famebook™

To Journalists - You may have more power than you think! - Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?"

Video from: Web 2.0 Summit 09: "Discussion: Whither Journalism?" via SVW

Response:-

I've watched the VIDEO ABOVE and with the advantage of humility and objectivity, I think the overall solution/ likely outcome of all this is clear and I can't believe it wasn't immediately obvious to the panel:

Firstly, being a strong advocate that all great success comes from people not corporations, then surely it is logical to look at all journalists as individual monetizable channels. This model then defines the structure, reward and audience loyalty for the traditional newspaper brands as agents and caretakers of those revenue sources. (An Iraq based journalist would then be a channel within their 'sponsor/ host/ agent's branded environment, receiving a retainer or advance against royalties! Rather like a Record Company!)

Secondly this then creates the platform for a 'positive' upward trend where the various institutions WSJ, NYT etc. will proactively compete to attract the most popular writers in their genre. Extended of course, those journalists also become the audience's natural filters for Twitter et al realtime info.

Finally, and I've regularly been on record about this in the past, this creates a compelling and monetizable format for creating a 'club' type atmosphere where instead of a pay for content focus, audiences pay for membership to access that content and the channels. This membership provides for access, kindle et al downloads, some hard copy 'The Week' style summaries and maybe further added benefit too. In terms of branded entertainment and sponsorship of particular channels, I would then exclude all Google adsense and sell branded sponsorship packages for each journalists' channel. Top journalists will also get higher commissions/ royalties but the pool can also be afforded on a much wider basis to bloggers etc. Business journalists and channels would attract high end biz advertisers, entertainment channels would attract relevant brands etc. The niche value of the WSJ and NYT then becomes a consumer statement. (I am a proud MEMBER of the WSJ etc...)

I know this may describe in some sense what is happening naturally on some sites, but instead of everyone moving towards aggregation, perhaps there is more money and security in locking down some of those those brands and promoting the individual journos based on their experience etc. Imagine all the long standing Newspapers locking down their IPR and by implication making a clear statement that any content aggregated via Google or anyone else is inferior and unsubstantiated. It would force Google to re-negotiate its inclusion and access to any respected content!

If these guys don't do something like this, then eventually all these journalists will simply move over to Demand Media or similar and create their own channels, and Demand will eventually become uniquely able to own the whole thing! Conversly of course, Richard Rosenblatt could potentially partner with all the main global Newspapers and offer a platform for that model and totally usurp Google altogether!

Wouldn't that be big news?

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times!"

RESPONSE TO:- "Why Demand Media is Worth More Than the New York Times". Peter Kafka - All Things D

My response:

Peter,

Nice article. I understand Bruce’s response above, but imho it’s reactionary and though in the moment may have merit, it is based on too narrow a vision.

The latter ‘vision’ being the operative word…Richard has seen that traditional media isn’t necessarily broken, it is just going through a Star Trek style transporter and is still all in pieces mid journey. His model is based on the notion that all the pieces will still come back together on content and we are gradually seeing the evidence of that materialise.

DM have placed themselves at the forefront of that whilst all eyes are still on pure user-generated models and cheap self-serve advertising. DM are the biggest single contributor of content to You Tube for example.

If FB holds a valuation of 6.5bn which has evidently decreased from more than twice than that, then in a recession, my bets are on a more modest but tangible valuation slowly going upwards. DM’s assets may be of varying IP value, but they are genuinely all owned and paid for. The big social networks, only ‘own’ the inconvenience of their users migrating away, not the content itself.

I hope Richard hold’s on to his baby for a few years so his vision is truly born out. Personally I’d invest in whatever he does now or next!

Jan

More information about Demand Media at Demand Media Website

"My Quest For A Personal Dashboard" - Brad Feld - my response...

My Quest For A Personal Dashboard - Brad Feld - my response... (Original Article Here!)

Brad, this is the digital nirvana question, but I would suggest that what you think you want, isn't actually going to be what you want...at least not yet. (Certainly in terms of investment areas!)

I have exactly the same dilemmas, and suspect we could both use existing tools to facilitate most of the above. There is one key issue, though highlighted of late, which is 'trust'. I only have the privacy of one business (about to launch a highly disruptive model and with some key players) to worry about, but you have many. Are you really confident in a future where all your dialogue, social interaction, facts and figures are cloud hosted by one provider? I'm certainly not. It is that reason I stick with Exchange not Gmail and store my financials et al locally.

