Why Are TV Makers Pushing Cadillacs When We Really Want Ferraris?

US-IT-CES-ELECTRONICS

Samsung shows off huge new TV (Photo: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Are TV makers going the way of Detroit in the 1960s? In what many, including those who didn’t bother to attend, are calling a boring Consumer Electronics Show, the star attractions seem to be leviathans such as Samsung’s and Sony’s new 84-inch TV sets. Even they apparently is not amazing enough, because Samsung is promising a 110-inch model later this year.

Size isn’t the only way they’re big, either. Those 84-inchers, which one Sony executive had the audacity to call “Ferraris,” costs $25,000, more than I will ever pay for a car, let alone a TV. And they have more pixels than my never-acute eyesight can ever process–even if there were content created for them, which there isn’t.

Seriously, guys, I’m not buying another TV for a very long time. The screen I’ve got is as big as I can fit in my living room, and that’s not going to change. Even if I did have a bigger living room, a big-ass 84-inch TV would feel faintly embarrassing, like tractor tires on a little pickup.

What’s more, not a single Smart TV feature, no matter how cool, is going to sway me to pony upwards of a thousand dollars for a new set to replace a perfectly fine screen. I’ve got TiVo, I’ve got Apple TV, I’ve got Roku, I’ve got Google TV, and probably there’s some other add-on device I can’t even remember. All of them offer more features and apps than I will ever use.

All of this makes me think of those road hogs of the late 1950s and early 1960s that Detroit insisted on manufacturing shortly before those cheap little imports ate their lunch. The fact is that more and more TV watching is occurring on much smaller screens, especially tablets. The sofa spuds of today don’t drive Cadillacs. We want Ferraris, or even Priuses. …

Read the rest of the post at The New Persuaders.

About these ads

5 Reasons Why Facebook Shares Have Soared Past $30

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO, shows off th...

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Photo: Wikipedia)

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After languishing ever since Facebook’s mostly botched initial public offering last May, the social network’s shares are up more than 5% today, moving past $30 a share for the first time since July. Why the sudden investor interest in what was one of last year’s biggest disappointments in the business world?

* Something new is coming: I and a crowd of other journalists have been invited to a press event on Jan. 15 to “come see what we are building.” That could be anything, from new kinds of ads (though that’s not the usual thing Facebook engineers mean when they talk about what they’re building) or a mobile phone (very unlikely, since CEO Mark Zuckerberg put the kibosh on the idea awhile ago) to a search engine, a music service, or an expanded e-commerce initiative.

Or, the most likely of all, something entirely different–possibly several things, to read probably too much into the invitation’s wording. In any case, it’s enough of an event that investors are likely intrigued and want to get in ahead of an announcement that at the least will get a lot of coverage.

* Ad revenue growth is accelerating again. In its third quarter, Facebook surprised investors with a 36% jump in ad revenues, sending its shares up 20% the next day. Although mobile ad revenues are a big part, a new ad exchange and an ad targeting program called Custom Audiences also appear to be getting traction.

* In particular, Facebook appears to have a good start on solving a key issue during the IPO: mobile advertising. The big kicker in that third quarter was mobile ad revenues, which hit $150 million, or 14% of revenues, from almost zero just six months earlier. As Zuckerberg said during the third-quarter earnings call, “I want to dispel this myth that Facebook can’t make money on mobile.” In particular, ads in mobile news feeds are working for advertisers because they look more like a natural part of what people are already looking at. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

13 Questions For 2013 In The World Of Online Advertising

questionsCross-posted at my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

For the past few years, I’ve offered predictions here and on The New Persuaders for what’s likely to come in the next year. I viewed them more as an agenda for what to watch for in the next 12 months than as firm predictions.

But it was too easy sometimes to state the obvious so they’d end up right by year-end. So this year, I’m going to shake it up and throw out a few questions instead. I think I know the answers to some of them, but if many won’t be answered definitively by year-end, they remain top of mind for me and probably for many others in online media and advertising.

So in this, the first full week of the new year, here are some questions to which I hope to start finding answers (and if you’ve got ‘em, sound off in the comments below!):

* Will image advertising finally take off online? I have to believe that as people spend more and more time online instead of reading print publications and watching TV, brand marketers will want and need to reach them there with ads that are aimed at creating consideration for later purchases, not just eliciting an immediate sale like Google’s search ads and too many banner ads. We’re already starting to see signs of such advertising with the early success of Facebook’s Sponsored StoriesTwitter’s Promoted Tweets, and YouTube’s TrueView ads–not to mention the explosion of tablets, which provide a lean-back experience more compatible with image advertising. This won’t be a sudden change, since brand marketers and agencies don’t move quickly, but you can’t tell me there aren’t going to be increasingly compelling ways for brands to influence people online.

* Will native ads reach broad scale? Well, perhaps they will on platforms such as Facebook and–well, Facebook–that already reach hundreds of millions of people. Sponsored Stories clearly have gotten some traction, even on mobile devices. But marketers and agencies won’t create multiple versions of campaigns to serve every new ad format that publishers claim work better than banner ads. Which brings up a related question:

* Will any standards emerge around the social gestures that most of these native ads embody? That’s really the only thing that will ensure that marketers can reach scale across many sites. That wouldn’t be in the interest of big companies such as Facebook and Google, which benefit from proprietary ad formats that can reach their huge audiences. But standards, whether it’s banners of a particular size or ad networks, create a more liquid market that helps hundreds of publishers survive as they provide marketers scalable opportunities to reach big audiences. So are there atomic units of social gestures that could carry brand messages across multiple native ad formats without destroying the appeal of native formats? Maybe there’s a technological fix for this, but it’s clear that a lot more needs to be done.

* Will the long-predicted shakeout in ad tech companies finally happen? It didn’t really occur last year despite a few middling-big acquisitions by Oracle, Salesforce.com, and Google. This year, perhaps new Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer will corral a few to try to recharge the company’s ad business. Google, Adobe, and IBM have built out “stacks” of ad tech, but no doubt they can each fill out their offerings. Then there’s Facebook, whose ad exchange is likely to need fleshing out. But even if they each write checks for a few three-letter acronym startups apiece, don’t call it a shakeout. Given the rapid evolution of advertising technologies, and the reality that using data to refine advertising is still in its infancy, it’s a good bet that more companies will still be created than disappear. That should keep the Lumascape as crowded as ever.

* Can advertisers and publishers make ads more personal without scaring people? That’s the $64 billion question, and it likely won’t get answered in full this year. It’s easy for headline-hungry politicians to make a big deal out of Facebook’s latest privacy gaffe or the Wall Street Journal’s or the New York Times’ latest scare story about an ad that followed somebody all over the Web. That’s especially so since Facebook really does push the privacy envelope too far at times, and too many advertisers idiotically chase one more sales conversion at the cost of scaring off hundreds of others or inviting onerous legislation. But making ads more useful to each individual person is not only crucial to online commerce, it’s potentially better for most consumers as well–seriously, I don’t need to see another ad for a fitness center or a new credit card, but that ad for Camper van Beethoven’s new CD had me in a split-second. The answer lies in these two words, everyone: transparency and choice.

* Will mobile advertising work? Well, some of it already does, to hear Google and Facebook tell it. And while those already devalued digital dimes so far turn to pennies when it comes to ads on smartphones and tablets, this still feels more like growing pains than a crisis in online advertising. Sure, the screens are small and people don’t like to be interrupted in their mobile cocoons. So a different kind of advertising is probably needed–clearly, banners don’t cut it on a four-inch screen. But the value to advertisers of knowing your location and maybe the apps you’re using, coupled with knowledge of what your friends like–all with permission, of course–is huge. That permission may be really tough to earn. But if advertisers can offer tangible value, perhaps in the form of useful services related to what you’re doing or looking for or shopping for–and isn’t that the ultimate native ad?–people may loosen their hold on that information.

* Can Larry Page keep Google relevant in the social media age? So far, the no-longer-new CEO has at least kept Google’s mainstream ad business humming. Page has outlasted a year or so of missteps, missed opportunities, antitrust investigations, and bum vocal chords, and arguably emerged with a company that’s leaner, more focused, and more potent than ever. Not only does the recent antitrust victory appear to leave it free to compete unimpeded, but Android is doing better than ever even vs. a very strong Apple ecosystem and Google is about to emerge as a powerhouse in the other half of online advertising: display ads, whether on the desktop or on mobile devices. Page’s big challenge looms as big as ever, though: Can Google play in the social Web vs. Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and more? I don’t know, but this may be the year Page has to provide a more definitive answer.

* Will TV and Web video ads finally come together on Connected TVs, tablets, or other devices? Sure, at some point. Video is video no matter where it runs, and while personal computer users bristle at pre-roll video ads, I’m betting viewers are more amenable to various kinds of ads when they view video on Internet-connected TVs or tablets. And even on PCs, YouTube’s TrueView ads, which you can skip after a few seconds, have proven successful to the tune of several billion dollars last year. Traditional TV advertising will continue to thrive thanks to unassailable economics of the cable-content cabal. But given extensive work by Nielsen, comScore, and others to provide metrics that can extend across TV and the Web, the latter may finally get some serious coin from brand marketers–if not this year, pretty soon thereafter. Especially if Apple works its magic on the television.

* Will Facebook really tick us off with a new feature or privacy “improvement”? Is Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Facebook? Nonetheless, Facebook’s well-worn playbook of pushing beyond social comfort levels, then pulling back just a bit, means we’ll probably see privacy norms get stretched once again.

* Will Apple ever make a real splash in advertising? Don’t bet your iPad on it. I think even the post-Steve Jobs Apple still views ads the way a lot of Silicon Valley still does (mostly in error): ineffective, inelegant, and crass. Apple itself can make great ads, but selling them is an entirely different matter.

* Will Amazon make a real splash in advertising? Oh yeah. All the pieces are in place, from a huge shopping-focused audience to a nearly bulletproof technology infrastructure. Again, it won’t set the world on fire this year, but we’re likely to see the smoke.

* Will Marissa Mayer turn around Yahoo? Not this year. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised to see signs of a real turn for the first time in about five CEOs. But the real turnaround will take years–if Yahoo’s board has the patience. That’s still an iffy bet worth about as much as a share of Yahoo stock.

* Will I ever figure out the appeal of Reddit and BuzzFeed? Gosh, I hope so. I get that these guys attract massive traffic, but neither site does much for me. Reddit, in particular, seems so random that I guess it must be the channel-surfing of today’s generation, only with somewhat more worthwhile nuggets. But for pete’s sake, there’s so much noise for the signal you get, and even the most popular noise can be many hours, days, or even months old. Go ahead, call me a geezer who doesn’t get it. You wouldn’t be the first, and maybe you’re right. So I will continue to click over to them until I see the light, my brain explodes, or the next phenom looks more worth wasting my remaining years on.

I have a lot more questions, but I’ve got to stop before too much of 2013 is gone.

Calling Dick Tracy: Will Apple Really Launch An iWatch? Very Doubtful

dicktracyFrom my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Even in a holiday week, the Apple rumors continue–and today, it’s that the company may produce a smart watch in the first half of next year.

Yes, another techie watch, the bane of the technology industry nearly since the dawn of the microchip. Here’s why I’m not betting on seeing an iWatch anytime soon:

* We all already carry a watch. It’s called a cell phone. And in case you hadn’t noticed, it can tell you the time–more reliably than you can make a call on it, in fact.

* Even Apple would have trouble making a watch with a screen look fashionable enough to wear all the time. Seriously, half the population will never wear anything like this, and I’m betting that even most of the male half would look askance.

* Anything with a screen that would fit on your wrist is too small to do the vast majority of stuff you can do on a smartphone. Don’t even think about anything resembling a keyboard, and Siri isn’t nearly there when it comes to voice commands for a wide variety of applications. The screen also would be too small to run ads on, which, come to think of it, might be a plus for Apple as a way to stick it to Google.

* Apple supposedly isn’t designing this thing. According to the report, Intel would design the watch and Apple would produce it. Sorry, no. Only in the Bizarro universe would this kind of thing happen.

All this is not to say that Apple won’t move into wearable computing at some point. …

Read the rest of the post at The New Persuaders.

Sorry, Retailers–Cyber Monday’s Days Are Numbered

Two cliches in one ad!

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Not long after Cyber Monday was invented in 2005 as an online alternative to Black Friday, I called it a “marketing myth” because it was actually not even close to a top holiday shopping day.

Then a funny thing happened–Cyber Monday, created by the National Retail Foundation’s Shop.org online unit, became a self-fulfilling prophecy as retailers jumped on the term and began offering special sales that day after the Thanksgiving holiday. By the following year, it had turned into a real phenomenon, at least for many retailers, and last year it became the heaviest shopping day ever to date. It might even happen again this year.

But now, even as many retailers have made Cyber Monday sales a stock part of their holiday strategy, I’m betting its days are numbered. Why?

* Early sales. Smart retailers noticed that before Cyber Monday, at least (and perhaps still), the period leading up to the big day actually were even more active shopping days. And in their never-ending attempt to get a step ahead of rivals, many retailers ran not just pre-Cyber Monday sales, but pre-Black Friday sales as early as the evening before Thanksgiving. Apparently they worked. They almost certainly will cannibalize Cyber Monday sales. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Google’s Android Crushes Apple’s iOS In Smartphone Shipments–But Does It Matter?

Source: IDC

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Just four years after its debut, Google’s Android mobile operating software now claims 75% of mobile units shipped, according to a new report from market researcher IDC.

In the third quarter, according to IDC, some 136 million Android handsets shipped, almost double the 71 million shipped in last year’s third quarter. Devices using Apple’s iOS grew by a far lower 57%, to 26.9 million handsets, for a surprisingly low 15% market share. Don’t even ask about Blackberry or Windows Mobile. It’s a two-horse race for now.

Some folks wonder if this trend is heading toward a rerun of the Windows PC vs. the Mac. Maybe, and it’s got to be something that worries Apple CEO Tim Cook, who hardly wants to be the guy who let the mobile revolution get away.

But in the short to medium-term, it’s doubtful this is a killer for Apple. Why?

For one, Apple’s share was probably especially low in the last quarter because the eagerly awaited iPhone 5 didn’t ship until September, very late in the quarter. Add in new iPad models just introduced, in a holiday quarter when Apple devices are probably still the gift people would prefer to give over Android gadgets, and it’s hard to imagine that Apple won’t see some rebound in the fourth quarter. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

What Storm? Google Keeps Apple War Hot With New Tablets And A Phone

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

After Hurricane Sandy forced Google to cancel an event planned in New York today to show off new Android devices, it’s launching them anyway–keeping the search giant in pitched competition with Apple.

Google introduced two new sets of tablets, in addition to a new version of its intelligent personal assistant Google Now:

* A Nexus 7 seven-inch tablet with 16 GB of memory, double the previous low-end memory, for $199, the same price, and a 32 GB model for $249.  A new version of the Nexus 7 with a cellular connection and 32 GB for $299.

* The Nexus 4 smartphone, developed with Korea’s LG. As expected, it has a 4.2-inch display, as well as wireless charging so you don’t have to plug it into a power adapter. It’s $299, on sale starting Nov. 13.

* The Nexus 10 tablet, developed with Samsung, that adds a new full-size tablet to Google’s lineup. Available Nov. 14, it costs $399 for a 16 GB model and $499 for a 32 GB model.

The smaller tablets are intended to counter last week’s announcement by Apple of the iPad mini, its don’t-call-it-a-seven-inch tablet. Apple itself has clearly felt the new heat of competition, so while the iPad mini will likely sell well during the holiday season, Google’s new devices–along with Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire tablets, which Amazon says are selling well, and perhaps even Microsoft’s Surface tablet–help make it a real contest.

3 Reasons Google Missed Q3 Earnings Estimates

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Google’s shares plunged this morning by 9% after the search giant’s third-quarter earnings came in considerably lower than expected. The results were accidentally released hours earlier than expected, leading to a halt in the shares’ trading for a time.

Google earned a $9.03 per share profit before certain expenses, far below the $10.63 Wall Street consensus estimate, and down 20% from a year ago. GAAP profit was $6.53. Net revenues after paying partners for traffic were $11.53 billion, up 19% from a year ago. That also missed the Street’s estimate of $11.9 billion. Paid clicks, a key indicator, rose 33% from a year ago, and cost per click, another key measure but one whose meaning is murky, fell 15%.

So what happened? Here’s a quick assessment, which will be supplemented in a new post following the 1:30 p.m. Pacific earnings call:

* Costs jumped. They were up 71%, to $11.4 billion. It appears much of that increase came from Motorola Mobility, which Google acquired for $12.5 billion in May. After all, the acquisition added more than 20,000 employees. As Citi analyst Mark Mahaney said in a note to investors: “Bottom line divergence partly due to Amortization expenses, which came in at $317MM vs. our $197MM estimate. That contributed perhaps $0.40 of the EPS shortfall.” Update after the earnings call: But not just that. CFO Patrick Pichette specifically mentioned costs of selling the likely near-zero-margin Nexus 7 tablet Google released during the quarter–a single product line, so the company’s is clearly pushing it hard.

* Motorola losses were huge. The unit posted a $527 million loss on a GAAP operating basis. Mahaney again:  “Another major delta was Motorola, which generated $151MM Op Loss vs. our $28MM estimate.”

* Ad revenue didn’t set records. It was up 16% from a year ago. Although lower cost per click isn’t always an indicator of a problem, in this case, the fourth consecutive decline has investors wondering anew if it’s due to the lower prices mobile ads get or even competition from the likes of Facebook. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Facebook’s Mobile App Install Ads Get Moving

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Exhortations to install apps are likely a significant chunk of Facebook’s advertising revenues, and now they’re poised to become an even bigger factor in the social network’s future. Today, two months after offering app install ads for mobile devices to a select group of app developers and their marketing partners, Facebook opened up the ads to anyone.

These ads appear right in people’s mobile news feeds, providing prime placement for games and other apps in Apple’s App Store for iPhones and iPads and Google’s Play store for Android devices. Not surprisingly, Facebook says in a blog post that mobile app install ads are already working:

In early results, beta partners like Kabam, Fab, TinyCo and Big Fish were able to reach a more relevant audience and efficiently drive installs. For example, TinyCo saw 50% higher CTRs and significantly higher conversion rates compared to their current mobile channels, as well as a significant increase in player engagement.

A select subset of Preferred Marketing Developers (PMDs) has been testing mobile app install ads and saw similarly positive results. For example, Nanigans’ clients efficiently achieved 8-10x the reach compared to other mobile ad buys. Ad Parlor saw consistent CTR’s from news feed of 1-2% from engaged users looking for iPhone and Android games that their friends were playing.

No doubt those numbers will come down as the novelty factor in any new ad or feature wears off. Still, even a fraction of those results would still be valuable to advertisers.

That’s assuming–and this is a fair assumption given Facebook’s wariness about ad overload–that the company doesn’t go over the top and overload people’s mobile news feeds with the ads. Avoiding overload is especially important for these ads because unlike many of Facebook’s marquee ads, they don’t have a social component, meaning they appear strictly in response to developers paying for them, not because a friend liked an app.

Too many of these ads that don’t have the appeal of a friend’s connection, and the dreaded banner blindness is likely to set in.

There also more coming to improve these ads, according to Facebook engineer Vijaye Raji:

In coming months, we’ll continue to make updates that improve the user experience and the performance of mobile app install ads. For example, you may be able to customize your ad unit based on your audience, ensure that your ads are only shown to people who have not installed your app on iOS or Android devices, and allow people to start installing your app without leaving Facebook.

Mobile Ad Spending Doubles in 2012′s First Half

From my Forbes.com blog The New Persuaders:

Mobile ads drove a 14% rise in online advertising revenues, to $17 billion, in the first half of 2012, according to a report out this morning from the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

According to the IAB’s latest half-year report (full pdf here), mobile ad revenue jumped 95%, to $1.2 billion, or or 7% of total online ad revenues. That’s up from 4% a year ago. The reason is fairly obvious, and something every company from Facebook to Google is struggling with: People are increasingly accessing online service through smartphones and tablets, thanks to the popularity of the iPhone, the iPad, and Android devices, and advertisers are following them there.

The 14% rise pales next to a 23% rise a year ago, though the IAB attributes last year’s jump to a recovery from the recession. Online ad spending continues to far outpace overall advertising spending, which rose less than 1%, according to both Nielsen and Kantar Media. Television remains the one relatively bright spot in traditional media, though its growth also remains far behind digital. Cable saw a 4% increase, to $10.9 billion, and broadcast rose 3.3%, to $11.1 billion.

Performance-based ads, those seeking to elicit an immediate purchase or other action, remain dominant, and even gained ground over more brand-oriented ads. Chief among these ads are search ads, which despite their 48% share of overall online ad revenues continued to gain as a category in the first half, rising 19% to reach $8.1 billion. That means search giant Google, which reports its third-quarter earnings a week from today, still reigns supreme in online ads.

Display ads rose only 4%, to $5.6 billion, reducing its share of overall online ads from 36% to 33%. Although the IAB didn’t mention it, no doubt part of the relatively slow growth is due to the rise of more efficient (that is, lower-priced) banner ads placed via real-time bidding through ad exchanges.

“Brand dollars are moving online, but at a slightly slower pace than the last two half-year reports,” Sherrill Mane, the IAB’s senior VP research analytics and measurement, said in a conference call this morning. That’s a problem, indeed perhaps evidence of a problem, for companies such as Facebook that are depending on brand marketers moving television and magazine ads online. …

Read the complete post at The New Persuaders.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers