So, how is Twitter creating a valuable and new data corpus? At the highest level, Tweets are pieces of real-time data that users contribute to a database. I am not referring to the original Twitter use case of “I am enjoying a juicy burger for lunch.” I am referring, rather, to the emerging and powerful “use-cases” of users reporting on news, sharing and commenting on article links, uploading photos and video, promoting blog post headlines, tracking flight information, following financial news, etc. While these are activities that we have been doing for some time on the Web, there are several reasons why Twitter has managed to leverage these use-cases to create a new and unique data corpus:

1) Public Network: To date, these activities have primarily taken place in private networks – i.e., most people shared articles with their friends and family rather than with the overall public. Most social networks had been dominated by activity in private networks. The fact that the Twitter database focuses on public information amplifies its value because it increases the potential number of consumers for ti.

2) People-led: All of this “public” information is now being mapped to individuals rather than websites. This means that we can now use individuals to navigate information across the Web. As I have discussed in the past in the context of journalism, this is a powerful shift that suggests the emergence of “Intimacy” as one of the key differentiating elements of the Web as a commercial medium.

3) Frictionless: The experience of contributing information to the database requires little user involvement. As a result, the information is contributed in real-time and the database is constantly updating at an unprecedented speed. The myriad Twitter-centric tools (upload videos and photos, share links, etc.) make the overall experience for contributors to the Twitter database “frictionless.”

4) Optimized-for-mobile: The Twitter ecosystem of tools is becoming optimized around using phones to contribute information to the database. As the penetration of smart phones increases, the speed of growth of Twitter’ database will accelerate.

There are several key implications from the creation of this new “data corpus”. A whole new infrastructure of services/experiences needs to emerge to unlock the value of the data. This has already begun in a similar way as it happened in the Web in the mid nineties. Directory and search services lead the way (e.g., Summize, Collecta, Oneriot). Uploading tools and analytics companies follow (e.g., 12 seconds, Twitpic, Twitvid, Bit.ly). New user interfaces start to be tested (e.g., Twubs, ExecTweets, StockTwits). Lastly, a monetization model/solution eventually emerges.

Thanks to its open approach, the overall Twitter ecosystem is developing at much faster speed than we have seen before. While Twitter remains small in terms of number of employees as a company, its ecosystem of services is growing at rapid speed. Judging by the size of the Techcrunch event, it is probably safe to say that the number of people involved in developing Twitter’s ecosystem of services may be more than 1000.

There is no guarantee that Twitter’s momentum will continue or that the service itself will become a permanent fixture of the Web experience in its current form. However, the real-time Twitter data corpus will likely stand the test of time and be one of the main differentiating elements of the Web experience going forward.

Upon my arrival at AOL, several leading technologists in the organization, who shared their thinking with me, identified AIM as one of the company’s most valuable assets. These technology thought leaders referred to it as a “messaging” platform. Messaging in this context did not mean communications, but rather “real-time” transport of data. Sharing files via AIM is a good example of this. Live chat is another one. In addition, AIM’s presence engine was consistently praised and was in high demand by outside parties who wanted access to that capability. At that point, AIM generated revenues via fees from Wireless carriers and advertising, which were in no way commensurate with the reach and scale of the platform. This is what prompted us to explore an “open” strategy. We wanted to further build scale and enable innovative functionality.

As we further explored opening AIM, we identified potential additional uses of the platform. Most of the use-case examples centered on the existing desktop application paradigm. Could we have a radio product developed which could link to the application? Could we use a third party developer to add video chat to the client? Could other applications leverage presence to enhance their services and drive incremental AIM usage? In looking back, while these questions were good, the use-cases we focused on the most involved retaining control over the main mode of consumption (the AIM client) and fostering the creation of services to add value to that client-driven experience. While our focus on user experience seemed reasonable at that time, we may have unintentionally capped the potential value of “opening” the platform by limiting the number of potential use-cases. AIM APIs were not designed to enable 3rd party developers complete freedom to create new user experiences but rather focus them on simply enhancing the existing experience.

Flashforward to today, Twitter embraced a “fully open” approach and has built a strong ecosystem of third party applications in a short period of time. While the value of Twitter and its ecosystem still remains a subject of much debate, one thing has become clear: Twitter has rapidly become one of the leading social media platforms as well as the leading real-time information engine on the Web. Both of these things seem pretty valuable and their open approach has played a key role in making that happen. Third party developers have used Twitter’s open API to develop solutions, which enable a broad set of  use-cases/user experiences,  from sharing links, to uploading videos and photos, to conducting real-time searches, to following categories of individuals, etc.  I venture to guess that many of the use-cases were not initially envision by the Twitter team when they first developed their core product. However, the success of their open efforts has taken them into new areas of functionality and opportunities to create value.

Early this year, it was reported that Jack Dorsey had conceived the idea of Twitter out of fascination with AIM status updates. This led me to consider what would have happened if we had fully opened AIM’s platform and enabled developers to create completely different user experiences leveraging the existing messaging infrastructure. Would AIM have become what Twitter is today? While contemplating this question is interesting, the important lesson is that the power of “open” platforms emanates primarily from enabling the creativity of the external marketplace to create new user experiences and thus new opportunities to capture value. Open platforms allow 3rd parties to finance innovative new products which leverage the existing technology infrastructure and thus foster the creation of rich ecosystems of applications. Eventually, these ecosystems create significant competitive advantage for a product platform as new applications begin to be built on top of other applications.

However, opening a consumer product platform often appears to be risky from a business perspective, especially for entrenched competitors who have fought hard to establish their position and user base. Companies, which fully open their platforms, run the risk of inadvertently giving away too much of their asset value. Thus, managing an open platform requires a clear understanding as to where the ultimately sources of value will be (e.g., data monetization, advertising network opportunity, etc.). One also should keep in mind that revenue opportunities for open platforms take some time to materialize (Think Facebook and Wordpress).

Having said that, the benefits of open platforms are easily seen from a user perspective (after all, more functionality/applications is better than less), and from a product development perspective — where being able to tap third party creativity to discover new user experiences (as we have also seen from the iPhone app store) can add significant value to a platform. Hence, my bias is increasingly towards opening more rather than less.

We are still in the early days of “open” consumer Web platforms and the rules of the road are still taking shape. I will try to codify these rules as I see them emerge.

It would be good to hear where you land on the openness scale.

To illustrate the revolution in the news consumption experience, I will share a personal experience from a couple of weekends ago following the news coming out of Iran. I first learned about the election protests when TV-channel surfing early Saturday morning.  I quickly abandoned the TV, turned my attention to my PC, and pulled up two news sites that I rely on for up-to-the minute news, Huffington Post and The Drudge Report. As I began to read the story, my appetite for additional information grew.  So, I went to Twitter Search to get more information, and there I received real-time updates and comprehensive coverage given the number of people, who like me, were following the story.

Once I found myself immersed in “#IranElection” a couple of interesting things happened. First, I found other sites/blogs which fellow Tweeters thought were doing a good job covering the story. There were several that stood out, including the Vigilante Journalist, NYT’s The Lede, and Twubs.com/#Iran Election. I was particularly glad to learn about Andrew Sullivan’s the Daily Dish. He was “live-blogging” the events from Iran in a way that I found pretty interesting. He was “curating” the tweetspehere and sharing what he thought were the most interesting tweets, adding videos from YouTube as they were uploaded, and posting links about interesting articles and news releases. He was updating the content every two to five minutes.

Second, this experience gave me a sense that I was as close to the story as I have ever been to the extent that I began to identify individuals in Twitter whose tweets I wanted to follow. Even though the overall “streaming” experience felt overwhelming at first, I was soon able to determine to whom I should be paying attention pretty quickly. I started to follow a couple of Iranians whose reporting on the events seemed accurate as far as I could tell. I determined this by matching their reporting to the video images that would emerge hours later.  Also, I have to confess that the Twitter community led me to find those people as it provided me with signals on whose reporting to trust via retweets, links and outright recommendations. After just a few minutes, I was getting “real-time” news coverage about the Iran elections protests. I have to say that my TV was still on in the background and I turned my attention to it a couple of times when CNN’s Christiane Amanpour commented on the day’s events.

There are several elements of my new news experience, which deserve to be called out:

- People Rather Than Brand: I found myself following more individuals rather than websites. The live-blogging experience from HuffPo’s Nico Pitney and Andrew Sullivan made me feel that I was sharing the experience with them rather than with the Huffington Post or The Atlantic. Certainly, in Twitter, I was following people, rather than news brands.

- No editor required: I found it particularly interesting that I was able to focus on facts and events that I thought were important rather than what an “editor” thought to be important.  I was creating my own storyline around the news event, relying on my judgment to filter the content I was consuming. This made consuming news a more involved activity but at the same time much more rewarding. For a big part of the day, I was “news hunting.” I guess it unlocked my investigative instinct.

- Bigger news appetite: As I got more involved with the story, my appetite for news grew. I kept on following the events on my blackberry after leaving home. I consumed news of the event for a solid 16 hours.

- Introduction of Live blogging to the masses: This is something that has happened in the digital media industry for several years now. Tech bloggers reporting Apple keynotes, conference gatherings, company layoffs, etc. I have always found the format to be really satisfying. Seeing this construct in action during the Iran election events prove to me that it will be part of the future of news.

- Use of tech tools: My news experience involved using a broad set of the ecosystem of Web tools such as Twitter and Google’s language translators, Twitpic, YouTube, Flickr, and Facebook among others.

This news experience may be unique due to the nature of the news event (as you may know, the international press was prevented from reporting on this event).  However, it does highlight how the news consumption experience is likely to evolve with the arrival of the real-time Web.

Exciting times are afoot for the newshounds in all of us.

This has led me to think about the potential for another explosion in real-time, “social video” sharing over the next few years. Today, social networking activity evolved primarily around “status updates” as a universal behavior.  While sharing pictures and video has also been part of social networking in recent years, the behavior has not yet turned universal. Video sharing has primarily involved TV show clips rather than “social video clips.” However, as new devices and software tools make the producing, editing and uploading video process much more “frictionless,” real-time, I expect social video broadcasting will increase in popularity within social networks.

Video is a powerful mechanism of communication.  I realized this several years ago through a service that a local TV station offered in my hometown. The channel set up video kiosks around town that allowed people to create short-form confessional-like content. The channel would package this video and integrate it into their programming. These videos allowed local community members to discuss social concerns, express grievances with government officials, use their singing talents to complain about city services and in some cases embody the culture of the city via jokes or poetry. The success of this initiative was driven by the fact that the process of creating these videos was completely painless. The local TV network had set up kiosks all over town where any individual could easily record their rant of the day.

Recently, several signs have heralded the advent of this new real-time, video era. A new generation of tools designed to increase the use of video as a form of communication have been introduced. 12seconds.tv is one of the first services which aims to provide a “Twitter-like” video service that enables people to easily broadcast video “snacks’ to the their communities of friends and followers.  I must confess that I found myself unable to think of anything that could in the 12 second window. Facebook’s partnership with UStream, which makes it easier for celebrities to stream video live from their profiles, appears to be another sign around real-time/live video broadcasting.

As video recording-capable phones are added to the mix, real-time, video sharing will accelerate. There are new tools such as Posterous that aim to make uploading videos via iPhones to social networks pretty frictionless. Several other services like Twitvid and Tweettube, are making sharing videos on Twitter as simple as Twitpic has done with photos.

Thus, I expect that over time the same way that people take a few minutes to “update their status,” they may decide to point and shoot at something they see with some voiceover commentary. Needless to say, “video” will always require a bit more involvement than “text.”

Nevertheless, I expect continuous innovation in this area and thus new tools and devices emerge that will enable the process of real-time, video broadcasting much more frictionless than it has ever been.

In the meantime, I will be honing my video communication skills with the help of my Flip Mino HD.

The recent aggressive push by cable and wireless operators to provide fast Internet access to the Web is finally paying off. Similarly, the rapid growth in the number of hotspots has contributed to the sense (or reality?) that Internet access is all around us. In my view, the icing on the cake has been the deployment of Wi-Fi experiences in airplanes. Go-Go wireless now makes flying from New York to Los Angeles, San Francisco or Miami a unique experience.  So, it seems that  ever-ready access to the Web is all around (albeit with some connectivity hiccups which I expect to decline over the next few years if not sooner).

One of the implications of persistent access to the Web is the fact that we can now stream digital content instead of downloading it. This is relevant because streaming content tends to offer a more compelling value proposition for consumers relative to downloads. In many cases, streaming-based products are ad-supported products and thus free to consumers.  In this category, I include music services such as Pandora, CBS Radio/Last.Fm and MySpace Music, and video services such as Hulu, TV.com, and most TV network sites. In other cases, streaming-based products offer compelling premium experiences for which consumers are willing to pay for the bundle. This segment is much more nascent, so these products have yet to prove their mass appeal but show promise. In this category I would include music service such Spotify and Netflix’s video offering on the Web. These premium offerings are particularly compelling to high-consumption users who value access to “comprehensive” libraries of content, “all-you-can-eat” pricing models, and accessibility across multiple devices. As access to the Web increases around us, the number of streaming-based offerings will expand.

This emerging trend will not result in the death of pay-per-download or pay-per use models. This revenue model will likely endure as a segment of consumers will continue to demand “full control and ownership” over their digital assets. However, the increasing availability of connectivity is chipping away at “portability,” which is one of the key elements of the value proposition of “paid downloads.” As a result, we may see a change in the consumption mix relative to the current analog model where retail sales account for a larger portion of revenues in music and movies rather than rental/subscription-based businesses. In television, consumers already prefer a model that can be replicated on a streaming basis. All of this suggests that we may see consumers of digital content preferring streaming-based models rather than ownership-based ones on the Web.

Hence, content owners may want to start experimenting with models, both premium and free, that are streaming-based rather than continue to emphasize “retail ownership”-centric models. This will allow them to understand how to ultimately maximize the value of their content. My sense is that the behavior of media consumers on the Web will become increasingly much more segmented than it is in the analog world. Therefore, identifying how to extract the most value possible from different user segments will be critical to succeed long-term. The set of offerings to consumers will likely need to be more diverse than it is today. Music has certainly proven that now with the myriad of models that have emerged from online radio to limited streaming to streaming with no portability, etc.

Personally, I find myself buying less downloads from iTunes and streaming more from legal and free Websites. I have to confess that the main reason for this has to do with my coast-to-coast travel and ensuing fascination with Go Go wireless.

This does not mean that I will not pay for streaming services, on the contrary, I think that overtime I will pay for them if the product experience, bundle offering, and price point are right. Delivering a compelling premium streaming solution is not easy but I believe it will happen over the next few years. I simply think that these offerings may prove more compelling than paid downloads.

As a consumer, I have never been a big fan of software “clients” or desktop applications, primarily thanks to the continuous frozen screens that have punctuated my experiences with “clients” throughout the years.  To cause further annoyance, many of these clients are difficult to uninstall. Although these downloadable applications were designed to provide a better experience, like many users, I grew to distrust them. The Web browser-driven experiences proved to be much more convenient, frictionless and more importantly, a less risky alternative.

This dislike for “clients” intensified during my years at AOL, where issues with the AOL application drove user dissatisfaction with the service as a whole. However, during this time, I also noticed an interesting usage phenomenon. Core AOL users appear to prefer the desktop application to the Web browser experience. Those users who were satisfied with the “client” found the experience much more tailored to their needs and overall much more efficient. The mail experience was speedier, IM integration was more intuitive, and content sharing felt more natural.

Many developers and entrepreneurs worked over the years to convince me about the advantages of desktop software over browser-driven services. Yet, despite any of the advantages that clients offer, most consumers were reluctant to download applications and seemed to prefer browser-based alternatives.  Client-based products/services would be challenged to meaningfully scale. During this period of time, we only saw a couple of applications that bucked the trend: Skype and iTunes.

However, consumer attitudes towards downloadable applications may be poised for change over the next couple of years. The following are some of the signs and drivers:

- Clients are becoming lighter (i.e., requiring less time to download) and richer thanks to Adobe Air and Microsoft Silverlight. These lighter applications tend to create fewer issues than their heavy versions from years ago. On this, my evidence is only anecdotal.
- The success of Apple’s app store for their portable devices appears to be making users comfortable once again with downloading applications. Firefox “plugin” framework may have also contributed to this change in attitude among users.
- The popularity of Twitter “clients” such as TweedDeck, Twhirl, and Twitterrific provide a strong signal of this trend. These clients account for a significant portion (20%+) of the overall usage in Twitter by some estimates.
- Popular web services such as Hulu are experimenting with downloadable applications to enable a better user experience.
- New businesses are being launched once again around client experiences:  Boxee (video) and Spotify (music). Both of these services are enjoying significant buzz among early adopters.

Based on these signs, I expect client applications to become more popular over the next few years.  The Web browser paradigm is somewhat limiting relative to client applications. If users begin to change their attitudes towards downloads, I would expect developers to grow increasingly comfortable focusing on  developing clients rather than browser-based experiences.  Clients can enable the creation of highly tailored experiences, faster services, and more robust/richer experiences overall. The growing proliferation of computing devices beyond the PC will probably stimulate further the popularity and adoption of clients/applications.

The next-generation Web will evolve around much more sophisticated services than the ones we have seen thus far. I am starting to believe that “clients” will play a big part on the new Web.

The dynamics of competition in digital media have proven to be dramatically different than in most other industries.  For example:
- Hyper-competitive environment where entry requirements are declining over time (i.e., less capital, open distribution, lower user switching costs, etc.);
- Limited sources of competitive advantage (e.g., most companies struggle to retain asset/capabilities advantages over any significant period of time);
- Rapid cycles of product innovation as the market continues to aggressively fund new projects;
- Nascent revenue/monetization models which have yet to mature (i.e., advertising solutions are undergoing a significant period of change as advertisers are unsatisfied with current offerings); and
- Increasingly difficult to secure user/customer ownership given the high degree of empowerment granted by digital tools;

However, these factors do not bear sole responsibility for the lack of strategic direction by digital media players. In many cases, strategies are developed to fit market conditions at a particular moment in time. Instead, companies should develop the “strategic framework” it needs to effectively adjust its focus without losing sight of long-term strategic goals. Digital media players need to pursue strategies that allow them to rapidly change course when business dynamics change.

Amazon is a good example of a company that has put in place a good strategic framework to drive long-term growth. Amazon’s strategic framework is built around a platform play launched in 2003 with the opening of its inventory data.  The offering now includes third-party vendors via Amazon Web Services. This platform play has given Amazon permission to enter the content distribution business as well as the device business. Underlying Amazon’s success is the fact that they have enjoyed a core business whose financial performance has enabled them to expand into these new areas. Google has enjoyed similar benefits thanks to their rich paid search revenue model.

Without a robust business model, creating a long-term strategic framework and executing against it are very difficult tasks due to the lack of appetite for quick change among key industry constituents. Industry participants remain uncomfortable with the idea that the strategic value of a particular business may only last for a period of years. Advertising networks are a good example. Five years ago, advertising networks offered significant value to large publishers/portals as they allowed them to complement their brand efforts and scale their advertising business. Today, display advertising networks have proliferated and are becoming more targeted to the point that publishers may be better off optimizing across them rather than owning them. Similarly, as digital products become increasingly hit-driven with consumers (as I have discussed in the past), businesses need to constantly be prepared to make changes to their product portfolios on a dime. Sometimes, businesses that were once engines of growth can quickly turn into legacy business in no time.

These unstable dynamics dictate the implementation of a strategic framework that can be malleable but which also provides clear objectives for the organization and external constituents. A good digital strategic framework should:

- Properly anticipate how the market is likely to evolve over the next three to five years;
- Adequately identify core focus areas (i.e., areas of specialization where the company will focus on building competencies) and be specific around elements of the differentiation vs. the competition (i.e., don’t ignore the nuances);
- Provide criteria to constantly prioritize product efforts and assess/review product portfolio composition — e.g., No.1 with consumers, high-margin, systems-driven, etc.; and
- Outline initiatives designed to minimize long-term risk (e.g., hedge against lack of success of core business).

Implementing this type of long-term strategy requires a consistent vision and a focused management team. It also requires being obsessed about business and product nuances as well as remaining pragmatic about changes in marketplace realities.