I think the next big business model is for the provision of a tangibly private hosted solution, perhaps with a new universal encryption model which convinces me as a consumer that all my data can only be accessed by myself or those I choose. Only then might I be tempted to lock my life into one dashboard. Maybe Dell et al, could have a new lease of life, providing personal servers, which operate in a cloud environment, protected by firewalls and multiple encrypted offsite back ups. In other words, the box becomes your personal privacy wall.

The other big thing is filtering, which again I think needs to come first. Tons of news and entertainment sources will inevitably die and then a handful of feeds will provide personally filtered versions of what matters to us. We are working on that at Famebook, where apart from our 'famous people & famous brands' tag, we are also focused on subjective and not objective content, which we believe is the next huge shift in media.

Hope that makes sense...

To Traditional Publishers - Create tribes, amalgamate or die...

Previously, a few scoops, exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

In my humble opinion there are only two ways out and that's to amalgamate print brands on a less is more basis to fewer titles and/ or create online tribes of loyal members by packaging the top content to relate to hardcore audiences and then serve that mix as a membership option. (Monthly mag + platinum site access + unlimited Kindle et al downloads and a big hug from the boss = $x per month/ annum)

Personally, the reason I'd walk past the rack at a departures lounge is that I've already packed my laptop with all the best of what I care about, so paying for some dead trees just makes me even more guilty for flying in the first place. Noone can fix that in a traditional way...and as for charging for content Rupert, it's like me submitting an invoice to Facebook for using my content to sell ads around...kinda pointless!

Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines” - How stupid is that!

Response to nice Mashable article by Barb Dybwad - Print Publishers May Create a “Hulu for Magazines”

I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance, but what traditional publishers seem to be conveniently overlooking is that there has been a metaphorical earthquake at the foundations of their whole business model and this has nothing to do with Craig's List or Google poaching their classified advertisers either.

Previously, a few exclusives, timely features and a smattering of sexy imagery could lure an audience who would perhaps forgive what is typically a majority chunk of otherwise irrelevant content and advertising, which collectively provided a sense of mass and value in your hand. Online audiences no longer care about all the accompanying bulk and are only interested in the top slice of relevant content and can now skim that selectively in a relative instant. Without that 'captured' set of eyeballs, an online version of the same thing can't hope to deliver any advertising value, at least not in the same way.

A Hulu for Magazines is as ridiculous as Murdoch charging for news content and is in my opinion tantamount to an online graveyard for a heap of publishing brands who, with some lateral thinking, (shown by UK Telegraph, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, WSJ) could actually re-align themselves and thrive. In reality, they'll find that each of them only has about 10% of their normal print content with any sustainable audience appeal and the ad value will be dumbed down and therefore diluted/ shared to boot. If this is their chosen path, why not call it what it is; which is an amalgamation of lots of brands under one roof and into one online magazine brand..... which I suppose may get bought cheap by Google or Microsoft one day anyway... and if they're really lucky, seemingly like so many these days, it will be at a greatly over-inflated price.

Kill CPM - Shelby Bonnie/ Kill Advertising - Jan Simmonds

Response to "Let’s Kill The CPM" by Shelby Bonnie on TECHCRUNCH

Great article – very Jerry Maguire! Maybe it’s not just time to kill the concept of CPM, but also that of ‘advertising’ in its current guise. Rather like the brave move of finally accepting that the ‘paper’ in ‘newspaper’ is no longer relevant in helping to define those publishing brands’ future, the term ‘advert’ may also now be redundant in the face of what is already becoming ‘participatory social influencing’ between brands and consumers, wherein one may perhaps look to a more positive future again because the pricing can be more geared to actual revenue based results and not just potentially irrelevant numbers of eyeballs.

I still think that the core influence on purchasing is peer consensus and strong brand value. The rest imho is just mud on the wall and currently feels like a bunch of random graffitti. User generated content will only feed user generated ad models, but bring branded content into the mix and then things get exciting. Humbly J

For more dialogue with agencies, brands, celebrities and investors on this subject and our place in it, door is always open via jan [at] famebook [dot] com... Also happy to stand up and be different at relevant events!

