, you’ll find Men’s Vogue along with microscopic niche blogs aggregated by Glam, large portals, or gaming sites along with makeover tools and women’s health related sites. ComScore, answering to the repetitive complaints from the publishers about the category has recently decided to break it down into several smaller categories such as Fashion and Beauty, Women’s Services, Food, etc.
In this mess, everyone tries to exist and agitates its flags towards the ad agencies and the advertisers. Some of them are selling “vertical” networks with “targeted” audiences, while other are pushing their scale or relying on their offline assets to drive the growth of their properties.
Let’s take a look at the different actors and strategies:
Part 1 – The Portals
It’s obviously easy living for them (at least vs. the other actors) since they benefit largelly from their owners’ homepage promotion.
All of them are using the same strategy content-wise: aggregation of partners content against linkbacks and creation of original content through a small editorial team.
What’s striking is that all of the portals are focusing close to 100% of their strategies on content pure. You won’t find innovative tools and applications past the now spreadout makeover tool or the astrology iPhone app. Communities are only funneled through classical content comments and videos are also not very spread out on their sites.
Here’s the 15-month lookout from ComScore for all of these portals women subsites.
Part 2 will be on the Women Ad Networks… Stay tuned…
Brilliant site from the highly buzzed Seth Godin‘s empire that make you spent the day arguing on stupid (or passionate) debates.
Just like Squidlit (you’re getting paid to do book reviews), The Ever Project (aggregations of topics around “what’s the worst”, “the biggest ever” etc.), Squidwho (mashups and aggregations around fan pages), Hey Monkey Brain uses the Squidoo engine to power the site.
Squidoo is a content aggregation engine that lets user create “lenses” i.e. ways to look at a specific subject (let’s say, you’re a huge fan of laptops bags, you’re going to create a page around these bags and, obviously link to the pages where you can buy these bags). Heavily viral and engaging, the site launched less than 2 years ago is already close to 10m UVs worlwide and close to 5m UVs in ComScore. This growth has been achieved with very little SEM investment (if you check Spyfu, you get to an investment under 100 grands a year – check here).
The whole team is under 10 peoples, mostly technical and including Seth himself.
You can find an pure ecommerce application of the concept in France through Zlio which lets its users create personnalized shopping pages. So let say you’re a huge fan of Saint Therese of Lisieux, you’ll create a page that will aggregate all of the products available on this well-known catholic saint (see the page here). The more targeted is the subject, the biggest conversion rate you’re going to achieve and the more money you’ll make (Zlio users get a rev share on the affiliation revenue).
Seth’s model enables users to choose between keeping the money or giving it to a charity.
Knowing how much transformation rates are affected by the contextual relevance of the pages, Stylefeeder (a recommendation engine, mostly focused on fashion) applied these teachings by letting the user drives the type of products that he might be interested in. Stylehive has the same goal but emphasize the social aspect of shopping to get there. And Like.com is approaching it through a visual recognition application.
For now, there’s still no clear winner on the social shopping space but that could evolve very quickly knowing the pressure that all of these companies have from their investors (to the exception of Squidoo).
Here’s ComScore’s chart showing Squidoo constant growth over the course of the last 14 months:

I was reading the coverage from PaidContent regarding the recent funding of Total Prestige, a social networking site aimed at the richest (see full post here) and was curious to see what it looked like.
Obviously, since they currently have only 650 members (a good or bad sign), I don’t have access to the back-end site, only the demo (anyone out there?). Other than the classic cheap 80’s pictures and cliches very St Tropez meet Dubai, the value proposition wasn’t very clear. It comes with an “online magazine“, which is a cheap version of the Robb Reports, Dealmakers and Traders Magazines, by the way all on the block currently. You can always spend some time in luxurious places after you buy fractional ownerships of Richard Nillson’s “Residence Superieur” (sic).
The fact that Rose only injected $1m there is an indication of the limit of the new project.
Another investment probably going down the drain…
|
Ok so after spending so many hours at the Barney’s Sample Sale twice a year – battling my way through crazy amount of people, trying a suit pant in the middle of the room while keeping an eye on these John Varvatos pants so I’d secured later – the emergence of the online-only sample sales sounded like a great revolution. Nothing new there though since it’s been going on already for close to 10 years in France: for example, check out the absolute leader there (close to 90% market share) at www.vente-privee.com. With an estimated valuation over 800m euros (above $1bn), the company was doing close to $500m revenues in 2007 and, given its business model, is clearly cash flow positive.
Following the appealing model, a couple of startups were created in the US, most of them distincts from each other in terms of market positionnement or marketing tactics. Still an early stage market here, it’s obviously the right time given what’s happening on the economy (after all, one of the best current marketing tactic for KMart and now for Sears is to push a refreshed version of the layaway business model – check out http://tinyurl.com/5fxt5h). The market Before we actually take a look at the competition outlook, I want to define clearly what I’m meaning by online sample sale: it’s the business of selling online only apparel (clothes, accessories etc.) at discounted prices. The items sold can be part of current or past collections, from well-known or less-known designers and for men, women or childrens. It’s different from the business of using online as a marketing tool for physical sample sales (think any newletter alert for physical sale or any advertisement on websites). It is also different from the business of selling discounted goods on retailers sites (Barneys.com, Saks etc.) or the occasional 20 to 30% off at the end of the collections. The companies that are currently struggling to eat each other market shares are (by order of importance / size / credibility
There’s other providers that are smaller but these are the main ones. Key levers to success
|