In its 10Q filing with the SEC yesterday, Google disclosed that its cost-per-click in the first quarter declined 14% year-over-year and 6% sequentially. Google asserted in the filing that "the decrease in the average cost-per-click paid by our advertisers was primarily the result of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies," but also reflected the way advertisers managed their ad costs in response to the downturn. "Specifically, we believe that as a result of the general economic downturn, advertisers, in aggregate, have lowered their bids for keywords in response to a decrease in the sales they are able to make per paid click," the company said. During the same time period, aggregate paid clicks increased 17% year-over-year and 3% sequentially.
Google's explanation that the drop in cost-per-click is a result of a drop in conversion rates seems plausible. It also implies that advertisers were already paying the most that they could afford. That is because if advertisers had room to increase bids (assuming the same conversion rates), then they would do so to try to increase market share as the overall market declined. Therefore, while the cost-per-click will probably see a onetime increase when the economy recovers, it is less likely to continue to grow at the torrid pace that it has over the past several years.
Where does that leave Google? With market share growth being limited and overall search volume growth slowing down, it just makes Google's display and video initiatives more critical to its future.
Wendy Millard in her speech at the recent IAB Conference talked about how (wendy millard/IAB Conference) "too much data is the problem and not the solution ". She then went on to talk about how "massive reams of data still can't create compelling messages, and that (compelling messages) should be the focus of the interactive ad industry". She also said that "an over-emphasis on measurement is holding back the business." In addition, Randy Rothenberg in his blog (http://www.randallrothenberg.com/ ) re-iterates the point saying that on-line advertising, as an industry, has not focused enough on engaging the creative teams at agencies. He goes on to quote Bogart (Strategy in Advertising: Matching Media and Messages to Markets and Motivations) as saying "Advertisements may be evaluated scientifically; they cannot be created scientifically."
I think that Bogart is right. Science cannot create ads. However, it can only make evaluation so cheap (and precise) that the value associated with creation is declining, at the limit, to zero. Dynamic ad construction tools create infinite combinations of ads combining a variety of copy, images, product information and offers at virtually no cost. With machine learning tools it is then possible to run large scale tests and figure out what ad works best in each situation. In such a process, while there is a role for the "creatives" it is far less valuable than traditional media where "creatives" rule the roost.
I share Randy and Wendy's conviction that there isn't enough brand advertising on-line and the medium is well suited to building brands. However, Wendy and Randy seem to imply that data driven advertising has less of a role to play in the context of brand advertising. I disagree. I think that data driven advertising can substantially enhance brand marketing as well. And Dave Morgan's new start-up, Simulmedia, which is applying data and analysis to improving the effectiveness of TV advertising, is a great example of that (see Dave Morgan:back to the start-up world).
Data driven advertising is here to stay. The art vs. science war is over. And the quants have won! 11:25 PM GMT | Read comments(2)February 15Notes from NASSCOM 2009
I spent Friday at NASSCOM's (India association of technology companies) annual conference in Mumbai. Like always, it was a vibrant event where entrepreneurs, students, bureaucrats (I was amazed to see teams from around the world), politicians and thought leaders came together (http://indialeadershipforum.nasscom.in). It was fun to meet so many old friends and the evening's entertainment, which celebrated Mumbai's indomitable spirit, struck a chord. I had tears in my eyes as I saw a video montage of the attacks. And proud as I saw how the city responded, and back in high spirits as the dance performance began. Below are a few observations.
I share CK's optimism. Technology has the potential to lead a new global growth wave. If there is one thing that this downturn has proven, it is that sustainable value cannot be created by financial engineering. Instead, firms need to build innovative products and services that consumers will feel compelled to buy and to do so, they will need technology more than ever before. 6:04 AM GMT | Read comments(2)January 29Will DVD players also go the way of cable boxes and LP players ?
3 years ago, watching web video meant watching grainy short clips. Over the last year, watching TV shows on the web has become common place - 50% of Americans have done so. When will we starting watching full length movies on the web ? Maybe sooner than you might think.
Over the last year, Netflix has made it possible to watch movies on your TV if you have either an X-Box or a Roku box. IN its latest earnings release, Netflix also announced plans to work with BluRay player manufacturers to embed their streaming client in as many player models as possible, starting with the newly released LG BD300. Also, Netflix continues to expand the digital content library (now 12000 titles) and improve the PC/laptop viewing experience (via Netflix.com). Also, Hulu.com has expanded from TV shows to include movies and has added 100s of movies to its on-demand service. To top it all, Viacom, MGM and Lions Gate just announced that they will launch Epix, an HBO competitor, on the web first in the fall - Epix launches on the web.