Bob Iger - 'People Will Pay for Quality Content' - Yes, but......

My Response to THE WRAP article - READ HERE!

Hi Sharon,

It always amazes me how big media who, on the face of it, should have the luxury of objectivity still sees things so subjectively!

Years ago now, I remember having a conversation with a rather well known head of one of the big record labels who was very excited that their new corporate website project would offer people the chance to buy records online. I said at the time the idea was flawed because it would be impossible to attract audiences to all the labels individually and sure enough Napster ensued not so long afterwards and subsequently iTunes!

This period in terms of video, news and even social content is no different and all of the big media brands are currently kidding themselves that they can create chargeable ecosystems within their own portfolios. It is true that people will pay for quality content and also that big advertisers are also yearning for an elegant online home, but it won't be found within any individual platform owned by one media company, rather with the most successful aggregators of that content! (No prizes for guessing who I'm hoping one of them is!)

I think Bob Iger is a pretty smart guy, but he's trapped by corporate responsibility and duty to Disney, as are the innovators at TW, Newscorp et al to their own brands. The principals are sound, but even in the clouds, it's all about execution. Regretably I anticipate more AOL type disappointments before these guys learn how to be portably profitable rather than waste so much time and money competing with each other building fortresses.

In the meantime of course it leaves the floor wide open for us humble entrepreneurs who are unencumbered by the confines above. Perhaps they should all rally round and invest more in us and save themselves further expensive mistakes!

Jan [at] famebook [dot] com

PS. Nice offices btw

The Internet Is Dead (As An Investment) - or is it?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE - WSJ - James Altucher

The great FRED WILSON's response - HERE!

My humble take:

Thanks Fred - Some great 'Yang' to a load of old 'Ying' - I replied to the same article -

A great sensationalist headline maybe, but a totally flawed argument nevertheless. It isn't the internet as an investment that is dead, more a coming to terms with the fact that millions of eyeballs doesn't, on current business models, equate to big returns and that those properties have been wearing the emperor's new clothes for far too long.

The smart money will however recognize that consumer loyalty is increasingly moving online and so far the big brand advertisers haven't really found a new home yet so they can follow suit. Opportunity abounds for investors in platforms which offer that new home as they will be the delivery mechanism for all media in the future. So far on an 80/20 rule, all the big online names have built businesses which don't and won't accommodate the rich 20% because of their format. (Look at the quality of advertising as a percentage on any of the above sites.)

Some of us feel there is a chunk of money in that 20% slice which has not yet been claimed and it has ours and our investors name on it.

Jan Simmonds - Founder/ CEO at famebook

RESPONSE TO: US Weekly Selling Inventory on Its Facebook Page! Let's not get too excited! ;-)

ORIGINAL POST - Inside Facebook

Though FB provides a great platform for us to communicate within, it is still wholly founded on our data. To that end; whilst prepared to accept the irritation of advertising on my profile without being paid myself, and in lieu of that service; if I now receive increasing invitations to be a 'fan' of something I don't want, continued annoying application requests or even more intrusive advertising of any sort, I will quickly seek a new home.

The elegant advertising dollar relies on environments which can give advertisers originality, style and relevance. The Catch-22 for Facebook and indeed Twitter of course, is that they are trying to create that off the back of data which is not theirs, exists in a fast moving environment and is in reality pretty asinine in value. If I were a Celebrity or Brand, looking to maintain the cache I had worked so hard to achieve in tradtional media, then I'd also be dubious as to whether large numbers of so called 'fans' actually translated into sustainable eyeballs on an ongoing basis and wonder whether leading advertisers may actually feel their brands are compromised in such a viral and unsophisticated sea of opinion which is also awash with cheap unfettered advertising alongside which they will inevitably be compared.

Most successful businesses follow an 80/20 rule where 20% of the top Clients pay for the remaining 80% which earn very little. In Facebook and Twitter's case, (and largely because they, unlike Google, have possibly arrogantly tried to monetize after the fact), I believe secretly they've arrived at a place where that 20% revenue opportunity doesn't actually exist within their current platforms and never will because of the very nature of them.