Most digital media companies have not done so over the past five years, which may explain the challenges the industry faces today.

The recent popularity battle between Ashton Kutcher and CNN on Twitter made this phenomenon evident. As of today, two million people are following Ashton Kutchner on Twitter. However, this is not just about celebrities. TV news people increasingly market their Facebook pages. Musicians constant promote their MySpace pages. Sports analysts promote their YouTube channels. Industry specialists blog and Tweet.

This phenomenon is not necessarily new. As communication tools have become easier to use over the past few years, these social leaders find it easier to build and maintain continuous relationships with their audiences. Social leaders can easily share their videos, daily musings, photos, thoughts on issues of interest, etc. Social networking tools have created a new class of users or, as I should say, broadcasters.

Today, the social leaders on the Web are similar to those in our “real” lives. They are our most gregarious friends, most extroverted colleagues or marketing-savvy celebrities. However, as these social tools evolve, I expect that new types of social leaders will be created and the overall numbers of social leaders will multiply. We have already seen leading gamers grow in popularity, good content curators sprout everywhere, new industry thought leaders expand their followings and “dorm-room” stars break through.

The implication of the emergence of online social leaders is that we will increasingly rely on them to help us sift through the abundance of “stuff” on the Web. They will increasingly play the role of curators of content and information for their communities. They will play the role of information editors across multiple dimensions of our lives. The amount of information available on the Web is overwhelming and so far most tools have proven inadequate to help mainstream users discover content and information on the Web that is of interest to them. Portals (Yahoo, AOL) and aggregators (Drudge Report and HuffPo) are still the most popular tools. RSS readers, while useful, have apparently failed to lure the masses.

Typical users need better forms to package information for them. Social tools have helped fill that gap. The next-gen tools such as Twitter, Friendfeed, Tweetdeck, and Twine are heading in the right direction. I expect these tools to continue to evolve and further enable “social leaders,” so that we, the happy followers, can more easily and efficiently discover and consume new content and information.

As web services and open platforms become more popular, the opportunity to change the ways Internet businesses operate is dramatic. Amazon and eBay (among the large players) pioneered these efforts starting in 2003. Today, with open source initiatives such as Wordpress and Open X, more and more companies are leveraging “openness” to enable rapid adoption and product customization.

In 2006, Facebook proved the attractiveness of the open model by opening its services to all developers. This move allowed Facebook to quickly enrich its offering with a diverse set of new features and functionality created by “friendly” third parties.

Recently, Twitter has gone a step further by allowing developers almost unrestricted access to its core functionality, thus enabling the rapid expansion of functionality that’s helping it address the emerging needs of its growing user base.  The best example of the power of Twitter’s open platform occurred a couple of weeks ago when Twitter announced their plans to launch real-time link search, only to learn that a startup called OneRiot was about to introduce an application with essentially the same functionality. The overall Twitter experience for consumers has evolved faster thanks to external product developers than if only the internal teams were responsible for it.

So, while technologists are fascinated with openness, I would argue that business folks should be equally excited. Open platforms allow the deployment of highly scalable and efficient operating models for Internet businesses.

The following are some of the key benefits that can be extracted by creating a service built around an open platform:

Product Development:  Companies can accelerate the development of new features and products. Open platforms allow internal teams within an organization to work more efficiently by eliminating bottlenecks and permission-based technology cultures (i.e., product developers need to ask for permission from most other product/feature teams to innovate). They also allow companies to easily tap external talent/specialists to accelerate product development initiatives.  The focus on highly customized/complex business development relationships should give way to allowing developers to have the freedom to easily access the platform to drive innovation. In other words, openness allows a business to easily access marketplace innovation. Implication: Greater ability to meet evolving consumer needs and deliver product innovation at a faster pace.

Distribution: Open platforms enable the creation of robust syndication initiatives (e.g., widgets, “share this” functionality). Allowing 3rd parties access to the platform can create a distribution army for the open company. This makes it easier for a product to easily become part of the overall Web ecosystem. Beyond syndication, open source can maximize distribution at a rapid rate and at a very low cost. Implication: internal product distribution teams would no longer be necessary.

Marketing: The need for traditional marketing decreases as consumers and the marketplace become more efficient arbiters of winners and losers. Given the lack of friction and inefficiency in the system, successful products do not need to spend on traditional marketing campaigns to secure consumer adoption or distribution. Companies need to seed new products with influencers through smaller, highly-targeted campaigns. As positive word of mouth spreads, open platforms allow early adopters/passionate users to drive adoption of the products. Implication: Limited need to spend on marketing.

Management: Open platforms allow management to distribute control over operations more readily. This leads to a more decentralized organization where the decision making power is in the hands of product owners and thus closer to the end user. Openness reduces the need for an organizational matrix. Smaller groups can be empowered to make decisions since they have limited impact on each other. This approach provides management greater flexibility as it can easily stop failing projects without impacting the rest of the organization.

Sales/Revenues: An open platform allows companies to easily test different monetization models, primarily performance based. Again, third party models can be evaluated with limited friction. This is particularly important because online revenue generating solutions continue to evolve. Implication:  Focus on developing internal capabilities around premium monetization and rely on third parties to handle performance unless your product requires a unique ad solution.

G&A: Lastly, openness allows organizations to be much more widely distributed. For some, distributed may mean inefficient. However, the reality is that distributed models tend to be much more efficient as you can engage productive talent pools, reduce the need for hand-off managers, and time-consuming decision-making processes. Implication: Focus on developing the right set of processes to enable a distributed model to succeed.

I increasingly think of open businesses rather than simply open platforms. Those business leaders who embrace openness are more likely to succeed than those who focus on obtaining cost-efficiencies within closed operational environments.

Please share your experience with open models.

One of the most compelling (and terrifying) aspects of the digital media and technology industry is the rapid pace of innovation. Every year we witness the launch of game-changing products and services. In some cases, these products capture the mainstream imagination (I don’t need to name these) while others garner the love of a smaller subset of enthusiasts. Consumers can continuously switch or update their portfolio of preferred digital products and services.

In recent years, the pace of innovation has accelerated thanks to the proliferation of competitors, rapidly declining production costs, and the establishment of standards in many areas of the industry. This trend is creating a challenge for most digital players who appear to be struggling to keep their products and services relevant with consumers in an even more competitive marketplace.
Those players who appear to be succeeding (or at least not struggling) have done so by making product and service innovation a core capability. They realize that driving innovation is essential to protect and grow their business in the long-term.

Facebook’s recent redesign illustrates the importance of making and what it takes to make innovation a core capability in the digital marketplace. In a much-publicized maneuver, Facebook completely redesigned their “homepage” experience around a real-time news feed of social activity. Some have described the new design as Facebook’s effort to adopt some of the most compelling aspects of the Twitter experience. A change of this magnitude in the user experience of a product as popular as Facebook is not for the faint of heart. It can alienate users and slow the arrival of new users.

Although this move has invited criticism across the Web from both industry pundits and users, I believe Facebook’s willingness to change its user experience in such a dramatic fashion deserves some praise. Despite its success in attracting new users, Facebook pushed forward to “innovate” its user experience to better serve an emerging consumer behavior, which Twitter seems to have unleashed. Perhaps, Facebook fears that unless their user experience evolves as fast as the market, it would be tacitly allowing the competition to chip away at its users’ attention and engagement long-term. So, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the redesign, the willingness and ability to adapt to changes in consumer behavior and consumption could prove to be one of Facebook’s primary competitive advantages. Many other companies in the space would be unwilling to take a chance such as this.

Some may argue (and probably rightly so) that Facebook was able to take this aggressive step because they do not have revenues that could be impacted by the change. If they had real dollars at risk, it is possible that they would not have taken such a step. This may very well be the case.  Unfortunately, I have seen several companies choose near-term monetization over product innovation, who have suffered for it in the long-term. In this scenario, the quest for monetization becomes a competitive disadvantage.

This has made me think that technology-driven cultures, such as Facebook, may have an edge in driving business innovation relative to their less-engineering driven counterparts. These cultures tend to put the mechanisms in place to foster and reward innovation.  In my experience, engineers are wired to drive innovation much more than traditional business managers. This “innovation” capability is particularly valuable for digital media where consumer behavior and business models are still taking shape.

This aggressive approach to innovation is a capability that media companies need to consider developing/matching. One way of doing so is to increasingly embrace engineering talent as a “core” part of their digital efforts (rather than a peripheral cost center). This implies creating product teams and organizations that effectively mix business and technology talent. It also implies putting in place product managers who have the ability to effectively collaborate with/lead engineering teams. Ideally, management would include leaders with “hybrid” experience in both technology and business. Another way of doing this is to create an environment where acquisitions are effectively leveraged to drive innovation. This approach requires a culture and organizational infrastructure which allow for external innovation to be easily plugged-in.

Doing so would help create an environment where their digital teams would increasingly focus on delivering new products and services that consistently meet the evolving needs of their customers and audiences. Fostering innovation within their own ranks would allow media companies to have a better shot at being able to compete on more equal terms with their “pure” technology counterparts.

There is no dilemma here: companies playing in digital media need to be innovators. However, this is clearly not an easy task.

As the digital revolution runs its course, it is evident that the digital revenues for each of these media industries may struggle to offset the decline in analog revenues.  In the case of the music industry, for example, digital revenues have not offset the declines in CD sales. At $18 billion in 2008, total music sales have declined by $6 billion since 2005 and close to $27 billion since 1997. Digital technologies have exposed and circumvented the inefficiencies in the current media models (e.g., price-to-value ratio, distribution limitations, packaging A & B products together, etc.). This leads to consumers paying only for what they want (which is usually less than what they were paying before), and allows advertisers to make their spending much more efficient (which may also lead to lower spending).

As a result, for traditional media to thrive after the digital shake out, companies need to focus on remaking their operational approach. The primary goal is to help maintain robust profit margins. The secondary goal is to create competitive advantages which may allow the businesses to maintain and further build scale.

Current cost structures of traditional media businesses reflect the operational practices and revenue sources where content was scarce and distribution could be tightly controlled. The traditional cost structures are built around a specific ecosystem of distribution channels and distributor intermediaries. Existing models tend to rely on mass-marketing-driven strategies and support product development cycles that work best on less empowered consumers.

