Uh? Skype…
The Economist recently ran an article on Meg Whitman’s, CEO of EBay, decision to purchase Skype and it isn’t pretty. Though it generally acknowledges EBay has to do something to keep up the huge growth #s, its apparant this wasn’t the right decision. The basic problem: Skype’s anti-business model. It was created to be as inexpensive and unprofitable as it could be for the advantage of the end-user.
Back to the Browser
Forbes recently ran an article on Firefox and its CEO Mitchell Baker, who is also a veteran of the Netscape-Microsoft wars of the 1990. No doubt, she still has no love-loss for Microsoft. The article points out the emergence of Firefox as relelvant and highly innovative (it was the first to put in security features, developed stumbleupon — sold to ebay for $75million, and developed del.ici.ous– sold to Yahoo for $15million).
Most interestingly, it points out that although most of Firefox’s $60 million revenue comes from Yahoo and Google in deals to use those sites as default homepages, with Google launching its own browser, the Google/Firefox relationship will be tested. What is so great about the article and apparantly about the CEO is this woman’s commitment to the democratization of the web, referring to Firefox as a nongovernmental organization with a revenue stream. And the time has now definitely come where Google can’t pretend to be anything but one of the bullies in the playground- maybe not as menancing as Microsoft, but just as formidable.
Interactive Advertising TV
What new TV protocols support interactive advertising? Is there a common standard, or several standards? Who are the major players in the game? Why wouldn’t it pay off for advertising to be just as you mentioned at the end of your previous post?
IPTV has taken on many different forms. There are the episodes of popular tv shows like Lost and the Office which are available on network websites. There are subscription-packages that include upwards of 300+ TV channels available from major telecom providers, like AT&T’s U-Verse, EchoStars VIP and Verizon. There is also Video on Demand, which is offered by most cable providers, and is controlled using a closed network infrastructure.
Finally, there is Internet Television, which utilizes the free public internet. There are free stations available (supported by ad networks) and then there are those utilizing a subscription-based business model, like Zipityzap.com and Microsoft TV, who promises to be the major player in IPTV growth in the US. Microsoft will even launch its next iteration of the XBox 360 with IPTV functionality.
Under the IPTV umbrella, IP Unicast refers to Video on Demand and the primary underlying protocol is Real Time Streaming Protocol. For LiveTV (also known as Multicasting) the primary underlying protocal is IGMP version 2.
The IPTV-related equipment space has been very competitive with Nokia Siemens, Motorola, Thomson, 2Wire and Asia Pacific-48% market share- all in the fray. This market is forecast to hit $13 billion in 2012 globally – versus the $560 million that hit in Q2 2007.
IPTV allows for interactive advertising in a way that standard TV does not. Primarily, it allows for customization of ads based on location or viewing habits, content/ad comingling for high relevancy, interactive opportunites to click for more information or for easy-to-click-through for more info prompts, and potential click-through business models similar to Google Adwords.
As IPTV has grown, so have the IPTV advertising solutions. Companies like Arris Gorup, BigBand Networks, Harmonic and Motorola provide slicers and ad servers which effectively generate an output video stream from one or more input streams and
play the commercials at the right moment, simultaneously. A much more thorough description is found here.
An example of what IPTV based advertising will look in the future from YouTube can be seen here:
My concern with all this target and context is the man power. It takes a lot of creative brainpower and budgeting to create the necessary advertisements and content to be truly targeted. Content is king and even if you’re targeting is perfect, if the creative itself is lacking results will ultimately unravel.
Tear down these walls…what walls?
I recently came about a really interesting article on the web from a college newspaper in Louisiana, Tiger Weekly. The article recaps some nuggets from the Virtual Worlds Conference in San Jose, developers which include a push to promote virtual worlds through existing television shows to expand audiences beyond the tech-savvy and front-runners. Not only is Laguna Beach: the Real Orange County (the popular MTV show) doing it, but also the exceedingly more cr0ss-age-generational CIS, which is planning on allowing users to login to Second Life to play an investigator
. More interestingly, out of the article was the idea of “interoperability between the competing interfaces,” which would allow users to travel there.com and Second Life and others. Which raises the question: would one virtual world be enough?
Everything contextual
Way back when I would put houseads for subscriptions into email newsletters or on the website itself, I learned quickly that the more something didn’t look like an advertisement, the higher the click-through rate. No doubt, a bit of that has been responsible for the tremendous success of adwords. It doesn’t look much like an ad and its relevant (especially to the searches).
Now all advertisers – and formats of media – are searching for that same ‘contextual’ relevance. A recent Adweek article points out how video advertisers are trying to figure out the right way to go about creating video spots (is it really worthwhile to create 2 sets of creative – tv and internet?), while agencies are trying to push publishers to increase capabilities for ‘contextual targeting. This is “where an advertiser “overlays” a spot during a streaming video clip that relates to a particular aspect of the clip (e.g., a travel marketer offering a discounted vacation package to a user who selected a news item featuring that same destination). ” I am not so sure if agencies more about concern for the end-user, or just a way to put some sheep’s clothing on the average advertising wolf. With the proliferation of internet sites and video online, I don’t see how content will be able to be customized online in any more cost effective manner than on TV — why don’t we see more targeted ads on TV? I assume because it doesn’t pay.
Free Software from Sun
In looking at ways that companies configure their systems, it beomes clear that decisions make earlier in the process has ripple effects on later decisions. On businessweek.com, a recent article outlines Sun’s new business model: give away software for operating systems free to sell hardware that runs off that software. The article however questions whether Linux and Windows have already lapped Sun in terms of relevancy and market share.