That's just my opinion of course, but I fear that the excitement of seeing 200m people connecting in one place is clouding many smart people's subjective judgement. Sure the Ashton Kutcher race and Mark/ Evan wowing Oprah is all very fun, but who really cares. Certainly not those with the big cheque books who I think in my opinion would be wise to keep their distance for some time to come, just in case this is another 'emperor's new clothes' model we may come to refer to as sub-prime advertising one day!

For my part, I always want to build something I actually own & earn Bill Gates kind of money so I can give it all away again and shall therefore keep focusing on the 20% and leave the 80% to others.

I think these issues will be resolved of course but I predict some interesting and unexpected partnerships/ mergers/ takeovers pretty soon before the heavily commited VC's realise even hyped IPO's won't deliver much return; as well as knowing of course, some new pretenders will arrive & steal everyone's thunder again!

In Facebook's case their smartest move is in my view not even within their own platform, but more about that another time!

JS

Dear Eric Schmidt @ Google/ YouTube,

"How YouTube could turn your 'Achilles' Heel' into a positive and probably bridge your relationship with traditional media in the process!"  (and hurry because Twitter might beat you to it as well!)

(Based on my new suggested advertising model - 'SENSATION MEDIA' - as highlighted by Britain's Got Talent's Susan Boyle this weekend!)

______________________________________

On the basis that I have a ring-fenced business model which we are developing, that I believe will in execution reward any objective insights I might have on subjects outside that scope, I feel compelled once again to profer an opinion on yet another seemingly obvious missed opportunity. I have geared this towards Google, because you are currently in the best place to make the changes and I suspect the timing could be most relevant.

To explain the thought process I have focused on one specific example as follows:

Like roughly 15 or 20 million other people in the UK this Saturday, I was watching Simon Cowell's 'Britain's Got Talent' with the family and though typically I usually also have half an eye on my Facebook, Outlook (sorry!) and the FT, I did catch the introduction of a woman called Susan Boyle, who at the age of 47 and looking like one of those pre-makeover disaster cases, seemed likely to fall pretty flat. The moment she sang however, the word 'sensation' sprung to mind and the panel confirmed it was one of the biggest surprises the show had yet produced! (VIDEO HERE!)

Later the next day, I duly updated my Twitter and FB status to a You Tube recording of her performance and at that stage she had already had 830,000 views. As at today that same version has had just shy of 5,500,000 views and probably 25,000,000 in all, taking into account other uploads!

I'd now like to point out that none of those 25,000,000 people, who were likely in a positive, happy and optimistic frame of mind, were shown an advert of any sort. Sure we'd all be irritated by anything that interrupted our pleasure directly, but I would have been very receptive to any brand association that was apparent within the window. Nokia's music phone, iPhone's, Android...whatever! But NOTHING? That just seems crazy to my unencumbered and objective mind!

In my humble opinion, your own Achille's Heal is your ability to own valuable quality relationships with the big chip advertisers/ brands who rely on style, elegance and exclusivity...and here it is staring you in the face! I call it 'Sensation Media' and you could so own it as a new genre of ad model. You have the mechanisms in place to react instantly if a video (or any media sensation) is taking off and if you do it right, you could also work with the networks and content providers, newspapers etc. to mutual advantage. If it were me, I'd do a deal with them to share ad revenues around particular examples like this one so as to encourage pre-airing (or pre-print in the case of a news item) notification to give you time to offer it out as a 'Sensation' opportunity to advertisers in advance. You could even sell the mutual opportunity jointly and turn your enemies into partners! All this also before you face increasing pressure from networks on copyright issues.

Susan Boyle will now inevitably be famous (and soon be profiled on www.famebook.com of course) and the moment of her discovery could be owned by one or a few brands, who would have paid handsomely to capture that privilege. The fact that you weren't 'on it' just seems like ripping up dollar bills to me, and in the face of claims that You Tube is a drain on your finances, this is surely just plain wrong! How many opportunities have gone the same way over the past couple of years? (I would strongly advise against adding them up, because you could have solved the world's economic crisis with the money lost, I suspect!)

It would cost you a tidy penny, but if you want me to come and sort this out, just let me know! I might even tell you some of the other ideas I've got!

Yours respectfully,

Jan

© 2009 Jan Simmonds