The new digital reality requires a new set of operational practices and revenue sources. While streamlining efforts are helpful in managing profits, they tend to emphasize preservation of current practices rather than the development of innovative approaches that can address the opportunities and challenges of the new digital world.
In my experience, successful new operational models tend to:

1. Adopt technology and engineering as a core capability: Engineering teams can develop tools that allow operating teams to redesign their overall practices to increase efficiency, drive up speed to market and foster scalability. For this to happen, engineering teams need to work closely with key product leaders/managers to ensure that there is continuous flow of communication throughout the process. This would allow engineering teams to help innovate operations rather than to simply develop a tool that serves the current operational practices. Most successful digital media consumer services have been developed by teams who value and foster engineering-driven thought leadership.

2. Rethink product development/production processes: Digital technologies have enabled the production of content at much lower costs. This does not mean that quality needs to be compromised. Publishing is probably the area where the greatest innovation has taken place. There are several niche digital publications who have created significant amounts of content with relatively small teams (e.g., Talking Points Memo, Engadget, etc). These new production models are still being developed. Scale remains a challenge for these new players. However, since the downward pressure on production costs will continue, media will be better off by striving to put in place more efficient processes rather than simply preserving current practices.

3. Build/own new distribution channels: Just as TV production companies own TV station groups in the analog world, it is important that traditional media control their means of distribution in the digital world. This is especially crucial because the scale of revenues in the digital world may prove too small to support sharing any economics with third-party distribution services. In the digital world, content/service owners need to retain every digital dollar they can. There are already major distribution platforms that have been created independent of content producers (e.g., Google, Facebook, Digg, YouTube). Content owners would benefit from aggressively developing competing distribution platforms. Hulu is a great example of the type of initiative that is needed.
4. Use a different marketing channel mix: As I have said before, successful digital businesses have not relied on marketing spending to achieve consumer adoption. They have done it by focusing on offering a high-quality product/service to its customers. Digital media businesses should follow this model and  not rely on traditional marketing to drive success. Having said that, digital media should leverage new marketing channels (e.g., social networks, Google, digital publications/blogs) to reach the “influencers/enthusiasts” and kick-start word of mouth campaigns. These efforts can prove highly cost efficient and valuable.

These are some examples of the initiatives that could be pursued to establish new operational models. I am sure others could suggest alternative approaches to tackle the issues in each of the areas I discussed above (please do so in the comments). Yet, in a world where digital dollars may not fully offset declines in the analog media business, the ultimate goal of creating a new operational approach is to establish a low-cost, highly efficient model that can be defensible long-term, and which would allow media companies to retain scale in revenues and high profit margins.

Companies that are able to remake their businesses will enjoy significant competitive advantages over those that are less prepared. These companies will be able to leverage their more efficient cost models to build scale and gain market share. The sooner media businesses recognize the need to set new operational models, the better positioned they will be to reignite their growth and capture value from changes in consumer behavior and overall media consumption.

According to Comscore, casual gaming sites attracted 86 million unique visitors in 2008 compared to 67 million in 2007. This is a 27% increase and represents a 50% penetration level of total internet audience. The overall time spent playing online games also increased by 42 percent over the same period. Online game playing now accounts for almost 5 percent of all internet time.

Similarly, the Entertainment Software Association annual survey highlighted the growth in usage:
- 65 percent of households in the US play computers or video games
- The average age of gamers is 35 and 26% of gamers were over the age of 50.
- 40 percent were female. The percentage increases to 44 for online gamers

According to the PC Gaming Alliance, several factors seemed to have helped facilitate the growth in gaming activity:
- Continued increases in broadband penetration have enable digital distribution, thus making games (especially online games) more easily accessible to more consumers
- Expansion of retail presence via game cards at major retailers
- Subscription-based MMOGs have proven a hit with consumers and are highly profitable for producers; this has led to growing consumer acceptance of free games with micro-transaction models around the globe
- Increased popularity and improved performance of low-cost PCs

If current behavior among iPhone users is any indication, mobile devices are likely to make gaming a bigger portion of our time spent consuming media. According to Fierce Mobile Content, games lead all iPhone categories with 6,276 titles, or 23.1 percent of total App Store downloads. Today, 11 out of the top 20 most popular applications for the iPhone or iPod Touch are games.

What makes gaming more interesting as a category for media players is that consumers seem willing to pay. According to the PC Gaming Alliance, revenues for subscription and/or micro-transaction based models were estimated to reach $776 million in the North America/Latin America region. Revenues from games sold via download reached $450 million in the same region. Worlwide revenue figures are much higher given that PC gaming behavior is much more evolved in Asia; they were estimated to reach $11 billion in 2007 for PC games alone.

However, significant growth in activity and revenue estimates in the US indicate that gaming is poised to be one of the major drivers of growth in media over the next few years.

Several major media players have invested or are beginning to invest in games. However, the category is still evolving, particularly around online gaming, so they will likely to need to do more to have any meaningful impact.
Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if several of these players make gaming a core and sizable element of their portfolio in the future…as big as print or video.

First, YouTube recently allowed one of its content partners, CBS, to use their own video player to broadcast “March Madness” on YouTube.com. The second was YouTube’s experiment with a more compelling advertising format, dubbed “cross talk,” for the film “The Haunting in Connecticut”.

Both of these initiatives indicate that YouTube is focused on expanding its offering beyond user-generated content to include all forms of video experiences for consumers, as well as growing its ability to offer attractive units to brand advertisers. For me, as an investor and big believer in online video, these are pretty exciting developments.

While YouTube’s roots and success have been built around user-generated content, I believe its lasting legacy will ultimately come from being the catalyst for the growth of the online video industry.

To date, YouTube has captured consumers’ attention when it comes to online video. While new competitors have emerged, streaming statistics show that consumers use YouTube as the starting point for video on the Web. According to Nielsen, YouTube has over ~57% share of total streams viewed on the Web in Feb 2009.

Since YouTube has become the de facto “consumers’ choice”, the online video industry could benefit greatly from using YouTube to distribute their professional content. This would happen if YouTube help content producers to both promote and monetize their content. Given that advertisers are focusing their spending on professional content, helping content producers and content networks scale viewership can prove highly beneficial for both YouTube and them.

This has made me think about what else YouTube can do to become an even better home for professional producers (of both short and long-form content). Here is my dream list of initiatives:

1. Enable integration of third-party video players for all of your content partners. While YouTube may not allow just any and all video players, it could authorize the use of a handful of popular players to expand your content universe. This would allow content producers to more easily manage their content, refresh their promos / interstitials, update recommended playlists and integrate their own ad server solution. Alternatively, YouTube could offer producer content players which enables several of these capabilities.

2. Make YouTube a more attractive platform for content owners to offer long-form content/full-length TV episodes. This initiative requires specific promotion of long-form programming on the homepage to let your users know that YouTube is also a place to see full episodes of TV shows or feature films. It would also entail that content owners retain full control over the monetization of their content. This does not mean that they would not agree to let YouTube help them monetize their content; YouTube would of course be compensated for such assistance. I believe YouTube has put already put a program like this in place for some of its partners today.

3. Build out a premium video sales organization focused mainly on selling professional, branded video content. YouTube can use its scale to persuade advertising agencies to spend greater amounts on online video campaigns. Many emerging content producers will likely need a partner to supplement their direct sales efforts. This may require allowing brand advertisers to use formats they favor for professional content such as pre-rolls.

4. Create a formal programming function (incorporating both systems capabilities and human editors) to help promote professional content on the service. This function will establish policies and processes to work with producers to promote their content. This editorial-driven area of the service can be described as such to avoid having a negative impact on consumers.

5. YouTube can also help spur he growth of digital sales of professional online video. YouTube’s pilot efforts in this area are pretty encouraging. If you provide generous economics, you could use this initiative as a way to attract content partners to work closely with YouTube in all of the initiatives described above. Content partners would like to have multiple outlets to sell downloads, especially through outlets that can give their content exposure to a large audience like YouTube.

6. Deploy technology that allows content companies to use clips of copyrighted content uploaded by users to promote the full-length experience on YouTube. MySpace is collaborating with a startup called Auditude on an initiative along these lines.

Many producers may not be willing to use your platform to distribute their content for fear of giving YouTube too much power. However, creating the right conditions may persuade several of them to build a lasting partnership with YouTube.

Further expanding into professional content (and long-form in particular) presents meaningful challenges for YouTube. Making long-form content a core part of its offering without negatively impacting the user experience is certainly difficult to balance.

The recent events I mentioned at the beginning of this piece lead me to believe that YouTube is heading in this direction already. I recognize this is not an easy task and that I may not have the complete context. Yet, I thought it would be helpful to share my dream list of initiatives for YouTube. Again, I applaud YouTube’s efforts.

It would be good hear about other intiatives that I may have missed.

Update: YouTube is expected to redesign its homepage to showcase premium content more clearly.

The list of digital products that have gained mass adoption with minimal advertising spending is long and well known. It includes companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, AIM, Skype, etc. Many of these companies have focused on offering a great user experience and have been aggressive in securing distribution deals to enable adoption. Google invested in getting an AOL deal. YouTube leveraged MySpace distribution. Skype secured partnerships with portals. More recently “open initiatives” have been used to achieve the same objective. When Facebook opened its platform, it created an ecosystem of products that has both enhanced the user experience and marketed the Facebook brand.

This has gotten me thinking: What if this formula of success extended beyond Web products into other types of businesses (e.g., autos, food, appliances, toys, hardware devices, etc.). This would imply that overall advertising spend is likely to decline over time as companies rethink their approach to the marketing function.

To properly evaluate this thesis, we need to understand why successful Web companies have not required a traditional advertising model:
- User experience and utility have proven to be the main drivers of user adoption for Web products today. Poor quality products struggle to attract and retain users;
- Compelling consumers into using lower quality experiences has become much more difficult. Thanks to blogs, social networks, and product reviews, consumers are increasingly highly educated about the strengths and weaknesses of products;
- Ads are increasingly challenged to break through the clutter. Consumers are not only increasingly skeptical but also turned-off by the abundance of marketing messages. They also now have tools to help them avoid those marketing messages (e.g., Tivo);

These drivers would seem to also apply to non-digital products. Consumers now have access to vast levels of information about all types of products. They also have the ability to easily tap their friends and “friendsters” for advice on a particular product. Product information now travels at warp speed among consumers. As a result, traditional marketing messages will likely have a diminished role in influencing their decision-making.

As a result, companies may be inclined to increase their investment in product development at the expense of brand marketing spend over time. As quality and value emerges as the key factor in consumers’ purchase decision-making, focusing on product development is likely to provide a much more effective way to break through the clutter than aggressive mass-marketing practices. Hence, marketing initiatives can be expected to be much more targeted than they are today as CMOs seek to show increased effectiveness from their efforts. As marketing initiatives become laser-focused on reaching “influencers” rather than blasting messages indiscriminately, overall marketing spending requirements may decline. After all, the Web provides a much more cost-efficient way to reach consumers than other media.

Similar to other consumer-driven businesses, the inefficiencies of current marketing and advertising practices will be exposed by digital technologies. Once this happens, the result is likely to be a decline in overall marketing investment. As a result, the proverbial half of marketing spending that is wasted could be readily identified and eliminated.

The impact of the digital revolution on marketing and advertising spend will not be felt fully for some years. However, digital and traditional media businesses need to begin considering the implications of this trend on their overall business models and cost structure for the future. Thus far, the media industry’s transformation efforts do not seem to have factored in a potential long-term decline in advertising revenues.
I would not be surprised if the overall brand advertising pie could continue declining, even after we get through the current economic downturn. What do you think?

The reason for my new love of radio is my iPod Touch. Using applications such as AOL Radio, NPR, Pandora, Last Fm and Wunderkind, I am able to access a broad variety of radio content, including music, at all times. You need 3G or WiFi access to be able to experience these applications.

The radio experience via the iPod Touch or iPhone has several compelling benefits over the traditional radio experience:
-    Great sound quality. Anyone who has tried to listen to AM news stations in New York knows that it is very hard to get a crisp signal
-    No geographic constraints. I am able to access radio content available from most places around the world.
-    Reduced interruptions.  Music stations insert only a limited number of ads. I primarily use AOL radio
-    Offer music customized to my individual taste. I recommend Pandora or Last FM for this
-    Touch screen provides an ability to navigate to selections much easier than traditional radio devices

We have already seen the growth of online radio on PCs over the past few years.  Online radio unique visitors grew from 50 million in 2007 to 65 million in 2008. According to research firm American Media Services, 38 percent of adults surveyed six months ago said they expected to listen to radio on the Internet at some point in the future; more recently, the figure was 48 percent. As smartphone and small computer devices like the iPod Touch increase in popularity, consumption of audio content will grow exponentially from current PC levels.  Radio will be reinvigorated once again. This should be good news for embattled radio players.

However, embracing this opportunity will require radio players to rethink their current content production models and overall programming practices.  Similar to other media categories, it is unclear how much advertising share can be captured by online radio. The good news is that this next-generation radio can be built around a lower cost model given that it requires less spending on distribution infrastructure, content can be amortized across larger audiences and produced more cheaply, and marketing spend can be streamlined by using recommendation technologies. Moreover, radio companies could explore extending their ad-supported model to unlock value from other types of audio content such as audio books and educational courses.

Traditional radio companies enjoy significant competitive advantages today given their control over relationships with local and national advertisers, and their ability to promote their brands and content using their antenna radio stations. They should leverage these to become the leading programmers of digital audio content.

CBS has led the way with their partnership with AOL radio and their acquisition of Last.FM. The other players would benefit from following this lead. I promise I will be listening.

Do you listen to online radio? What is your take?

While this may be the case in the short-term, I believe that major media companies will eventually have to continue to invest in their digital divisions or even reconstitute their portfolios beyond having a single digital division. Failing to do so may create the opportunity for new media conglomerates to emerge. Google represents the first of a potential new breed of media conglomerates.

Let’s first understand what may be transpiring with the digital divisions of major media conglomerates. Digital media divisions have a valuable role inside media companies. They…

• Build scale to show traditional media divisions that there is a compelling business opportunity in digital
• Act as a catalyst for the development or acquisition of innovative products
• Adopt low-cost, more efficient business models and operational practices

Despite their value, digital media divisions face significant challenges inside big media organizations. Given that digital divisions most likely challenge existing operational practices and expose business inefficiencies, traditional divisions tend to view them as a threat. Thus, core divisions spend significant time undermining digital divisions. To do so, core divisions either tend to create parallel efforts (i.e., their own digital initiatives) whose role is to demonstrate that they are better positioned to execute or simply  refuse to engage with the new divisions operationally. The challenges confronting digital divisions inside big media reflect the difficulty traditional media businesses are having in adapting to new consumer habits and the overall impact of digital technology on their businesses.

In addition, digital divisions remain sub-scale for most of the leading media conglomerates (AOL is probably the only exception). Revenues are only just hovering around $1B dollars or below in the case of most media conglomerates. This is a small dollar amount given the overall size of media conglomerates. Big media has not invested as much in digital media as they have in the past for other initiatives (again AOL could be thought of an exception but it is not). Consider how some of the major media conglomerates got put together, i.e.,  Time Warner, ABC, NBC Universal and to a certain extent Viacom. These conglomerates are the result of several multi-billion dollar acquisitions. For example, TimeWarner acquired Turner to enter the ad-supported cable network business. ABC did the same thing with the acquisition of ESPN. NBC acquired Universal Studios, which had acquired USA Networks. All of these transactions were multi-billion dollar deals.

So, why are these conglomerates not making the same level of investment to scale their digital businesses? The main reason is that digital business models continue to evolve and are still financially unpredictable. Few consumer digital media businesses seem to offer continued long-term revenue and profit growth. Google is perhaps the only exception. This lack of predictability has made digital investments unattractive to traditional media executives.

Moreover, media companies are still adjusting to the need for sophisticated technological capabilities. Engineering cultures have not been a major part of media conglomerates. This makes acquisitions difficult for Big Media to assimilate and adequately leverage. In many cases, talented technology staffers quickly leave after acquisitions as they find big media cultures uninviting.

Nevertheless, media conglomerates need to reconstitute their portfolio of businesses if they want to survive long-term. Their portfolios need to better reflect where value is going to be created going forward. Reinventing their businesses from the inside is not an option. The required change would be too drastic for traditional media cultures to be able to nurture and scale digital initiatives internally.

This would probably lead to a couple of events going forward. If major portals such as Yahoo and AOL demonstrate a certain degree of business stability, we are likely to see major conglomerates make a move for them. The other players, who are unable to pick up any of the independent at-scale players, will probably let further consolidation take place before they jump in with larger acquisitions.

Having said that, there could also be a scenario in which media conglomerates wait too long to reconstitute their portfolios and allow the digital media companies to gain enough momentum to become the acquirers. Watch out. Interestingly, current stock market prices for big media suggest that investors already believe these companies will not get through the economic downturn unscathed.

This period will be critical for major media companies. Letting their digital divisions die is not an option if they want to come out ahead in the end.

For many years, real-time content has been offered to audiences in specific verticals such as finance and sports, often with a paying customer base. For example, it was only until recently that real-time stock quotes were made available free of charge. These user segments, fantasy sports buffs or stock traders, had to have the latest information available. This was not the case for mainstream users.

So, what has changed? Consumers now have access to the Web on a 24 hour basis via their both their laptops and mobile devices. With increased access and mobility, people’s ability to consume and appetite for new information has expanded exponentially. There does not appear to be a limit on how many times a consumer can return to their news sources and sites for “fresh” information. Furthermore, many online publishers (bloggers) have contributed to the growth in consumer demand by introducing “real-time” initiatives such as “live” coverage of industry events, award shows, Twitter streams, etc. These trends have helped real-time gain mainstream momentum.

A few years back, we realized at AOL that real-time news and information would be key the differentiator and an engine of usage for the channels in the network. We had witnessed how blogs providing continuous updates were gaining audience versus traditional sites providing daily updates. We felt “real-time” would be the next incremental step. For this reason, in 2006, we purchased a news service for financial institutions called Relegence. Relegence surfaced information across the Web on events, topics, and people that were generating news. The idea was to keep consumers coming back to our site for the most comprehensive and timely news coverage. AOL has now integrated this capability into its core news channels. I have been told this feature has played an important role in growing usage.

I mention this because there were a couple of interesting things that we learned about how publishers can leverage “real-time” experiences to enhance their offering, create differentiation vs. search and drive usage:

Given Google’s dominance, the Web has been mainly a “pull” medium. Real-time services allow the creation of “push” consumer experiences. This means that consumers today tend to actively seek out information rather than to passively receive it. Real-time services can “push” information to users on topics that are being heavily written about or discussed by many people, whose relevancy results from their timeliness and popularity. Consumers can more rapidly become aware of topics gaining importance on the Web but about which they may have not searched. Waterfall is an application on Twitter that seeks to highlight this type of experience.

In addition, real-time services can help highlight topics for which the level of activity is above the norm. For example, Britney Spears is constantly being discussed or written about. This does not mean that she is always making news. Yet, when there is a spike in the number of articles and mentions, these services can surface the news that is actually new.

Lastly, as new topics emerge, these new topics will relate to existing topics. Publishers will benefit from having tools that enable them to establish these new links among topics, events, people and organizations. Moreover, publishers should leverage their library of historical content to complement the new real-time information. Online publishers, which increasingly make real-time information delivery and breaking news the core of their experience, will benefit greatly. Real-time could help publishers increase their leverage in the “starting point” battle. Publishers who treat “real-time” simply as a feature may risk falling behind. Having said that, real-time offerings apply to some categories more than others. However, I expect it to gain in importance as a driver of usage across the board.

The “real-time” trend will have significant implications in other media but I will leave that for another post. It could be that I am too obsessed with my Blackberry and iTouch. Do you have a different Point of View?

Today, there are not many applications that offer full-length video content on the iPod Touch or iPhone. The one I used the most is AOL’s Truveo application. It offers a set of full-length shows, particularly in the news category. I have recently begun using Joost’s app which offers some full episodes of shows from networks like MTV. The latest addition to my portfolio of video apps is TV.com. This app offers primarily clips from shows but in some cases it offers full-length episodes.

ComScore released a study of mobile users in August 2008 that suggests consumers are interested in watching long-form programming on their mobile phones. Here are the key data tables from ComScore’s study.

This data suggests that the market may reflect my behavior over time. Please note that this is in an environment where content owners are limiting the amount of long-form programming on mobile devices.

As my iPod “viewing” habits grow, here are some things about my behavior that have surprised myself:
- Prefer to browse than to search for TV episodes (from category to TV network to show name to episode)
- Look to find “fresh” news TV shows. Today, most TV shows made available are a day old. Disappoints me every time.
-  Seek for Traditional TV network brands. I would like to be able to bookmark my favorite TV networks.
- Get bothered when results for a particular show mix full-length episodes and clips
- Look for relevant recommendations. A Pandora-like engine for TV shows would be helpful

I expect my video consumption to grow as more long programming becomes available on my iPod Touch. Also, I hope the applications evolve to better support long-form programming. Most of them seem to have been optimized for clips and short-form videos. TV networks in particular may consider developing their own applications. I would enjoy being able to have the apps from favorite TV networks.

Please share your experiences with video on the iPhone or iTouch.

Furthermore, social media products, which are increasingly capturing a significant portion of consumer time online, seem to have proven that they are unable to attract their share of advertising dollars.  At the latest Jefferies conference, David Kenny from Digitas, made an interesting statement. He said that while his clients are increasingly leveraging social media to find their community of enthusiasts, they are not paying to do so.  In other words, ad agencies can execute social media campaigns on behalf of their clients for free.  This is a bit concerning, especially coming from one of the largest interactive ad agencies.

In this context, it is easy to think that the online advertising market COULD fail to meet the expectations of analysts and industry players. This would mean that the online share of total ad spend (9% of total ad spend) does not catch up with the levels of consumer usage (28% of total time spent).  However, I have seen enough innovation, sales creativity and signals of success to lead me to believe that the online market will deliver on its potential long-term.

The following are some of the initiatives that are experiencing growth in this current economic environment:

- Vertical networks that offer premium custom solutions to advertisers
- Video advertising on high-quality programming - primarily pre-roll and custom solutions (e.g., sponsored content)
- Advertising networks offering greater transparency (ability to chose mix of specific sites) and better targeting (ie.,ability to pick specific audiences) to advertisers
- Publisher-centric optimization players
- Advertiser-centric optimization solutions — these are beginning to emerge
- Local advertisers migrating online – though local has yet to reach the tipping point

In light of this, there is reason for long-term optimism. However, several things can still be done during this downturn period to help position online advertising for explosive growth when the market returns. Here are a few examples:

- Establishing video advertising standards, both in terms of ad formats as well as metrics
- Developing an effective format for brand advertisers to support content at scale (particularly for the news category)
- Offering advertisers better tools to purchase, optimize and display online media — i.e., process needs to be simpler
- Enabling use of publisher data to further enhance targetability and thus overall performance; this feature could truly help set online apart from other media

Nevertheless, this optimism does not suggest that the advertising market will be able to support the economics of traditional media models (e.g, magazines, newspapers, TV stations).  Online models will have to be much more efficient due to hyper-competition, new technologies, measurability, low switching costs, etc.  Thus, publishers will need to be incredibly cost-efficient to survive and thrive in this environment.  The online ad model is certainly challenged in the near-term.

Yet, as in previous times, innovation will happen and lead to the next wave of growth in the market.

Since I believe interactive networks will primarily grow/scale through acquisitions of products and services over the next few years, they would benefit from designing an organizational structure to support this growth thesis. In this world, digital organizations would set up their operations to quickly “plug-in” acquired companies and provide them with the tools needed to continue to scale.

Based on my experience, successful acquisitions in digital media require a specific organizational environment to succeed. The following are some of the key conditions that create this ideal environment for an acquired company to thrive inside a more bureaucratic corporate structure:

- Continued organizational independence/self-containment

- Limited number of “required” integration points with the rest of the organization

- Strong support at/protection by the senior management level

- Ability to retain key talent and preserve culture

- Easy access to key network resources (e.g., monetization, distribution, technology back-end, etc.)

In this M&A-centric view of the world, the optimal digital media organization will seek to foster these conditions through its reporting structure. The following tenets outline the key parameters of this next-generation organizational structure:

1. Specialized, self-contained teams with significant degrees of decision-making authority

2. Few/no layers of authority between product leads and corporate management

3. Technology teams reside within each product unit

4. Marketing activities will be controlled at the product level (particularly when divisions seek to emphasize multiple brands)

5. Limited centralized functions (e.g., network promotion, advertising sales, operations, etc.)

6. Service-oriented, on-demand support/administrative functions (e.g, legal, finance, facilities, etc.)

7. Technology infrastructure built around a Web services architecture (e.g., storage, hosting, etc.)

8. Lean corporate structure (few C-level executives)

This type of organization would more likely be able to foster a culture that emphasizes innovation, consumer-centric focus and fast decision-making, and in doing so, it would promote long-term success.

Setting up an organization like this would likely take several years as many of the key design tenets run counter to traditional organizational principles. However, most things in the digital media world have challenged (and sometimes overwhelmed) traditional approaches. Organizational structure will not be an exception.

I would like to hear what you think.

Over the past 15 years, I have witnessed first-hand a significant amount of change in the media landscape take place. Many media businesses had to change their business models, find new product offerings, and shrink their cost structures dramatically.  In several instances, they simply were completely obsolesced.

In many of these situations, the need for change seemed evident to most third party observers before it was to internal management. Third parties (innovators, strategists, emerging competition) are the ones who usually start calling for the adoption of new strategies to address what appears to be evident changes in market trends. The reason is that these third parties are quicker to appreciate the signals of a new world order when they first appear.

The story is usually different for corporate insiders. Their initial reaction to new market trends is to negate them rather than embrace them. Most corporate cultures in media today seem to focus more on protecting their existing business models rather than embracing the new ones. Generally, the belief is that most trends do not come to pass at all (or at least not during the tenure of the current managers). However, this has not been the case in the digital age. So far, the end result of this approach has been a continuous deterioration in value for many media companies.

The music companies were the first victims. Newspapers and magazines seem to be next in line. The interesting thing is that the need for change in these businesses was prescribed far before the effects of secular changes began to make an impact. It was more than 10 years ago that the death of newspapers was widely being discussed across the industry. It is only in the past couple of years that the newspaper companies began to falter and clearly be unprepared for what they are facing.

Driving change is extremely hard. Having been part of the transformational process at AOL, I appreciate how difficult is to bring about change. However, one thing is clear to me after all these years: If a (media) business does not move as fast as possible to adjust to new market realities and embrace new models, it will pay for it.

In this case, TV networks and MSOs seem to be threatened by Boxee. What would they need to do if they were to embrace Boxee rather than fight it? Please keep in mind that Boxee is a service still in alpha. However, the decision has created a heated discussion across the industry and among Boxee users. This makes me view this controversy as a signal of change.

So, let’s imagine what MSOs would have to do if they wanted to embrace the model today:

First, define the new reality: A good segment of consumers is likely to opt for an Internet-only experience. This is not going to happen today but could happen over the next 10 years. Recognize that device manufacturers, digital innovators, and software players are all working towards making this a reality. This increases the chance that the internet experience will be better than the current TV experience. Although many people will still continue to favor the existing TV framework years from now, other consumers will discontinue usage. This is analogous to the current state of the newspaper industry.

Second, redesign their TV product offering around tiers of programming to avoid losing  all of the internet-only subscriber base. Today, the subscription decision is binary (one either has cable TV or not). Changes to the TV offerings require changes to programming deals. This may result in some networks facing significant declines in their affiliate fees. Must-have networks (e.g., ESPN) are likely to accrue larger fees while less compelling networks are likely to receive no affiliate fees. We may see major stand-offs between TV programmers and MSOs, as network owners are likely to package A-tier networks with B-tier networks. However, this is an inefficient practice that will likely end in light of the new consumer behavior. All of this would focus on optimizing long-term margins of the existing TV business.

Third, offer new services that enhance the TV experience. DVRs and VOD services are good first steps. However, as content becomes available on the Web on demand, the pricing for these services will be challenged. This means actively engaging with third-party innovators seeking to develop value added services around TV and the Internet. This would mean embracing Boxee rather than fighting it. Said another way, controling the innovation ecosystem may turn out to be a better strategy than fighting it.

Fourth, identify ways to charge more for the internet offering. This is an area most MSOs have already begun to explore. However, Telco competition will constrain pricing power.

Fifth, align marketing costs to new revenue potential. Subscription businesses tend to over spend on marketing after reaching high levels of penetration. The science of acquisition marketing is usually more art than a science.

In this new world, TV networks will likely have to redesign their cost structure. Most networks will continue to rely on hit TV programming for new revenues, and face the reality of lower advertising and affiliate fees. Networks without hit product will struggle to get distribution with MSOs and likely fail to reach scale to maintain their current cost structures.

This is clearly a lot of change. I can see why the TV ecosystem would try to “manage” it rather than embrace it. There is significant value at risk. However, in this age of digital change, most of those who have try to “manage” the consumer or “pace” the revolution seem to have lost.

Please note that this is simply a thinking exercise about what type of things one may want to do if the goal was to embrace change. This is not an exact recipe to execute such a change. As they say in the army, one needs to evaluate conditions on the ground before designing a plan of attack.

Nevertheless, quickly embracing change likely ends up being a better strategy to protect value in the long-term. While in its early days, Hulu will prove to be a good example of that.
I would like to hear if your experience with this type change has been different.

The traditional newspaper model has become the latest victim of the digital disruption. Like with music, digital technologies have uncovered the inefficiencies and limitations of the current newspaper model. The content production cycle is slow, printing costs are high, and distribution is subject to geographic constraints. As a result, consumers are increasingly relying on the Web to consume news and cancelling their newspaper subscriptions. The news cycle takes place in real-time, content offering is much more comprehensive, there are no geographic constraints, and more importantly the pricing model is free.

Today, the majority of news efforts fall into two camps. Those from traditional newspaper organizations which primarily rely on a mix of subsidies from their offline operations and advertising (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post), and Web-only news publications (e.g., Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo) which rely solely on advertising. While some of these news efforts are seeing success, they represent a transitional step to a more sustainable model for news production and distribution. The main issues that they still need to address are scalability and monetization.

The next-generation digital news model is likely to evolve around individual journalists (as opposed to newspaper brands). In this model, individual journalists will get compensated for the size of the community/audience they gather and the level of activity among their communities. This model will reflect the Darwinistic nature of the Web.

This view of the world suggests that consumers will increasingly rely on individual journalists as their main prism through which they will consume news on the Web. These individual journalists will not only produce original content but will also curate relevant content for consumers. They are likely designed to be the “starting point” for many consumers in key news areas.

This model will require several elements to succeed:
- Emphasis on brand building around individual journalists. Developing a unique voice is a critical factor in establishing a journalist’s brand.
- Robust technology content management systems to enable highly efficient news production, cataloging and distribution. Technology will prove critical to maximize the distribution of a journalist’s content.
- Editorial support focused on helping journalists grow their audiences and manage their communities. They will constantly monitor audiences’ reactions to specific news content and community opinions. In addition, they will program/merchandise the content as effectively as possible via strong “network homepages.” The Huffington Post exemplifies the value of focusing on this capability.
- Deep integration of aggregation and syndication tools (e.g., Twitter, Publish2) in the content creation workflow, and adoption of distribution best practices (e.g., SEO). The more adept journalists are with these tools, the greater their ability to reach audiences.
- Low cost, highly scalable infrastructure leveraging back-end web services and publishing tools (e.g., video, community management, content aggregation, wiki/database tools)
- Monetize journalist brands via multiple revenue streams (brand advertising, sponsorships, book deals, etc.). This is an area that needs further development which I will discuss in a later post. Hence, a low-cost model remains essential.

The recent momentum of Twitter and Publish2 (one of Velocity’s portfolio companies) suggests the individual journalist model has begun to gain momentum.

Like in other areas of the Web, great journalists will see disproportionate returns while most other may struggle to find sizable audiences. Nevertheless, high quality journalism is likely to thrive on the Web rather than wither away.

So, even though the bad news about newspaper companies will continue to come, the future for journalism remains bright and offers great potential.

Note: In addition to Publish2, we have made an investment in another news organization called True/Slant that looks to exploit these trends and execute this vision of journalism. I will share the news when they come out of stealth mode.

In the next stage of Web innovation, “real user” data will play a major role. The previous two stages have laid out the foundation for the collection of data across the Web in a much more efficient manner. The emergence of social networks and in particular Facebook have significantly helped advance this effort. As I have mentioned before there are several efforts underway to collect this data across the Web to help advertisers and ad networks use real user data to improve the targetability of their campaigns. Blu Kai, Lookery, Peer39, Media6 are among this new breed of data players. This would move the Web beyond audience panels and turn this medium into a highly precise marketing vehicle.

As data becomes more important, publishers would benefit from maintaining tight control over it. Advertisers can extract great value from it (advertising centric-buying solutions rely heavily on this data to enable optimization) and thus publishers may not want to allow 3rd parties to easily have access to this data. Publishers may want to play close attention to the type of agreements with advertising serving and inventory management tools/services. Publishers may want to ensure that their data is not easily available to advertisers without their consent and more important without extracting a monetary benefit. Independent advertising services providers (such as Fattail in which we have an investment) can prove attractive to publishers. The compensation model for publisher data is still taking shape. 20% of revenues seems to be the going rate when the data is used by an ad network to enhance performance.

GroupM’s recent announcement about data ownership indicates that advertisers have already begun to focus on the user data and its value. This emphasis on data among advertisers and advertising agencies can be expected to increase as they seek to ensure the data their spend helps generate is not used against their later initiatives in the marketplace.

Some Ad Networks are also likely to take advantage of this user data to drive differentiation for their offerings.

The exciting part about this new “data-driven” stage is that it will help online as a medium to finally start delivering on the promise of hyper-targeting/precision-marketing.

The iPhone/iTouch (and other similar devices like the BBerry Storm) provide a new computer experience which offers a new framework for consuming content and being entertained. This device has the capability to compete with TV, radio, PC and gaming consoles for consumer’s time.

We are in the early stages of this new disruptive force. According to ABI Research, Apple has reached only 1.1% of the global mobile market in 2008. This is an impressive feat given that the product was launch in the US in June 2007. This is over 10 million units. In addition, Apple shipped 22.7 million iPod units in the quarter, a 3% growth year-over-year. Most analyst believe that most of those sales came from the iPod Touch. Other hardware manufacturers such as Palm and Blackberry are quickly following Apple’s lead. In the North America, Smartphones are expected to accountfor 42% of the market by 2011.

Innovative Web players recognized the trend and have quickly moved to take advantage of this new platform like Facebook, Pandora, Truveo, Google, YouTube, etc. In addition, independent developers have developed 10,000 applications.

In light of this, media players may want to start building the capabilities needed to quickly take advantage of this new platform. They should not let (once again) other players create the majority of the value in this new platform. It is surprising not to be able to find video experiences by the major media players. They can easily provide a robust and “branded” video experience that streams the same content as they have available on the Web. People are likely to donwnload applications from their favorite TV networks. Since they may have to work out some rights issues, I would start with programming which does not have such issues.

Similarly, the radio groups can work to develop experiences that showcase their content. CBS has taken the lead via their relationship with AOL. Other radio networks would benefit from following suit. Magazine publishers can also easily work to develop multimedia experiences that engage their audiences on a daily basis.

Due to the application framework, the mobile internet is likely to become a much more personalized experience than the computer. Applications enable developers to create time-efficient experiences and allow users to select specific forms of content and entertainment. The Weather Channel application is a good example of what the application framework can do for media brands. It would be great to have similar applications from my favorite TV networks and magazine publications.

While the numbers suggest we are in the early days of a new era, the future offers significant potential, and media players would benefit from taking the lead rather than be followers.

Like in the Web, capturing scale will be challenging as competition will be intense.

Has your experience with the new smartphones been as game-changing?

As the market developed in the mid to late-2000s, aggregating inventory supply was critical. Thus, many ad networks began to develop additional services (ad serving technologies, content syndication, analytical tools, etc.) for publishers as a way to secure those relationships. Optimization services such as Ad Meld or Rubicon Project are the latest in publisher-centric advertising services.

In the meantime, little attention was paid to advertiser and ad agencies. No major technology solutions were created to enable advertising ad agencies to optimize their display spending. Most of the reporting came directly from each of the ad networks that they work with. Tools to make ad buys where network-centric. There is not a single tool which advertisers can use to easily execute buys across their favorite networks. In general, there was no interest in the part of advertising networks to help advertising marketers optimize their spending across them and their competition.

However, today’s display advertising ecosystem is much different from that in 2002-2005. There are many more advertising networks, all of which are aggressively competing for advertising dollars. Advertisers are overwhelmed with the amount of choices and lack the capabilities to effectively optimize their spending in today’s ecosystem. This creates an opportunity for advertising agencies to develop (or acquire) services to help marketers optimize their marketing investments across advertising portals, networks and exchanges. These services would help advertisers to execute campaigns across multiple ad networks that deliver a better overall performance. In addition, agencies can provide tools to enable their clients to easily execute buys across multiple advertising networks.

Agencies are in a unique position to do this as they have a trusted relationship with clients and are designed to solely serve their interest. They also still have access to/visibility over most of an advertiser’s ad budgets, and thus, they can easily influence the migration of those dollars from traditional to digital media. Creating an advertising-centric optimization service would help advertising agencies recapture leverage vs. the rest of the players in the ecosystem.

Performance-display advertising networks are likely to initially oppose such efforts. Agencies would have to convince them to integrate into their platform. It is not in their interest to enable ad agencies to help their clients at the expense of ad networks profits. However, advertising agencies can leverage their scale to successfully establish these services as part of the ecosystem. Also, advertisers are likely to realize the value and demand compliance from advertising networks. Publisher data will also play a key role. So, services like Blue Kai and Lookery can end up proving to be good partners to this ad-centric efforts.

Traditionally, agencies have not had the technology capabilities to develop these services. Those who do ( I hear) are already developing solutions of this kind. The ones that don’t, I would expect them to acquire them.

If agencies are successfully in developing/offering these services, I dont not expect the ecosystem to tilt entirely in favor of advertisers but I certainly expect the display advertising ecosystem to be much more balanced in the future.

The findings were pretty interesting:

- None of the kids knew what Twitter was. However, when the concept was described to them, some of them thought it sounded cool. It is likely that some of them will give twitter a try.

- All of the kids were using Facebook pretty regularly. The majority indicated that they use it on a daily basis. They find it a good way to know about their friends and stay in touch. They did not mind the ads on Facebook. They understood that ads were needed to pay for the service. Also, they were pretty concerned with privacy. All of them seem to be pretty knowledgeable about keeping their profiles private. Facebook mail was not used as the main mail service. All the students had mail accounts in other services.

- Several of the kids also used MySpace but they did not use it as much. One of the teens said: “My Space is played out.” Another one expressed frustration with the abundance of advertisements on the service. However, several still feel it was entertaining and good to learn about music.

- They traditional portals did not do well. AOL was only mentioned once and it was in reference to “AOL instant messenger”. Yahoo mail was used only by a couple of kids. Yahoo was not mentioned after that. None of the kids used Hotmail. All the kids had a GMail account.  It seems that Google is winning the mail wars.

- The kids seemed to go to category specific sites to find their content. They usually learn about those sites from friends.

- A segment of the kids are still willing to buy music. Though, all of them know and use sites where they can download music illegally. One of the students expressed that she  buys music from niche/unknown artists but not from popular ones.

- Most of the kids indicated that they used Pandora to listen to Music on their computers. Only a couple use Last.fm.

- All kids are watching video online. They indicated that they did not mind ads (pre-rolls) when they are watching TV-like content (e.g.,  The Daily show or The Colbert Report). “They need to get paid” said one of the students.

- They use YouTube to listen to music and to watch funny videos. Anime videos were highlighted by some of the kids as a popular category.

- Hulu was only known by three students. However, those that knew about Hulu found it to be a good service.

- In terms of devices, cell-phones took the day. Computers were a second choice. They still enjoy TV but mostly for sports. Only one kid had an iPhone.

- Most of the students still check out the print version of newspapers. However, if their parents were not subscribers, they would probably check the news online rather than pay for a print copy. They all used the online site of the LA times.

- A few of the kids were into virtual worlds. None of them had purchased virtual goods. However, they expressed willingness to pay for these services if required. One of the kids indicated that he spent 82 hours per week on Gaia (He had calculated the number).

- Most of the kids were into video games. Several had multiple consoles. They particularly enjoy playing with other people online via the console. Madden was really popular with the boys. World of Warcraft also got some mentions.

- They all use Google to search. They think Google is great service because it can help them find even the most obscure things. However, one of the kids stated that it can still be improved as in some cases Google was not able to disambiguate.

- None of the kids knew CNet. Only one kid knew about Digg.

Every time I attend one of these focus groups, I find them pretty useful. These provide a window into what the next generation of users finds compelling in terms of products and services. It also offers a good measure about brand relevance.

I need to attend these panels more often.

Update: Need to learn how to properly spell Twitter instead of Tweeter (oh boy)

Traditional business thinking suggests that aggressive marketing can create product awareness and ultimately drive adoption.  However, the nature of the consumer Web makes it difficult for this concept to hold true. Unlike in offline environments, consumers have the ability to evaluate and test all products available for them in a particular category. There is no major cost to doing so. If a product resonates with a set of early adopters, it is very easy for these early adopters to share their assessment of a particular product. If the assessment is positive, these consumers/customers become your more effective marketing team. They also help further shape (or fine-tune) the product through their feedback. The relationship between these customers and a company’s product team is critical for a product to gain additional momentum. Maniacal focus on product development rather than on marketing strategies is what drives product success on the Web.

Focusing on product development rather than marketing helps a company avoid the natural tension that has traditionally existed between these two functions. Product folks tend to blame marketers when their products are not adopted, and marketers tend to blame it on the product itself. On the Web, product adoption needs to be owned and controlled by the product teams.

Companies should still work to seed their product among their potential set of early adopters. They can do this by:
- Carefully design the registration process to create immediate engagement and adoption. Your website design is critical to capture early adopters.
- Building a vast distribution network. Make sure that the product is easily accessible to users (via search, social media platforms, relevant sites, etc.)
- Work with a savvy PR agency to design a highly targeted strategy to attract potential early adopters.
- Establish relevant collaborations for non-traditional marketing (e.g., special events, in-context exposure) once the product has gained a decent level of scale. CNN and Facebook is a good recent example.

Keep in mind that if the product does not resonate with consumers, not even these web-tailored efforts will work.

Companies need to increasingly be genuine to attract consumers and customers. Skepticism reigns wild on the Web. Traditional marketing is not that genuine and that is likely to hurt you more than help you.

Has your experienced with marketing been different?

As previously highlighted, online video consumption exploded in 2008. This has prompted advertisers to realize that online video is likely to become a viable competitive format to television advertising over the next couple of years. As a result, marketers are likely to push aggressively to accelerate this development. This will help marketers to drive price efficiencies from Television networks in their negotiations.

That is what will happen in the next few years. Where we are today in online advertising is the following:

- Brand advertisers have begun to spend non-experimental budgets in online video. However, spend amounts are still fluctuating as the value of online video is still being assessed by advertisers (in the context of traditional media options)

- Ad networks have been created to provide advertisers with scalable solution to purchase online video. Advertisers are now able to put “meaningful” amounts of spend at work. Disclaimer: Velocity is an investor in Broadband Enterprises which is one of the leading online video ad networks.

- Technology platforms are being developed to enable advertisers to manage, monitor and track their video campaigns.

- Advertisers are leveraging TV ad spots for their online video campaigns (in a shortened format). As a result, pre-rolls continue to be the format of choice for advertisers. It will likely continue to be over the next couple of years.

- Advertisers continue to be focus their spend on premium brands, premium content and premium publishers.  This trend is likely to gain more momentum thanks to the economic downturn.  This means that portals, repurposed TV content and websites with well-known brands will continue to capture the majority of the ad spend.

- Online video producers have begun to achieve scale for some of their programming. Online publishers are gaining attention for their branded programming. 2009 is likely a year in which advertisers will more actively experiment with branded online video shows.

- The ecosystem of advertising tools for publishers have just begun to emerge. We are seeing a few companies ofering publishers ad serving solutions, ad insertion and yield optimization. Compared to the display performance market, these tools are just beginning to take shape.

- Pricing remains an issue to scale the business as advertisers have begun to compare TV and online video CPMs.

- YouTube has become the defacto video platform for online video publishers. Most other platforms generate a minimal level of video views relative to YouTube. MySpaceTV seems to be the only exception. YouTube is likely to eventually extract meaningful value from their role in the value chain. Most other aggregators may struggle to capture significant value from distributing people’s content.

All in all, the online video advertising space is undergoing a very exciting development stage. The signs of ad growth potential appear to be clearer than ever. Appreciate to hear your thoughts.

- The consumer Web is a hit-driven environment. Building or developing products requires more than capital and disciplined execution. It requires deep understanding of the target audience and talent. The dynamics of the Web is likely to look pretty similar to those of Hollywood with franchises, hits and misses.

- Offer your customers best-in-class products, even if it requires partnering with one’s competition. Please know that best-in-class is determined by the users. Exit/divest products or businesses in which you are not best-in-class. Non-best-in-class products will likely find extremely difficult to scale.

- A collorary of the above point is the following: Double-down on “hit” of “A” products and exit quickly “B” products. Don’t try to package “B” product with “A” product. This will prove detrimental to your “A” products in the long-run. Moreover, this will also be detrimental to your operations. Management time should be dedicated on maximizing the value of hit product rather than be distracted with “B” products. Traditional media struggles with this concept because many of the media businesses have been built around packaging “A” product with “B” products (television, music, print). Given the nature of the Web, consumers don’t have to consume B products since they are too many hit products available for them to enjoy.

- Brands should be assigned to a single product. Consumers increasingly define a product by its brand. If a business has more than one product, it would benefit from having multiple brands. Avoid having a single brand for all your products. As long as you are offering a product that resonates, brand building is not difficult on the Web.
- Eliminate (or do not establish) a Marketing function and focus on maximizing distribution. Make sure your consumers are able to find your products. If they are good, early adopters will become your “outsourced” marketing team. The Web is a transparent environment and marketing spend can prove extremely inefficient. Use these resources to create strong business development teams focused on securing strong relationships within the relevantWeb ecosystem. Caveat: Smart PR among early adopters (this does not mean tech folks only but within your target segment) is still pretty helpful. Also, having distribution does not translate in product success, it simply enhances your chances.
- Build your organization around talented specialists. Competing on the Web requires teams whose product and or technology knowledge is cutting edge. This is critical to stay ahead of the competition and foster an environment of constant evolution. The more specialized your teams, the better they are able to build hit products and protect their positioning once those products have become best-in-class.
- If you have a portfolio with multiple products, focus on establishing a highly decentralized and distributed organization. Emphasize independence and specialization over corporate normalization. This may mean establishing a structure of many small teams. While this structure may be hard to manage, it is the optimal structure to foster innovation and overall competitiveness.
- Relentless focus on cost efficiency. Disruptive competition on the Web often centers on delivering the same value to users at much lower cost. However, this does not mean eliminating redundancies or consolidating similar operations across products or services. Rather, foster an environment in which operational practices are constantly being reviewed and revamped (if needed) to match the market. For example, publishing is an area in which lower cost models are constantly emerging (through technology innovation and new operating practices). Thus, publishers need to constantly revisit their level of efficiency to stay competitive.
- Business leaders need to have a deep understanding of technology and its capabilities. This is critical to be able to drive the product vision. Business folks should be able to work closely and challenge the engineering teams. Without deep understanding of technology, business teams may prove unable to anticipate new market trends. Given the continuous state of evolution in the Web, this is of the upmost importance.

- Lastly, leverage portfolio of products to provide advantages across products. However, do not force relationships, let them compete freely; Do not provide any crutches. The Web is a pretty Darwinistic environment. If a business, service or product is not forced to compete for users and or clients, it may lose out in the long-run to competitors who are.
There are likely to be rules for managers of Web businesses that I have missed. Please share any that may come to mind.

However, Traditional publishers still have some key capabilities that if properly redeployed can significantly advantage them over online-only publishers in the long run. Here are the main ones that I have identified:

- A sales force with deep relationships with advertisers and trained to sell specific brands

- Brands that are well-known to consumers but more importantly well-known for advertisers

- Leading editorial talent focused on a specific category or niche audience;

- Reasonable levels of audience on their Website

With few exceptions, Magazine company efforts are falling short compared to online publisher efforts:

- Still operating on a magazine cycle rather than on a Web cycle - which means constantly offering fresh content to their audiences

- Building and managing community interactions.This is a key element to building scale and overall audience engagement.

- Actively curating third party content and aggregating user generated content. Becoming starting points for their audiences on the category they serve.

- Leveraging new publishing and syndication tools to maximize the distribution of their content across the Web via search, social media platforms, and 3rd party publishers

Magazines have an opportunity to leverage their current position to become the leading publishing networks of information on the Web (particularly if they aggressively embrace online video). The economic downturn may give Magazines a bit more time (as advertisers are likely to stick with brands the know rather than try new ones) but the window is closing. Moreover, publishers will be able to determine what is the best way to use the print version to complement the Web experience.

The transition from the current model to the new one will not be easy. Cost structures and overall operational approach need to change dramatically. Cultures need to change dramatically. Nevertheless, Magazines still have an opportunity to reinvent themselves (if they move fast) and some have already begun to do so.

This leads me to highlight something: With AOL’s Media Glow and Time Inc.’s portfolio of brands, Time Warner is well positioned to establish the next-generation publishing company. AOL now has the know-how to scale its publishing network and Time Inc. has the brands, sales org and several valuable sites.

Clearly, this is not a new idea but its time may have finally arrived. Love to hear your thoughts.