What's next ? Will BluRay die in its infancy ?10:27 PM GMT | Read comments(0)January 27When will set top boxes go the way of LP (record) players ?
Consumers are increasingly watching video content on a variety of Internet-connected devices, including Internet TVs, laptops, mobile phone, etc. In November 2008, over 75% of the US Internet population (~ 150 M users) watched an average of 4.5 hours of video on-line, an increase of 34 % YoY. While that number is remarkable in itself, if you drill down, the statistics are even more compelling:
Furthermore, audiences are fragmenting as consumers view video content via a variety of web sites ranging from video distributors (e.g. Hulu, Joost, YouTube, MYSpaceTV) to niche special interest focused web sites (e.g. Glam, Martha Stewart). For example, Hulu.com which is the leading distributor of professionally produced video individually accounts for only 1.8% of total video views (in the US), of which 67% are consumed through Hulu’s syndication network (vs. on hulu.com).
Advertisers and content owners are responding to the shift in consumer behavior. In 2008, on-line video ad spend was $ 570 M (US), and it is one of the few spend categories that is expected to grow (45% YoY) in 2009 as advertisers shift budgets from TV and prioritize video over other digital spend categories. Content owners (e.g. CBS, Viacom) are aggressively expanding distribution of their (i.e. syndicate) advertising supported content to a multitude of websites so that consumers can “watch wherever /whenever”. Content owners are also actively mining their archives to create refreshed (or made for the web) content pieces - see NYT: Slicing Decades of Video for New Life on the Web
And this is just the start. In 2008, 4 % of those who watched online video said that they would consider disconnecting their TV service. And, when I talk to people in their 20s in the bay area, most of them already seem to have done so - they watch TV on their PCs or through internet connected TVs. In addition, content availability could explode as networks recognize that the only way to avoid becoming irrelevant (like the music industry) is to aggressively expand and distribute online content. And in a couple of years, all TVs will come with internet connectivity out of the box. At that point, what percent of the US population will give up their cable connection to only watch TV online ? When will cable TV go away ? Or at least, when will the total number of connections start to decline ? Probably not next year, but also not 10 years from now! 11:23 PM GMT | Read comments(0)December 31Predictions for 2009: On-Line Advertising
In Q1 2008, with some trepidation, I started to write a blog on on-line advertising. What started as an occasional post is slowly morphing into a weekly post, and a few people even seem to read it regularly! And I am having a lot of fun in the process.
So, with even more trepidation, I am now taking a stab at making a few predictions for 2009.
These trends will benefit some companies while disadvantaging others. I hope that you find ways to navigate through (and even benefit from) the turbulence. Let me know if you agree or disagree with these predictions (my e-mail is agarg(at)foundationcapital.com), or if there are other trends that you think I’ve missed.
Have a great 2009!3:38 PM GMT | Read comments(2)December 23India's Power Sector: a $ 600 B Opportunity ?
According to a recent report by McKinsey & Company (see McKinsey - Powering India: The Road to 2017 for an executive summary), if India were to grow at 8% p.a. for the next 10 years, it will require a 3 X increase in power generation capacity (to 300+ GW). Considering that India has added 5-6 GW p.a. in the recent past, this would require a 5-10 X increase in the pace of capacity expansion and an aggregate investment of $ 600 B (by 2017).
While this is clearly a multi-faceted challenge, there are 2 dimensions to it that are worth noting.
While a key element of the solution is to accelerate the build out of generation capacity, there are other levers that India needs to pull, including:
Over the next 10 years, India's power demand growth will be second only to China. Furthermore, McKinsey estimates that there the potential for industry particpants to capture upto $ 160B in EBITDA by 2017.
From my vantage point, the Indian power sector offers an incredible opportunity for value creation for start-ups - ranging from providing technology to building demand management businesses and distribution franchises. If you are working on such an opportunity, do drop me a mail at agarg(at)foundationcapital.com
Over the last year, I introduced the concept of Display 3.0 (Display 3.0: The Next Wave of Innovation in Display Advertising), and how it would all be about improving advertising effectiveness by leveraging advertiser/consumer/publisher data and algorithms. I also talked about the opportunity to build advertiser facing tools/platforms (Display 3.0: What is it ?) ranging from dynamic creative construction and optimization to landing page optimization. Furthermore, I discussed the emergence of advertising exchanges, and how the liquidity of inventory and the ability to buy inventory in a fine grained way will create a host of new opportunities for advertisers (Follow up to Ad Networks: Dead or Alive ? ).
