These are reblogged from Mark Cuban's post on Entrepreneur.com site. Love the suggestions. Embody these.
1. Don't start a company unless it's an obsession and something you love.
2. If you have an exit strategy, it's not an obsession.
3. Hire people who you think will love working there.
4. Sales Cure All. Know how your company will make money and how you will actually make sales.
5. Know your core competencies and focus on being great at them. Pay up for people in your core competencies. Get the best. Outside the core competencies, hire people that fit your culture but aren't as expensive to pay.
6. An espresso machine? Are you kidding me? Coffee is for closers. Sodas are free. Lunch is a chance to get out of the office and talk. There are 24 hours in a day, and if people like their jobs, they will find ways to use as much of it as possible to do their jobs.
7. No offices. Open offices keep everyone in tune with what is going on and keep the energy up. If an employee is about privacy, show him or her how to use the lock on the bathroom. There is nothing private in a startup. This is also a good way to keep from hiring executives who cannot operate successfully in a startup. My biggest fear was always hiring someone who wanted to build an empire. If the person demands to fly first class or to bring over a personal secretary, run away. If an exec won't go on sales calls, run away. They are empire builders and will pollute your company.
8. As far as technology, go with what you know. That is always the most inexpensive way. If you know Apple, use it. If you know Vista, ask yourself why, then use it. It's a startup so there are just a few employees. Let people use what they know.
9. Keep the organization flat. If you have managers reporting to managers in a startup, you will fail. Once you get beyond startup, if you have managers reporting to managers, you will create politics.
10. Never buy swag. A sure sign of failure for a startup is when someone sends me logo-embroidered polo shirts. If your people are at shows and in public, it's okay to buy for your own employees, but if you really think people are going to wear your branded polo when they're out and about, you are mistaken and have no idea how to spend your money.
11. Never hire a PR firm. A public relations firm will call or email people in the publications you already read, on the shows you already watch and at the websites you already surf. Those people publish their emails. Whenever you consume any information related to your field, get the email of the person publishing it and send them a message introducing yourself and the company. Their job is to find new stuff. They will welcome hearing from the founder instead of some PR flack. Once you establish communication with that person, make yourself available to answer their questions about the industry and be a source for them. If you are smart, they will use you.
12. Make the job fun for employees. Keep a pulse on the stress levels and accomplishments of your people and reward them. My first company, MicroSolutions, when we had a record sales month, or someone did something special, I would walk around handing out $100 bills to salespeople. At Broadcast.com and MicroSolutions, we had a company shot. The Kamikaze. We would take people to a bar every now and then and buy one or ten for everyone. At MicroSolutions, more often than not we had vendors cover the tab. Vendors always love a good party.
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Magazines are losing the publishing war to bloggers
Digitalisation hit first on the music publishing business. Currently similar impact is happening in the magazine publishing industry. The main reason for a distruptive change is that consumer are receiving and subsequently increasingly expecting to have content for free. For example, many bloggers do write and publish content online that include faster and even more relevant info than most printed magazines. My personal interest is in how can these bloggers get paid and be brilliant. Is there an answer to this in the disruptive changes on the markets?
The internet is a double sided sword, well, is if you look at it from the traditional publishing point of view. It has never been easier to reach large numbers of readers, but these readers have never felt more entitled to be informed and entertained for free. The market for books is continually shifting beneath our feet, and nobody knows what the business of publishing will look like a decade from now. Still many authors and publishers are still pretending that the Internet doesn’t exist. Some will surely see their careers suffer as a result. One fact now seems undeniable: The future of the written word is (mostly or entirely) digital.
Still, consuming blog content is more popular than ever. For example fashion blogs gather followers like fireflies, most of the are still run by individuals, not media companies. If added the average 5€ each click through is of value to eCommerce stores, the average 10.000 readers a mid-range blogger has, in a month, could earn substantial income for him/her. There however, are no polished processes and most of income is of low-engagement banner ads and endorsements. Beside a gallup involving 17.000 social media users concluded that "brand-sponsored social media initiatives have very little impact on consumer decision making. Nor do they drive prospective customers to consider trying a brand or recommending a brand to others in their social network".
Digital publishing is gathering some success in small printing of €1.99 stories, something similar as selling single songs rather than a full album. However, these third party objectives are gathering much less engagement than subjective blog posts where the blogger is the objective. The amount of engagement bloggers drive is about 10-20 times higher than advertising, based on the same gallup above.
The internet is a double sided sword, well, is if you look at it from the traditional publishing point of view. It has never been easier to reach large numbers of readers, but these readers have never felt more entitled to be informed and entertained for free. The market for books is continually shifting beneath our feet, and nobody knows what the business of publishing will look like a decade from now. Still many authors and publishers are still pretending that the Internet doesn’t exist. Some will surely see their careers suffer as a result. One fact now seems undeniable: The future of the written word is (mostly or entirely) digital.
