web | Paul Wallbank - Brilliant Communications

Writedowns and triumphalism

The contrast between Microsoft’s and Google’s results released on Thursday attracted a lot of interest – for the first time in twenty years Microsoft posted a quarterly loss with Google’s profits continue to grow.

While there’s no doubt Microsoft are challenged by the effects of their lost decade and bad decisions made in that time, but the business itself is still extremely profitable.

Microsoft’s posted loss is due writing down 6 billion dollars in their aQuantive investment, an attempt to compete with Google in the online ad placement space.

Despite a six billion dollar writedown, Microsoft only posted a 500 million dollar loss showing the business is still making over 5 billion dollars profit each quarter.

Google on the other hand posted a profit of 2.8 billion, up 11% from the same period last year.

But Google also has some nasty writedowns coming in the future – the purchase of Motorola will see some substantial write downs of that 12 billion dollar deal. It’s conceivable that a very big portion of that investment will have to be written off as well.

Right now, Google’s seeing some benefit from the Motorola acquisition as the phone company’s cashflow is covering a decline in online advertising revenue, a threat to Google’s core business.

It’s easy to be triumphant when the headlines proclaim you’re a winner, but it’s often worthwhile looking at the fine print to see the real story.

Outsourcing’s changing face

Outsourcing company freelancer.com regularly releases the fifty fastest moving job descriptions requested by their customers.

This year’s list shows how the online industry is changing – content creation, social media and SEO job requests are all down substantially as users and gatekeepers like Google adapt to the information flood we all have to deal with.

Keeping in mind the market that Freelancer.com caters to small businesses and many of the jobs posted are for fairly small – some would say laughingly tiny and insulting – amounts, it’s probably safe to say we’re looking at the low value end of the market.

Article writing (down 15%), proofreading (5%), blogging (13%) and submission (4%) jobs are probably the cheap and nasty “Demand Media” style of low quality content designed for SEO purposes.

SEO itself is in trouble with jobs in that sector down 7% indicating Google’s Panda and Penguin search engine changes have achieved their objectives of improving search results and knocking out those gaming the system with low quality content.

A similar thing has happened with social media. Facebook is too hard for many businesses and they’re not seeing a return on their substantial time investment.

“Companies in industries from consumer electronics to financial services tell us they’re no longer sure Facebook is the best place to dedicate their social marketing budget—a shocking fact given the site’s dominance among users,” Freelancer quotes Nate Elliott, an analyst at market research firm Forrester.

A bright part in Freelancer’s list is the rise is in open standards as HTML5 starts moving up the list with 20% growth.

“The Internet is becoming more interactive, and the technologies that are winning and will continue to win are open standards like HTML5 and jQuery- to the detriment of the incumbents proprietary technology providers like Adobe and Microsoft,” says Freelancer’s CEO Matt Barrie.

Open standards aren’t winning everywhere though as Apple’s iOS is clearly winning the developer war as iPhone grows by 30% and iPad by 26% compared to Android’s 20%.

Freelancer’s list is an interesting snapshot at where industry demand is right now, what’s we’re starting to see are some of the transition effects working their way through the system. The rise and fall of the social media and SEO specialists being one of those.

The full Freelancer list is below;

On being a hater

The phenomenon of the “Internet hater” has been one of the unfortunate developments of the web.

Just as entry barriers for new businesses are low, so too are the restraints on clueless and anonymous idiots posting comments like “drop ded you faggot” or “hope you get canser bitch” onto web forums and social media pages.

English comedian Isabel Fay has a great rebuttal to the haters with a clip that co-opts some of Britain’s top comics with their experiences.

These haters are sad little people as the BBCs Panorama program found when it tracked down one individual who had posted offensive comments.

We knew Darren Burton of Cardiff, aka Nimrod Severen, would be a pathetic individual. Those who post anonymous, hateful comments are rarely anyone who has anything useful to contribute to society.