One trend that I have not talked about to date (a miss on my part) is the increasing liquidity/portability of data, ranging from advertiser data to consumer data. The liquidity of data is critical to the success of Display 3.0 and will create a host of opportunities for both publishers and advertisers.
Historically, large and sophisticated publishers (like Yahoo) have always valued their data and leveraged it to enhance the value of their inventory. Subsequently, targeting vendors like Tacoda and Revenue Sciences offered out-sourced targeting solutions to other premium publishers who lacked the technical capabilities in-house (but in a similar proprietary data model).
What has emerged over the last 2-3 years is a range of ad targeting solutions that aggregate consumer data across publishers to create targeting products (based on behaviors, purchase intent, psychographics, demographics, etc.). Most of these offerings provide publishers with a free service in return for which they collect audience data which they then leverage for ad targeting (not all of these have launched ad targeting products to date). Examples include:
In addition, advertisers are beginning to leverage their proprietary data to improve advertising effectiveness. The most obvious example is re-targeting where advertisers leverage behaviors exhibited when you visit their site to target you around the web. But there is more. Advertisers are beginning to think about how to link off-line data and segmentation models to users on-line. One approach is to send users e-mails with embedded cookies to associate their off-line behavior with their on-line presence and then to subsequently track them (anonymously off-course). Another approach is to drop cookies when users sign in or complete a transaction (this is especially applicable to e-tailers).
Furthermore, large data aggregators are beginning to explore ways to monetize their data. Imagine if E-bay or Amazon or Experian were to leverage their years of collected insight/data about you to enable advertisers to serve you targeted ads ? Key to enabling all this are the emerging category of providers called data exchanges like Blue Kai.
In summary, 2 things are happening:
1. Data and inventory are both becoming liquid and in the near future will be traded independently vs. being bundled by large publishers like Yahoo and MSN. This should level the playing field for small publishers and enable them to take fully capture the value of their audience. On the flip side, it reduces the relative value of large publishers that bundled inventory and data like Yahoo and MSN. One more reason that Jerry should have sold to Microsoft:-)
2. The myth of data driven adverting is slowly becoming a reality, creating a host of opportunities for advertisers ? More about this in my next post!
If you have an interesting idea or company in this space, do drop me a mail to tell me about it at agarg(at)foundationcapital.com12:29 AM GMT | Read comments(2)December 08After Mumbai
This editorial in the Economist on the Mumbai attacks is worth a read - http://www.economist.com/after mumbai
India needs to put a stop to the violence, but doing so will require more than rhetoric and saber rattling. India needs to address some of the fundamental issues discussed in my last post. Poverty and despair are fertile breeding grounds for terrorism, and we need to put an end to both. At home, and in Pakistan.
Even as we grieve the Mumbai attacks, we must ask what next? Terror appears to strike at will (in India), and with each instance raises the stakes. We must move forward, and we must respond. In fact, as Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff-designate, loves to say “we should never allow a crisis to go to waste".
The press and blogosphere have been full of suggestions on how to respond, ranging from attacking terrorist camps in Pakistan, to improving intelligence and adding NSG squads in multiple locations. Many of these suggestions make sense and there is clearly a need for India to improve its intelligence and rapid response capabilities. Improving intelligence is probably the only way to prevent (or at least reduce) attacks on soft targets. No amount of security can do so - after all, how many hotels and buildings can you protect? We need to improve our electronic interception and surveillance capabilities and strengthen coordination across the various agencies. We also need to improve our ability to respond - having NSG units in multiple locations in a good start. Training them for urban situations (it amazes me that 500+ men were deployed against 10 terrorists), and leveraging technology (e.g. 3-D digital models of target sites and expanded video surveillance to help plan counter-attacks) would also go a long way. There is a lot that can be done on both these fronts and many of the suggestions in the media make sense.
Yet, this is only a start. Unlike conventional warfare, there is no way to win a war against terrorists. India must strike at the root causes of terrorism if it is to win. India must arrive at a negotiated settlement on festering issues like Kashmir and Ayodhya and provide secular education for all children.
Settling the Kashmir and Ayodhya issues will strike at the heart of terrorism. The on-going violence in Kashmir and the strong emotions associated with Ayodhya are a god send for terrorist recruiters. For every person who is killed in Kashmir (irrespective of who was at fault), we are creating several new terrorists (or at best terrorist sympathizers). Every riot/pogrom fuels extremism and gives birth to future generations of terrorists. India needs to stop the vicious cycle by leveraging this crisis to force a settlement with Pakistan on Kashmir (formalizing the current borders) and negotiate a compromise to the Babri Masjid/Ayodhya issue. Doing so will prove much more effective than increasing the number of NSG commandos by a factor of 10.
Furthermore, “secular school education for all” will reduce terrorism’s oxygen supply. Multiple surveys indicate that (on an average) Muslims in India are a disadvantaged lot. And one only has to look at the Palestinian camps to see that poverty and the lack of opportunity are breeding grounds for terrorism. To add fuel to the fire, we have children being brainwashed by religious schools of all flavors. India needs to instill hope and provide more opportunities for its poor (Muslim or otherwise). And India must provide each child with a secular education that teaches them to be Indian first and Hindu or Muslim second. Religious schools (madrasas or otherwise) are not consistent with a secular democracy, and must go.
It will take a while for us to put the events of last week behind. But we can make a start by addressing some of the root causes for terrorism – Islamic or Naxalite or Hindu. 12:19 AM GMT | Read comments(0)November 30Be wary of trading analog dollars for digital pennies...
Jeff Zucker (CEO NBCU) was rightly concerned about his analog franchise when he made this comment earlier this year. After all, the five major broadcast networks raked in $9.23 B in this year's upfront market (vs. $9.15B last year) despite their audience declining 11% (average across the five networks for the first 4 weeks of the new season). TV seems to be one of the few businesses that can demand (and get) more money while delivering less. Why is that ? Scarcity!
Brand advertisers need reach, and with media fragmentation, the broadcast networks remain amongst the few means to reach large national audiences in one fell swoop. The networks play this card to the hilt and advertisers don't want to be left out. The analogy that comes to mind is how CIOs never got fired for buying IBM. Yet, IBM feel from its perch and the same could happen to the networks. The networks will not go away (nor did IBM), but they could soon be trading their analog dollars for digital pennies.
Why is that ? Because the scarcity of ad inventory may be short lived.
And so, Jeff is right to be worried about trading analog dollars for digital pennies...unfortunately, worrying about something does not mean it will not happen. 12:08 AM GMT | Read comments(0)November 29Not ye olde banners...
Like many of you, I spent most of the last 30 hours glued to the TV/computer watching the events in Mumbai unfold. Like some of you, I had family stuck in/around the attack sites (all of whom have escaped safely). Through this period, I went through a variety of emotions - surprise, fear for my family, and anger.
Anger that terrorists have defaced the city that I consider home. Anger that terrorists have killed more than a hundred people who were going about their business. And anger that these terrorists may have been supported by Pakistan.
At the same time, I could not help but think that...
I could go on and on. We all have lots of questions. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. India will and must respond. Hopefully, as we do so, we will heed the lessons of history, and not over-react to these horrific attacks.
Also, while I know that Mumbai has changed for ever, Mumbai and India will march on. 10:28 PM GMT | Read comments(0)November 26Can Judy McGrath plug a hole in the dam with her finger ?
The latest issue of the Economist has an article about Judy McGrath’s valiant efforts to turn around MTV Networks (http://www.economist.com/people/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12633125). She seems to be doing all the right things – expanding internationally (where traditional media continues to grow), has bought a casual gaming site (addictinggames.com)and even lunched a hit video game (Rock Band sold 7 M copies). Yet is it enough? Can it compensate for the fact that MTV’s number of viewers declined by 28 % in Q3 (in the 12-34 demo YoY)?
The fundamental problem is that MTV’s audience is the on-demand generation – spending time on Facebook and MySpace and watching video on-line vs. watching TV. Does all that Judy is doing amount to plugging a hole in the dam with her finger ?
If you are reading this blog, you probably already know that on-line video is exploding. The question is what does that mean for broadcast TV, especially as the MTV generation grows older? Will there be broadcast TV 20 years from now?
Just in case you are one of the skeptics about on-line video, here is some interesting data from comScore and the Leichtman Research Group. In July 2008,
Furthermore, just remember that the First Law of Technology says we invariably overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating their longer-term effects. 12:55 AM GMT | Read comments(1)November 22Follow up to Ad Networks: Dead or Alive ?
I got a lot of constructive and encouraging feedback about my post - Ad Networks: Dead or Alive? In general, there was consensus that a shake-out is likely. In order to survive, ad networks will need to determine where/how they add value beyond aggregating inventory as that function is being usurped by the exchanges.
In this and subsequent posts, I will attempt to address some of the questions/issues raised.
First, there are several questions asked about how the business model of the ad networks that survive will evolve. As indicated earlier, I think that there will be 3 broad buckets.
The second broad theme in the questions was around what other business models will emerge as a result of this transformation. What is the opportunity for entrepreneurs ? I think that exchanges will create a whole new eco-system around them. Possibilities include:
There are probably a host of other products and services that can be wrapped around exchange platforms. If you have any ideas, I would love to hear about them at agarg(at)foundationcapital.com 7:27 PM GMT | Read comments(0)November 12Ad Networks: Flight to Quality ?
Its funny how quickly perceptions change. A year ago, ad networks could do no wrong. Investors funded several hundred of them. Cox bought Adify, an “ad network in a box” technology provider that helped spawn many of these networks for $ 300 M in April 2008. Now, ad networks are suddenly considered the living dead, a sentiment cogently articulated by none other than the WSJ a few weeks ago in this article - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122514803617173825.html
Clearly the climate has changed and advertising spend is expected to decline in 2009. At Web 2.0, Mary Meeker predicted that a flat GDP would result in a 4 % YoY decline in ad spend. And on-line spend cannot be isolated from that, especially since financial services, automotive and retail are the 3 largest spenders on-line.
Yet, lets not forget that ad networks serve a critical purpose. They aggregate inventory across 1000s of publishers and re-package that inventory to create “advertising products” (as distinct from engineering products) that target specific advertiser needs. They enable the more than 900 B (yes, billion) impressions that are generated in the US alone to be monetized, especially in a world where the premium publishers (Yahoo, MSN, etc.) are loosing share of voice (see chart below for global minutes share data). Without ad networks, the web as we know it could not be sustained - all those publishers do need a way to be paid for their labor, and ad networks provide that. And while on-line ad spend growth is slowing, absolute spend is not declining. Advertisers continue to need help in navigating the complexity of buying on-line media, and their existing agencies lack the skills to help them. Hopefully, by now, you are convinced that ad networks have a rightful role in the world. If not, take a minute to read a post by Chris Weiss (of Lucid Media) that makes the case for continued proliferation of ad networks - http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/20779.asp
Source: Mary Meeker's Web 2.0 presentation
Well, having hopefully established that ad networks have a rightful role in the world, I wish I could say that all is well in the world of ad networks. In fact, I do think that ad networks are under threat, but not from the economy. Rather, the advent of ad exchanges like Right Media (now owned by Yahoo) pose substantial (and more fundamental) challenges for the business model of ad networks - by increasing transparency and liquidity in the marketplace, they raise the bar for networks, in terms of the value they need to add to raw inventory to justify their margins.
I do think that the networks which lack differentiated data driven targeting capabilities face a tough future. At the same time, there is role for ad networks in this new world (of ad exchanges), and many (but not all) ad networks will cross the chasm.
For the rest, well...it was a character building experience.
Equally importantly, this evolution will create new opportunities for start-ups. If you have ideas, do drop me a mail at agarg(at)foundationcapital.com
I just spent 10 days in India across Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, where I also attended TiEcon. It was an exciting, fun and productive trip - I met with entrepreneurs, budding entrepreneurs, investors, and investment bankers.
All in all, the energy of India continues to be intoxicating. As a friend said one evening, "growth is a drug like cocaine, once you are addicted you need more and more and..."And it was clear that everyone is still on a high...11:45 PM GMT | Read comments(1)September 24A Proud PC User...
I recently left Microsoft after having worked there for more than 4 years and returned to the valley (to join Foundation Capital where I invest in both the US and in India related opportunities ). One of the hardest adjustments was to see how "uncool" it had become to be a PC user, especially one that thinks that Vista is OK and actually likes Office 2007! I often found myself being defensive. Now, thanks to the new PC ads (not the Jerry Seinfeld ads), its feels OK to be a PC user again. The "Proud to be a PC." ads celebrate being ordinary...ordinary people doing extraordinary things...
I think the ads are brilliant. The Apple ads will be etched in my mind for ever. They struck a chord. And so do these. In one simple 30-second spot, they remind us of why we use a PC -- and that the majority of PCs are powered by Microsoft. Positioning a technical product as widely used at Windows is a challenge and after spending years and several hundred million dollars, Microsoft seems to be getting there...If you haven't seen the ads, do take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRg_Uh1AO2A and tell me what you think.