I'm not a businessman, I'm the business, man! (Jay-Z)
Still, consuming blog content is more popular than ever. For example fashion blogs gather followers like fireflies, most of the are still run by individuals, not media companies. If added the average 5€ each click through is of value to eCommerce stores, the average 10.000 readers a mid-range blogger has, in a month, could earn substantial income for him/her. There however, are no polished processes and most of income is of low-engagement banner ads and endorsements. Beside a gallup involving 17.000 social media users concluded that "brand-sponsored social media initiatives have very little impact on consumer decision making. Nor do they drive prospective customers to consider trying a brand or recommending a brand to others in their social network".
Digital publishing is gathering some success in small printing of €1.99 stories, something similar as selling single songs rather than a full album. However, these third party objectives are gathering much less engagement than subjective blog posts where the blogger is the objective. The amount of engagement bloggers drive is about 10-20 times higher than advertising, based on the same gallup above.
So my argument is that rather than relying on producing magazines and hit ebooks (which thou are interesting from content point of view, but not from business point of view), magazine publishing should enable bloggers to earn revenue from issues that they are passionate about. Revenue could come from brands that wish to be included in this passionate conversation by providing content to reference, analyse or just do some shout-out. Results would be much more focused and much higher engangement, and would result in a better service for readers. Afterall, we all loath banner ads, right?
Monday, September 05, 2011
Customer Development is everything thinks Steve Blank
Business
Watch Top Gun. And you understand how it feels to run a startup. I really loved this analogue by Steve Blank during his lecture today.
Think how the fighter pilot operates in the cockpit: OODA loop. OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. This concept is basically a strategic level mindset in military operations, and can easily be applied to understand startup leadership. It is a rather complex system of decision making and imagine you have to do all those decision while flying mach 2.1, and you have only split seconds to react. That's how it feels.
The quest for a business model
In a scalable startup (for more on different type of startups here), the founding team is in a search for a repeatable and scalable business model. That is very different from actual execution in a company. The main difference with startups and corporations are that, in the latter one, the executive management already knows the business model because it has already been found. The startup phase should be temporary during the project's transformation into a company, and the sole purpose should be to understand the metrix needed to make reliable decisions.
Unlike in a corporation, the only accounting needed in a startup are a) burnrate and b) how much is left at the bank. Nothing else. Profitability or such do not matter until the startup team has verified the business model. When the model is verified, the company will actually deliver a valid value proposition for the their customer segments.
Do the customer development
Please, do not waste time on business plans. No business plan will ever stand the test of an initial customer encounter. This is often the first fatal flaw. The second flaw is to think all the imaginable features should be in the product. Learn to go lean and have just minimal viable feature set to test your assumptions. If your assumptions are correct, you should have no problems to add revenue to pay for the future development. If not, it is time to go back to the drawing board and tweak the model a bit.
Steve Blank thinks that many startups fail because they found no customers. Not because they could not deliver what the technical feature set failed. The startups just ended up building "a house where nobody wanted to live". So like the fighter pilots in "Top Gun", the startup founders have to move fast with limited resources. They have to do decision calls with limited amount of data. Essentially the thrills come through those decisions made blindly, with gut feelings. Just remember, your gut feeling will only emerge by talking to the customers and developing from there.
Most importantly, remember to find and document "what have we learned about customers and what is our story". That is what makes headlines.
Watch Top Gun. And you understand how it feels to run a startup. I really loved this analogue by Steve Blank during his lecture today.
Think how the fighter pilot operates in the cockpit: OODA loop. OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. This concept is basically a strategic level mindset in military operations, and can easily be applied to understand startup leadership. It is a rather complex system of decision making and imagine you have to do all those decision while flying mach 2.1, and you have only split seconds to react. That's how it feels.
The quest for a business model
In a scalable startup (for more on different type of startups here), the founding team is in a search for a repeatable and scalable business model. That is very different from actual execution in a company. The main difference with startups and corporations are that, in the latter one, the executive management already knows the business model because it has already been found. The startup phase should be temporary during the project's transformation into a company, and the sole purpose should be to understand the metrix needed to make reliable decisions.
Unlike in a corporation, the only accounting needed in a startup are a) burnrate and b) how much is left at the bank. Nothing else. Profitability or such do not matter until the startup team has verified the business model. When the model is verified, the company will actually deliver a valid value proposition for the their customer segments.
Do the customer development
Please, do not waste time on business plans. No business plan will ever stand the test of an initial customer encounter. This is often the first fatal flaw. The second flaw is to think all the imaginable features should be in the product. Learn to go lean and have just minimal viable feature set to test your assumptions. If your assumptions are correct, you should have no problems to add revenue to pay for the future development. If not, it is time to go back to the drawing board and tweak the model a bit.
Steve Blank thinks that many startups fail because they found no customers. Not because they could not deliver what the technical feature set failed. The startups just ended up building "a house where nobody wanted to live". So like the fighter pilots in "Top Gun", the startup founders have to move fast with limited resources. They have to do decision calls with limited amount of data. Essentially the thrills come through those decisions made blindly, with gut feelings. Just remember, your gut feeling will only emerge by talking to the customers and developing from there.
Most importantly, remember to find and document "what have we learned about customers and what is our story". That is what makes headlines.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Rush only to have a great product
Business
"What are you waiting for?" That is something many pro-entrepreneur individuals say when you have an idea or would like something to be better. I completely agree, that yea "What are you waiting for!". Just do it. After that, everybody starts talking you should go lean, fail fast and learn while doing it. This way there might be better chance to find a fit for the market and start collecting those dimes worth more than variable costs per unit sold.
Therefore, just as an idea: When you start your business, there is an immense rush to get stuff done. It stresses you out in the nights, gets you a positive rush the next and anxiety the day you look into the business' bank account. And the latter one is the one you are rushing for.
Be the first in the market...er...not
Be the first in what you do? Well, I don't think so. You might have heard the praises for blue ocean strategy. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue ocean as a strategy is correct, but it often is mixed with the idea of being the first.
It is true that you have many advantages if you execute an blue ocean strategy. But the advantage does not come from being the first.
The gold rush
So, what is the key when you go out and start your business? I would argue that is it the rush to have a great product. You are definitely in a rush, especially every time you look into your bank account. Eric Ries argues that an entrepreneur’s greatest advantage is their obscurity. If your first product sucks, at least not too many people will know about it. But that is the best time to make mistakes, as long as you learn from them to make the product better.
Therefore, the rush is to have a great product that creates a blue ocean before you run out of money.
"What are you waiting for?" That is something many pro-entrepreneur individuals say when you have an idea or would like something to be better. I completely agree, that yea "What are you waiting for!". Just do it. After that, everybody starts talking you should go lean, fail fast and learn while doing it. This way there might be better chance to find a fit for the market and start collecting those dimes worth more than variable costs per unit sold.
Therefore, just as an idea: When you start your business, there is an immense rush to get stuff done. It stresses you out in the nights, gets you a positive rush the next and anxiety the day you look into the business' bank account. And the latter one is the one you are rushing for.
Be the first in the market...er...not
Be the first in what you do? Well, I don't think so. You might have heard the praises for blue ocean strategy. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue ocean as a strategy is correct, but it often is mixed with the idea of being the first.
It is true that you have many advantages if you execute an blue ocean strategy. But the advantage does not come from being the first.
The gold rush
So, what is the key when you go out and start your business? I would argue that is it the rush to have a great product. You are definitely in a rush, especially every time you look into your bank account. Eric Ries argues that an entrepreneur’s greatest advantage is their obscurity. If your first product sucks, at least not too many people will know about it. But that is the best time to make mistakes, as long as you learn from them to make the product better.
Therefore, the rush is to have a great product that creates a blue ocean before you run out of money.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Analysis of Business Ecosystems
Business
Yesterday I was at a TIVIT next media event, listening to for example Burton Lee from Stanford University. However the most interesting keynote came from Saku Mäkinen, a PhD and Tampere University of Technology professor. And it was about Ecosystems.
Ecosystem Properties
Ecosystems in the nature are about energy flow. Similar idea should be applied to to the business ecosystems, where the energy flows through all the organizations and aims to add value to the end user, argues Mr. Mäkinen. Ususally ecosystems are extremely messy systems (note that these are still organised systems!) and works best if the players are striving towards similar value adding goals. Disruptions, both innovations or market cycles, often break the value adding chain and requires heavy adaptation from each organisation involved, expecially the so called keystone or dominator organisations.
Key points:
- Ecosystems are hierarchical systems
- Ecosystem's organisations have interdependence on each others
- Ecosystems have to be goal oriented
- Ecosystems have modular approach to organize itself
- Ecosystems have to a feedback process in place to enable evolution
Evolution of Ecosystem
Ecosystems tend to organize itself around a certain technology, manufacturing or service process. Mr. Mäkinen says this core element needs to be build down the system as far as possible to make it worthwhile. However, depending on the role of the organization, it can focus on certain niches and still be a very important part of the ecosystem.
According to Mr. Mäkinen, the ecosystem have 3 possible roles: Keystone or Dominator and Niche. Great ecosystems are organic, with no added 'preservaties' or non-natural (for the ecosystem) ingredients. Growth usually evolves around certain roles.
Main role is Keystone player who acts as a source of income and energy for the rest of the ecosystem. This organization is thus usually facing the consumers and needs to have a very need knowledge of the market's needs. This main role is usually taken few big organizations within the markets. These roles are usually created in a heterogenous, fragmented and lucrative markets.
Dominators are similar to Keystone players, but do strive to control the ecosystem to a much higher degree. These organizations need to have massive resources to both create stable energy flow and to adapt on market disruptions. And they need to have even deeper knowledge of the market's needs than Keystone organisations. Usually Dominators evolve in market that are homogenous, mature and lucrative.
The bulk of the ecosystem will consist of specialized niche organization that fulfill a certain role to serve the keystone or dominator roles. The strength of niche is focus, that generates higher productivity and better quality. Therefore keystone/dominator organisations tend to work with these organisation, rather than maintaining all the required parts of the ecosystem themselves. Through innovations, niche players might evolve into keystone / dominator roles.
It is all about the end user!
Mr Mäkinen pointed out that quite often, organisations tend to forget that ecosystem's energy flows towards the end user. The aim of this energy is not to work to the end user, but for the end user. As Charlie Leadbeater has said, ecosystem, like any system, that is self-interested works to you, not for you.
Short summary:
- Ecosystem leadership is no guarantee for advantage nor profits
- Nothing last forever as innovations can disrupt everything
- End user value adding is a focal point. Remember to work for the end user.
Yesterday I was at a TIVIT next media event, listening to for example Burton Lee from Stanford University. However the most interesting keynote came from Saku Mäkinen, a PhD and Tampere University of Technology professor. And it was about Ecosystems.
Ecosystem Properties
Ecosystems in the nature are about energy flow. Similar idea should be applied to to the business ecosystems, where the energy flows through all the organizations and aims to add value to the end user, argues Mr. Mäkinen. Ususally ecosystems are extremely messy systems (note that these are still organised systems!) and works best if the players are striving towards similar value adding goals. Disruptions, both innovations or market cycles, often break the value adding chain and requires heavy adaptation from each organisation involved, expecially the so called keystone or dominator organisations.
Key points:
- Ecosystems are hierarchical systems
- Ecosystem's organisations have interdependence on each others
- Ecosystems have to be goal oriented
- Ecosystems have modular approach to organize itself
- Ecosystems have to a feedback process in place to enable evolution
Evolution of Ecosystem
Ecosystems tend to organize itself around a certain technology, manufacturing or service process. Mr. Mäkinen says this core element needs to be build down the system as far as possible to make it worthwhile. However, depending on the role of the organization, it can focus on certain niches and still be a very important part of the ecosystem.
According to Mr. Mäkinen, the ecosystem have 3 possible roles: Keystone or Dominator and Niche. Great ecosystems are organic, with no added 'preservaties' or non-natural (for the ecosystem) ingredients. Growth usually evolves around certain roles.
Main role is Keystone player who acts as a source of income and energy for the rest of the ecosystem. This organization is thus usually facing the consumers and needs to have a very need knowledge of the market's needs. This main role is usually taken few big organizations within the markets. These roles are usually created in a heterogenous, fragmented and lucrative markets.
Dominators are similar to Keystone players, but do strive to control the ecosystem to a much higher degree. These organizations need to have massive resources to both create stable energy flow and to adapt on market disruptions. And they need to have even deeper knowledge of the market's needs than Keystone organisations. Usually Dominators evolve in market that are homogenous, mature and lucrative.
The bulk of the ecosystem will consist of specialized niche organization that fulfill a certain role to serve the keystone or dominator roles. The strength of niche is focus, that generates higher productivity and better quality. Therefore keystone/dominator organisations tend to work with these organisation, rather than maintaining all the required parts of the ecosystem themselves. Through innovations, niche players might evolve into keystone / dominator roles.
It is all about the end user!
Mr Mäkinen pointed out that quite often, organisations tend to forget that ecosystem's energy flows towards the end user. The aim of this energy is not to work to the end user, but for the end user. As Charlie Leadbeater has said, ecosystem, like any system, that is self-interested works to you, not for you.
Short summary:
- Ecosystem leadership is no guarantee for advantage nor profits
- Nothing last forever as innovations can disrupt everything
- End user value adding is a focal point. Remember to work for the end user.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Promotion Day
Business
ArcticStartup made an article about our latest project Blog!flow. I also love the hectic feeling and excitement to see what people think about your work. Today created some buzz and a lot of new users.
My advice would be was to prepare better for the promotion. And make sure you are technically ready for the increased traffic or users. But more important is to release and prmote often. No use in creating the greatest product of all time and never releasing it. Overall a great day.
ArcticStartup made an article about our latest project Blog!flow. I also love the hectic feeling and excitement to see what people think about your work. Today created some buzz and a lot of new users.
My advice would be was to prepare better for the promotion. And make sure you are technically ready for the increased traffic or users. But more important is to release and prmote often. No use in creating the greatest product of all time and never releasing it. Overall a great day.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Style the City goes London
Creativity
Our creative project Style the City is going to London. First video uploaded today and now we are already covered style from Helsinki, San Francisco and London. I am super excited about this development and hope to see more cities added in the near future.
In Style the City I am interested to understand how the style of a city forms using an artistic approach of video. Using this approach, I wish to be able to create a network of videographers to work together on this and other projects
For more go to www.stylethecity.com
Our creative project Style the City is going to London. First video uploaded today and now we are already covered style from Helsinki, San Francisco and London. I am super excited about this development and hope to see more cities added in the near future.
In Style the City I am interested to understand how the style of a city forms using an artistic approach of video. Using this approach, I wish to be able to create a network of videographers to work together on this and other projects
For more go to www.stylethecity.com
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The State of Online Video [Infographic]
http://www.clicker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/YOUTUBE-NATION-12-2.png
Thanks to Jeffthomastech.com
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Future of TV Is Not On Cable
I re-post the blogpost on NewTeeVee. This just hits the spot.
The $100 cable bill is dead. The cable industry just doesn’t know it yet. What killed it was not just a combination of ad-supported online video sites and cheap subscription video services, but a fundamental inability on the part of TV programmers and cable companies to reach the next generation of consumers.
It’s still heady days for the cable industry. Cable, satellite and IPTV companies have continued to draw in new consumers to their pay TV services, and have even been successful in convincing existing subscribers to pay more for premium video content. But one needs only to look at audience demographics to see that big cable’s ability to draw in new viewers is waning, and that spells trouble for the TV industry as a whole.
CNET reports that the average age for broadcast TV viewers has risen dramatically over the past two decades. Marguerite Reardon writes:
Twenty years ago, the median age for ABC viewers was 37; today it’s 51. Fox’s median age has also jumped, from 29 to 44. And NBC and CBS, which have always had older viewers, are also seeing the median age of their viewers rise.
Even the NY Times, which took on the cord-cutting phenomenon with the headline “Plenty to Watch Online, but Viewers Prefer to Pay for Cable,” couldn’t ignore the obvious. Despite the fact that 677,000 new subscribers signed up for pay TV services in the first quarter, the number of young people that are willing to pay for cable continues to decline. According to a Times/CBS News survey “found that people under the age of 45 were about four times as likely as those 45 and over to say Internet video services could effectively replace cable.”
In other words, cable companies and broadcasters aren’t bringing in new customers. They’re just selling more stuff to existing customers.
Some companies have tried to remedy the model, with new services that are meant to appeal to the on-demand everywhere demands of the next generation. Comcast, Time Warner and others are pushing hard to make their cable programming available on-demand through broadband TV Everywhere services so that their subscribers can watch shows online at their leisure.
But so-called TV Everywhere services miss the point: the existing audience paying $100 a month for TV doesn’t care about watching True Blood on a laptop. And the people watching True Blood on a laptop aren’t going to shell out $100 for a cable subscription.
Consumer behavior is fundamentally changing, and it starts with the young people who don’t see the need for cable.
Today, there’s an entire generation of consumers that has grown used to turning to Netflix and Hulu for their video entertainment. You think you’re going to sell them a $100 a month cable subscription, when they’ve been doing fine just paying for broadband? The TV industry is going to need to find a way to reach those consumers — because there’s only so long you can cater to an increasingly aging audience.
The $100 cable bill is dead. The cable industry just doesn’t know it yet. What killed it was not just a combination of ad-supported online video sites and cheap subscription video services, but a fundamental inability on the part of TV programmers and cable companies to reach the next generation of consumers.
It’s still heady days for the cable industry. Cable, satellite and IPTV companies have continued to draw in new consumers to their pay TV services, and have even been successful in convincing existing subscribers to pay more for premium video content. But one needs only to look at audience demographics to see that big cable’s ability to draw in new viewers is waning, and that spells trouble for the TV industry as a whole.
CNET reports that the average age for broadcast TV viewers has risen dramatically over the past two decades. Marguerite Reardon writes:
Twenty years ago, the median age for ABC viewers was 37; today it’s 51. Fox’s median age has also jumped, from 29 to 44. And NBC and CBS, which have always had older viewers, are also seeing the median age of their viewers rise.
Even the NY Times, which took on the cord-cutting phenomenon with the headline “Plenty to Watch Online, but Viewers Prefer to Pay for Cable,” couldn’t ignore the obvious. Despite the fact that 677,000 new subscribers signed up for pay TV services in the first quarter, the number of young people that are willing to pay for cable continues to decline. According to a Times/CBS News survey “found that people under the age of 45 were about four times as likely as those 45 and over to say Internet video services could effectively replace cable.”
In other words, cable companies and broadcasters aren’t bringing in new customers. They’re just selling more stuff to existing customers.
Some companies have tried to remedy the model, with new services that are meant to appeal to the on-demand everywhere demands of the next generation. Comcast, Time Warner and others are pushing hard to make their cable programming available on-demand through broadband TV Everywhere services so that their subscribers can watch shows online at their leisure.
But so-called TV Everywhere services miss the point: the existing audience paying $100 a month for TV doesn’t care about watching True Blood on a laptop. And the people watching True Blood on a laptop aren’t going to shell out $100 for a cable subscription.
Consumer behavior is fundamentally changing, and it starts with the young people who don’t see the need for cable.
Today, there’s an entire generation of consumers that has grown used to turning to Netflix and Hulu for their video entertainment. You think you’re going to sell them a $100 a month cable subscription, when they’ve been doing fine just paying for broadband? The TV industry is going to need to find a way to reach those consumers — because there’s only so long you can cater to an increasingly aging audience.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Content Creators "Have No ROI" in Producing Videos Just for Their Own Destination
Business
We at Videoflow have been working heavily on this opportunity. Truly, on web you are connected by nature, therefore there is no reason to produce content just for yourself or for you own properties. As a content owner you should distribute, distribute and distribute!! And use Videoflow to help you distribute and monetise your content. I believe this way you are able to reach more and wider audience for your kick ass content. Makes sense, right?
Lets say you are a wineblogger producing high quality content. Or you are a production house creating a 15 episode show for TV. Would it be nice to get access to different medias by someone else working for you without fee. Thou taking a cut from your advertising sales. Cooperation on the distribution benefits the whole ecosystem.
Here is a link to the Beet.TV article about it.
We at Videoflow have been working heavily on this opportunity. Truly, on web you are connected by nature, therefore there is no reason to produce content just for yourself or for you own properties. As a content owner you should distribute, distribute and distribute!! And use Videoflow to help you distribute and monetise your content. I believe this way you are able to reach more and wider audience for your kick ass content. Makes sense, right?
Lets say you are a wineblogger producing high quality content. Or you are a production house creating a 15 episode show for TV. Would it be nice to get access to different medias by someone else working for you without fee. Thou taking a cut from your advertising sales. Cooperation on the distribution benefits the whole ecosystem.
Here is a link to the Beet.TV article about it.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, July 02, 2010
Videoflow beta phase (sample video)
As some of you might know, we have been busy developing Videoflow, an online video distribution and monetization platform. For more, go check out www.videoflow.com (in Finnish at the moment). We are currently testing the service out with certain bloggers.
Here is a link to Pupulandia lifestyle-blogger, where you can see the service in action. http://pupulandia.indiedays.com/2010/06/22/pikavisiitti-my-o-my-putiikkiin/
Monday, May 03, 2010
Content's Three Pillars
Business
Video content involves production, publishing and distribution. More dedicated followers, viewers or fans you have, the more you should focus on Production and less on Distribution
Production is a commodity and expensive; hence why both companies are trying to inject more science into the art to drive down the price of production. A low cost approach can maintain a high enough quality with text content, but with videos it’s more challenging. Moreover, a totally freelanced production team can also have some iota of consistency across text content, but with videos, nothing looks alike and marketers don’t feel any confidence in running ads. Quality content requires consistency. If a media planner agrees to spend $1M on a website running ads next to certain content, it assumes that the content the publisher produces tomorrow will be as good (and similar) to what it sees on the site today. A freelance model does not guarantee consistency and a UGC platform guarantees that it won’t be, especially with video.
Publishing (i.e., building a destination) is a challenge. Demand Media doesn’t have a destination but has a lot of eyeballs through its many sites; AOL meanwhile still has oodles of traffic and in addition to the AOL.com portal has many smaller niche sites with the potential to drive traffic too. Here, we see a divergence between Demand Media and AOL. On the one hand, AOL really does not need to focus purely on search traffic because it has traffic from its sites. Demand Media, however, has a more byzantine traffic pattern on its many sites, so I can understand the focus (and need) to focus on search traffic. However, search traffic is “in and out” and not the kind of engagement that branded marketers look for.
Distribution is increasingly fragmented, to the extent that even AOL is migrating from the one size fits all portal to the multiple web properties, and Tim Armstrong citing “fragmentation is our friend”.
Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/10/aol-demand-media-content-farm/#ixzz0mqXnuM7L
Video content involves production, publishing and distribution. More dedicated followers, viewers or fans you have, the more you should focus on Production and less on Distribution
Production is a commodity and expensive; hence why both companies are trying to inject more science into the art to drive down the price of production. A low cost approach can maintain a high enough quality with text content, but with videos it’s more challenging. Moreover, a totally freelanced production team can also have some iota of consistency across text content, but with videos, nothing looks alike and marketers don’t feel any confidence in running ads. Quality content requires consistency. If a media planner agrees to spend $1M on a website running ads next to certain content, it assumes that the content the publisher produces tomorrow will be as good (and similar) to what it sees on the site today. A freelance model does not guarantee consistency and a UGC platform guarantees that it won’t be, especially with video.
Publishing (i.e., building a destination) is a challenge. Demand Media doesn’t have a destination but has a lot of eyeballs through its many sites; AOL meanwhile still has oodles of traffic and in addition to the AOL.com portal has many smaller niche sites with the potential to drive traffic too. Here, we see a divergence between Demand Media and AOL. On the one hand, AOL really does not need to focus purely on search traffic because it has traffic from its sites. Demand Media, however, has a more byzantine traffic pattern on its many sites, so I can understand the focus (and need) to focus on search traffic. However, search traffic is “in and out” and not the kind of engagement that branded marketers look for.
Distribution is increasingly fragmented, to the extent that even AOL is migrating from the one size fits all portal to the multiple web properties, and Tim Armstrong citing “fragmentation is our friend”.
Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/10/aol-demand-media-content-farm/#ixzz0mqXnuM7L
Friday, April 30, 2010
Online Video Advertising to increase 35% in 2010
On Beet.TV blog they say, online video is the fastest growing sectors in advertising, with spending expected to be up nearly 35 percent this year, says Geoff Ramsey, CEO of market research firm eMarketer.
This poses some interesting points. Online video is really the fastest growing sector in online advertising and has some real meaning for paying customers. Still, despite the rapid rise, the medium faces challenges in technology and content quality.
According to my own knowledge, I have learned that the challenges are:
- How to produce quality content
- How to distribute the content to generate good enough reach
- How to develop more intuitive technology
- How to target your target group better
Two latter ones are on acceptable level by know. Currently media are wondering how to solve the two first points. Well, we are developing a service this, check it out: Videoflow
This poses some interesting points. Online video is really the fastest growing sector in online advertising and has some real meaning for paying customers. Still, despite the rapid rise, the medium faces challenges in technology and content quality.
According to my own knowledge, I have learned that the challenges are:
- How to produce quality content
- How to distribute the content to generate good enough reach
- How to develop more intuitive technology
- How to target your target group better
Two latter ones are on acceptable level by know. Currently media are wondering how to solve the two first points. Well, we are developing a service this, check it out: Videoflow
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Strategy In Online Video Syndication
While many video publishers seek the widest possible distribution of their videos through an embeddable player and Media RSS, some, like HealthiNation and Virgin Media, are using a syndicated player which is placed on specific sites.
Controlling the "off domain" strategy is important for many publishers: Some are cautioned about where their videos will appear, often reflecting the concern of advertisers. For others there are rights issues with their content.
So what is the difference to Embeddable players?
With a traditional embeddable player, people really think about viral syndication where a consumer sort of takes the video and embeds it maybe in their personal blog or MySpace page or something to that effect. What we've found is a really effective strategy for content owners is for them to build sort of trusted relationships with distributers--be it very large portals like AOL Video or niche websites that have a really valuable audience. For them to build that relationship with them and to package specific content that they deliver, you know, through a platform like Brightcove, directly through those websites. That really becomes a safe environment for them to build audience off of their own web properties.
Controlling the "off domain" strategy is important for many publishers: Some are cautioned about where their videos will appear, often reflecting the concern of advertisers. For others there are rights issues with their content.
So what is the difference to Embeddable players?
With a traditional embeddable player, people really think about viral syndication where a consumer sort of takes the video and embeds it maybe in their personal blog or MySpace page or something to that effect. What we've found is a really effective strategy for content owners is for them to build sort of trusted relationships with distributers--be it very large portals like AOL Video or niche websites that have a really valuable audience. For them to build that relationship with them and to package specific content that they deliver, you know, through a platform like Brightcove, directly through those websites. That really becomes a safe environment for them to build audience off of their own web properties.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Nearing the tipping point
In this blog post, Jason Glickman, CEO of Tremor Media tells us how we are nearing the tipping point with online video advertising. The point where Online Video is becoming a major part of the media mix.
Yes, online video has garnered enormous buzz – and venture investment dollars – but the medium has yet to secure much more than a sliver of the $65 – $70 billion advertisers spend annually on television spots.
Until now.
Now I would not be so bold as to call “time of death” on the television model. In fact, with all due respect to Julia Louis-Dreyfus, I think reports of TV’s death are greatly exaggerated. Viewership is as high as it’s ever been and the medium will (and should) receive the lion’s share of advertising dollars now and in the near to mid-term future.
But I do believe that when we look back years from now, the period starting from the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010 will be remembered as the turning point for online video advertising.
Yes, online video has garnered enormous buzz – and venture investment dollars – but the medium has yet to secure much more than a sliver of the $65 – $70 billion advertisers spend annually on television spots.
Until now.
Now I would not be so bold as to call “time of death” on the television model. In fact, with all due respect to Julia Louis-Dreyfus, I think reports of TV’s death are greatly exaggerated. Viewership is as high as it’s ever been and the medium will (and should) receive the lion’s share of advertising dollars now and in the near to mid-term future.
But I do believe that when we look back years from now, the period starting from the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010 will be remembered as the turning point for online video advertising.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Despite Recession, online video is growing 40% in 2009
In Beet.TV interview, American eMarketer Senior Analysist David Hallerman, believes that online video is becoming a very important medium for advertising. He calls for longer content, thus there could be more ads.
“Overall, online video advertising will grow at a 40% clip this year and for the next few years, outpacing most other ad mediums, Hallerman said to Andy in the interview.
That increase would bring online video ad spending to $1.1 billion this year and $4.1 billion by 2013. Other estimates place total spending at a smaller amount: media agency Magna projects Web video will corral only $699 million this year and won’t reach $1 billion until 2011.
Despite the different projections, researchers agree that Web video will remain a rare bright spot and continue to outpace other mediums. But, the recession is still affecting Internet TV, and its growth this year is well below last year’s more than doubling of dollars, Hallerman pointed out”.
Well… in CityVice we wholly agree, thou the growth will also come from more focused short-form content. Relevancy is the key word.
“Overall, online video advertising will grow at a 40% clip this year and for the next few years, outpacing most other ad mediums, Hallerman said to Andy in the interview.
That increase would bring online video ad spending to $1.1 billion this year and $4.1 billion by 2013. Other estimates place total spending at a smaller amount: media agency Magna projects Web video will corral only $699 million this year and won’t reach $1 billion until 2011.
Despite the different projections, researchers agree that Web video will remain a rare bright spot and continue to outpace other mediums. But, the recession is still affecting Internet TV, and its growth this year is well below last year’s more than doubling of dollars, Hallerman pointed out”.
Well… in CityVice we wholly agree, thou the growth will also come from more focused short-form content. Relevancy is the key word.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Advertisers are following Online Video space
A Helsinki based media agency Dagmar, wrote about the use and future of online videos and web-tv. According to them, currently videos are the faster growing advertising platform online, with a market of $4,6 billion in US by 2013. European figures are very similar, as Tekes forecast (in finnish) online video to have €6 billion by 2013.
All these forecast and market researches echo what CityVice has been building on. We have some great news to tell you in soonish. We have come up with a great solution for the market, for media, advertisers and media agencies. Here are some points from the studies:
Online videos are perfect way to continue the advertising campaign shown on TV. One point to note however; most of the spots used in traditional TV does not work perfectly online. So for advertisers it is important to tweak the online ad according to needs. CityVice has the best knowledge on this data, so get in touch. :)
- 20% of 16-25 years do not own a TV.
- 40% of 16-25 years are watching TV & videos mainly online
- Online has much better tracking and reporting tool, therefore more meaninful advertising.
- Brand Lifting value is exceptional in online videos
- Click Through Rates in CityVice network is 4.5% - 5%, Interaction rates massive 40%.
- TNS Gallup has started a video tracking service. We are not familiar with this...yet that is :)
So overall online videos are booming, regardless of the recession times. CityVice is there for you, serving the needs of online video.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
2009: The year of Re-Designing the Content Business
Business
The disruptive force of the Internet has finally hit home. A quick look at some trends in this context:
* Newspaper revenues are seriously down (25% in some cases); and magazines and other print media are severely challenged, as well
* Digital music revenues are still going up, overall, but very very very far from enough to stop the free-fall of the recorded music industry, in general (approx 20%, globally, would be my estimate for 2008) *pennies for $$, see below
* DVD sales are declining, worldwide, prices are falling, too - and this will only accelerate next year
* Online video views and audiences are up a lot - but so far pretty much everybody has trouble making any real money with online video
The disruptive force of the Internet has finally hit home. A quick look at some trends in this context:
* Newspaper revenues are seriously down (25% in some cases); and magazines and other print media are severely challenged, as well
* Digital music revenues are still going up, overall, but very very very far from enough to stop the free-fall of the recorded music industry, in general (approx 20%, globally, would be my estimate for 2008) *pennies for $$, see below
* DVD sales are declining, worldwide, prices are falling, too - and this will only accelerate next year
* Online video views and audiences are up a lot - but so far pretty much everybody has trouble making any real money with online video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)