Online “haters” are a real problem and cause distress to people who encounter the foul comments these creatures post. However the “haters” tag is increasingly being misused to shut down fair comment and criticism.

Legitimate critics or dissenters from the groupthink and shallow advertorials that increasingly dominate parts of the web will quickly earn the tag “hater” as well.

Every multi level marketing spiv or con merchant with a few followers will quickly throw the term out at anyone who dares criticise their behaviour in the hope of rallying their followers to shout down the dissenters. Usually it works.

If you’re prepared to think outside the group and genuinely challenge those selling old rope as new ideas, let alone expose the hypocrisy of those who claim to open and transparent while hiding their real intentions, then be prepared to wear the tag “hater”.

The only reply is to stand on your beliefs and be prepared to use your real name. The real trolls are scared, frightened creatures – just like many of the useful idiots co-opted by the spin merchants and Internet spivs.

At least “hater” is just a cheap insult and they aren’t coming for dissenters with pitchforks. Yet.

Monetizing the Masses

Monetization is a horrible word.

The term is necessary though as many online business models are based upon giving away a service or information for free. For those businesses to survive, they have to find a way to “monetize” their user base.

When Google were floated in 2003, the question was how could a free search engine “monetize” their users. The answer was in advertising and Google today are the world’s biggest advertising platform.

Facebook’s Inital Public Offering (IPO) announcement raises the same question; how does a company valued 99 times earnings find a way to justify the faith of its investors?

Advertising is the obvious answer but that seems to flattening out as the company’s revenue growth is slowing in that space. The AdWords solution tends to favour Google more than publishers as most advertising supported websites have found.

Partnering with application developers like the game publisher Zynga is another solution. Again though this appears to be limited in revenue and Zynga itself seems to be having trouble growing its Facebook user numbers.

So the question for Facebook is “where will the profits come from?”

There’s no doubt the data store Facebook has accumulated is valuable but how the social media service can “monetize” this asset without upsetting their users is open to question.

For Facebook the stakes are high as the comparisons with Friendster and MySpace are already being drawn.

We’ll see more partnerships like the Facebook Anti-virus marketplace, but these seem to be marginal at best.

In the next few months things will get interesting as Facebook’s managers and investors strive to find ways to make a buck out of a billion users who don’t pay for the service.

While “monetization” is an ugly word, it is one that every online company thinks about.

Every web based businesses will be watching how Facebook manage their monetization strategy closely as the entire industry struggles with the faulty economics of providing services for free.

Consumer surplus?

Last week I came across the term “consumer surplus”, the Boston Consulting Group claimed the gap between the cost of producing media content and what customers are prepared to pay creates a “consumer surplus”.

That consumers of media want it but aren’t prepared to pay for it is a basic truth; the 20th Century media model is based upon advertising subsiding journalism and entertainment.

For all forms of media this was true; from TV and radio stations being fully funded by advertising to newspapers and magazines’ cover prices barely covering distribution costs.

Take out advertising and all these models are dead. The only alternative is government funding.

Losing the advertising rivers of gold to web services is what’s killing the established business model. It appears that TV and radio will hang on, for now, but newspapers and magazines are in serious difficulties.

Simply put, there has rarely been a market for journalism; readers and viewers aren’t prepared to pay. Journalism’s golden years of the 20th Century were based upon having a relatively captive market for advertisers; now advertisers can go elsewhere, they have.

Putting a sophisticated label on a basic concept is something consulting companies are very good at and Boston Consulting Group has done an excellent job with this report.

The fundamental truth is that it doesn’t matter how good your product is, if you can’t find a way to make someone pay you for it then you don’t have a market or a business.

Which is what the real challenge is for online content creators, finding the model that pays. The first person to do that becomes the 21st Century’s Randolph Hearst.

Tag: web

Writedowns and triumphalism

Similar posts:

Outsourcing’s changing face

Similar posts:

Consumer surplus?

Similar posts: