Thursday, December 30, 2010

Ways of Making Money

Top Stories

Obama's budget has been delayed a week, reports Jonathan Weisman: "President Barack Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2012 will be released in mid-February, a little more than a week after its planned release date. The administration is scrambling to assemble what could be a pivotal document following a six-week delay in the confirmation of the White House's new budget director, a senior administration official said Monday. The budget's release date will be pushed back from Monday, Feb. 7, to some time the following week, the official said. The White House's new budget director, Jacob Lew, saw his confirmation put on hold by Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who was protesting the administration's moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Mr. Lew was confirmed Nov. 19."

Members of Congress are finding ways besides earmarks to fund pork projects, reports Ron Nixon: "Lettermarking, which takes place outside the Congressional appropriations process, is one of the many ways that legislators who support a ban on earmarks try to direct money back home. In phonemarking, a lawmaker calls an agency to request financing for a project. More indirectly, members of Congress make use of what are known as soft earmarks, which involve making suggestions about where money should be directed, instead of explicitly instructing agencies to finance a project. Members also push for increases in financing of certain accounts in a federal agency’s budget and then forcefully request that the agency spend the money on the members’ pet project. Because all these methods sidestep the regular legislative process, the number of times they are used and the money involved are even harder to track than with regular earmarks.

Real talk: The move from earmarking to lettermarking, phonemarking, hearingmarking, etc, wasn't just predictable. It was inevitable. And make no mistake: Within three-to-five years, we're likely to be back to earmarking as well.

Corporations are using their cash supplies to fuel mergers, not job growth, reports Jia Lynn Yang: "The volume of global mergers this year rose 19 percent, according to Dealogic, ticking up for the first time since 2007 as firms looked for ways to deploy the record amount of cash sitting on their balance sheets...Conditions are ripe for a comeback in mergers and acquisitions because U.S. companies are holding a record nearly $2 trillion in cash. They have been hesitant to use these massive piles of funds to hire as they wait to see whether the economic recovery picks up more speed. Instead, this year they've been making safer bets: buying back stocks to help boost their share prices and spending money on modestly sized mergers."

Fuzz-pop interlude: Wavves plays "King of the Beach".

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.

Want Wonkbook delivered to your inbox or mobile device? Subscribe!

Still to come: Foreign banks benefited from a Federal Reserve program; being unemployed is bad for your health; Obama's federal pay freeze is being extended to more civil service workers; the incoming House Energy and Commerce chair outlines his plan to derail the EPA's climate regulations; and a genetically engineered singing mouse.

Economy

The Obama administration is cracking down on banks that are delinquent on their TARP payments, reports Zachary Goldfarb: "The Obama administration has begun monitoring the high-level board meetings of nearly 20 banks that received emergency taxpayer assistance but repeatedly failed to pay the required dividends, according to Treasury Department officials and documents. And it may soon install new directors on some of their boards. The moves come as the number of banks that failed to make at least one dividend payment to the government rose to 132 in the last quarter. These 'deadbeats,' as they are sometimes called, are virtually all community lenders and collectively received billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance. In addition to those firms, seven others have failed, resulting in the total loss of the government's investment."

Looking for a rigorous overview of the various methodological difficulties involved in assessing stimulus proposals? Alan Auerbach, William Gale, and Benjamin Harris have you covered (pdf).

Non-US banks have benefited from Federal Reserve credit, report Robin Harding, Bernard Simon, and Christian Oliver: "Some of the world’s strongest banks have profited from an emergency credit facility set up by the US Federal Reserve to shore up confidence in the global financial system, according to a Financial Times analysis of data released by the Fed. More than half of lending under the Fed’s term auction facility - the largest of its crisis programmes - went to foreign banks. Details of the varied uses to which they put it may add to political criticism of the Fed. The Taf was set up in December 2007 to provide one-month loans to creditworthy banks as markets dried up for lending longer than overnight. In August 2008, it began offering three-month loans as well."

A new study suggests startups are central to job growth: http://on.wsj.com/fDs2eV

There's much Obama could do for the economy that wouldn't require congressional approval, write Paul Krugman and Robin Wells: "Democrats could pressure the administration to fix the inexcusable mess at the HAMP (mortgage modification) program--a program whose Kafkaesque complexity has in many cases made matters so bad for home owners that it has triggered the foreclosures it was supposed to avoid. In addition, mortgage relief would benefit the wider economy. Furthermore, the scope of mortgage relief could be made much wider if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were used to guarantee mortgage refinancing. Other proposals go even further: for example, that Fannie and Freddie engineer reductions in mortgage principals. All of this could be done, conceivably, by executive order."

Prizes for spurring innovation work, writes Annie Lowrey: http://slate.me/dFXZgh

A survey of jobless workers shows the extent of their suffering, writes Bob Herbert: "More than 15 million Americans are officially classified as jobless. The professors, at the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, have been following their representative sample of workers since the summer of 2009. The report on their latest survey, just out this month, is titled: 'The Shattered American Dream: Unemployed Workers Lose Ground, Hope, and Faith in Their Futures.' Over the 15 months that the surveys have been conducted, just one-quarter of the workers have found full-time jobs, nearly all of them for less pay and with fewer or no benefits. 'For those who remain unemployed,' the report says, 'the cupboard has long been bare.'

The American political system is corrupted in favor of the upper classes, writes Jeffrey Sachs: http://bit.ly/icPQdh

Extreme sports interlude: Russian-style bungee jumping.

Health Care

Enrollment is lower and costs higher than expected in health care reform's high-risk pools, reports Amy Goldstein: "An early feature of the new health-care law that allows people who are already sick to get insurance to cover their medical costs isn't attracting as many customers as expected. In the meantime, in at least a few states, claims for medical care covered by the 'high-risk pools' are proving very costly, and it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient... According to some health-policy researchers, the success or failure of the pools also could foreshadow the complexities of making broader changes in health insurance by 2014, when states are to open new marketplaces - or exchanges - for Americans to buy coverage individually or in small groups."

Real talk: High-risk health-care pools never work very well. The Democrats knew that when they rejected Republican plans that would've put them at the center of the health-care system for sick individuals. Then, of course, they turned around and made them one of health-care reform's early deliverables. I'm skeptical of arguments that say they "foreshadow" larger market reforms, which work very differently than segregating a tiny fraction of sick patients in state-run insurance programs.

Unemployment could cause serious health damage, reports David Wessel: "A new National Bureau of Economic Research paper suggests that increases in unemployment lead to a decrease in fruit and vegetable consumption, with potentially long-lived effects on workers’ health. 'Among those who are predicted to be at the highest risk of unemployment, a one percentage point increase in the resident’s state unemployment rate is associated with a 2% to 4% reduction in the frequency of fruits and vegetable consumption, and an 8% reduction in the consumption of salad,' economists Dhaval Dave of Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., and Inas Rashad Kelly of Queens College in Flushing, N.Y, said...Research by Daniel Sullivan and Till von Wachter finds that mortality rates in the year following a layoff among high-seniority male workers increases sharply."

The White House denies its new regulation on end-of-life care represents a policy change: http://politi.co/gkMbRZ

Domestic Policy

The federal pay freeze is being extended to more civil servants, reports Lisa Rein: "The two-year pay freeze that is now law for federal employees on the pay scale known as the General Schedule will also apply to hundreds of thousands of civil servants whose wages are set under a separate salary system, according to an executive order signed last week by President Obama. Employees covered by the so-called Administratively Determined pay scale - not legislated by Congress but set by federal agencies - make up about 30 percent of the workforce of 2 million. They include public health doctors and nurses, medical personnel in the Veterans Affairs system, administrative law judges and attorneys, auditors and other staff at financial agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Nobelist James Heckman is urging early childhood education as a path toward economic growth, reports James Warren: " James J. Heckman, who has won the Nobel in economic science, offered a provocative idea for reducing spiraling budget deficits and strengthening the economy: investing in early childhood development. Mr. Heckman marshals ample data to suggest that better teaching, higher standards, smaller classrooms and more Internet access 'have less impact than we think,' as he put it at the Spertus Institute. To focus as intently as we do on the kindergarten to high school years misses how 'the accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality,' he said. He urges more effectively educating children before they step into a classroom where, as Chicago teachers tell me, they often are clueless about letters, numbers and colors -- and lack the attentiveness and persistence to ever catch up."

Public universities are getting creative about tuition fees: http://on.wsj.com/ifgrV1

Obama should push for Social Security reform, writes Michael Gerson: "Obama's liberal base contends that the Social Security trust fund is not in immediate trouble. But this argument depends on an elaborate accounting trick. The trust fund is not filled with assets - gold bullion and Apple stock. It is filled with debt issued by the government to itself. The surpluses of the trust fund are in fact liabilities for the government as a whole. And these illusory surpluses are regularly used to subsidize the rest of the budget. The scheme begins to collapse in 2037, when promised benefits for Social Security recipients will suddenly drop by about 25 percent - unless the system is reformed...Obama's urgent political need is to polish his image among Independents on spending and debt."

Fun with genetic alterations interlude: Scientists create a singing mouse.

Energy

Congress should stop the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, write House Energy and Commerce chair Fred Upton and Todd Phillips: "The best solution is for Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright. If Democrats refuse to join Republicans in doing so, then they should at least join a sensible bipartisan compromise to mandate that the EPA delay its regulations until the courts complete their examination of the agency's endangerment finding and proposed rules. Like the plaintiffs, we have significant doubt that EPA regulations can survive judicial scrutiny. And the worst of all possible outcomes would be the EPA initiating a regulatory regime that is then struck down by the courts."

The EPA is well within its rights to regulate carbon emissions, writes Brad Plumer: "Over at The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf thinks the EPA is 'disregarding [the] separation of powers.' But why? How? The Clean Air Act is a law that was passed by Congress and amended several times. The law originally focused on specific toxins like lead and sulfur-dioxide, but it was intended to be updated periodically, as new science on pollution and human health came in. The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases fit within this framework--and, so, the Obama administration has begun enforcing the relevant laws. Set aside whether you agree with the policy outcome. What about this is constitutionally troubling?"

The Department of Energy is circulating a "list of accomplishments" from the past year: http://bit.ly/gbQFTh

Sen. Jay Rockefeller is challenging the administration on mine safety, reports Andrew Restuccia: "Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is raising questions about whether the federal agency charged with mining safety is adequately funded. In a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Rockefeller said he is concerned that the Senate’s inability to pass an omnibus spending bill that would have increased funding for mine safety could 'undermine the progress that is being made and further limit MSHA's [Mine Safety and Health Administration] ability to fulfill its mission.' Instead of the broad omnibus spending bill, the Senate passed a narrow continuing resolution that largely funds the government at current levels until March."

John Tierney makes the case for optimism about the world's energy supply: http://nyti.ms/fKyVGN

Closing credits: Wonkbook is compiled and produced with help from Dylan Matthews, Mike Shepard, and Michelle Williams. Photo credit: White House.

Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans

from the everything's-possible dept

Over the last few years, we've covered many of the moves by the band Ok Go -- to build up a fanbase often with the help of amazingly viral videos, ditch their major record label (EMI), and explore new business model opportunities. In the last few days, two different members of Ok Go explained a bit more of the band's thinking in two separate places, and both are worth reading. First up, we have Tim Nordwind, who did an interview with Hypebot, where he explained the band's general view on file sharing:

Obviously we'd love for anyone who has our music to buy a copy. But again, we're realistic enough to know that most music can be found online for free. And trying to block people's access to it isn't good for bands or music. If music is going to be free, then musicians will simply have to find alternative methods to make a living in the music business. People are spending money on music, but it's on the technology to play it. They spend hundreds of dollars on Ipods, but then fill it with 80 gigs of free music. That's ok, but it's just a different world now, and bands must learn to adjust.

Elsewhere in the interview, he talks about the importance of making fans happy and how the band realizes that there are lots of different ways to make money, rather than just selling music directly:

Our videos have opened up many more opportunities for us to make the things we want to make, and to chase our best and wildest ideas. Yes, we need to figure out how to make a living in a world where people don't buy music anymore. But really, we've been doing that for the last ten years. Things like licensing, touring, merch, and also now making videos through corporate sponsorship have all allowed us to keep the lights on and continue making music.

Separately, last Friday, Damian Kulash wrote a nice writeup in the Wall Street Journal all about how bands can, should and will make money going forward. In many ways the piece reminds me a bit of my future of music business models post from earlier this year -- and Kulash even uses many of the same examples in his article (Corey Smith, Amanda Palmer, Josh Freese, etc.). It's a really worthwhile read as well. He starts by pointing out that for a little over half a century, the record labels had the world convinced that the "music" industry really was just the "recorded music" industry:

For a decade, analysts have been hyperventilating about the demise of the music industry. But music isn't going away. We're just moving out of the brief period--a flash in history's pan--when an artist could expect to make a living selling records alone. Music is as old as humanity itself, and just as difficult to define. It's an ephemeral, temporal and subjective experience.

For several decades, though, from about World War II until sometime in the last 10 years, the recording industry managed to successfully and profitably pin it down to a stable, if circular, definition: Music was recordings of music. Records not only made it possible for musicians to connect with listeners anywhere, at any time, but offered a discrete package for commoditization. It was the perfect bottling of lightning: A powerful experience could be packaged in plastic and then bought and sold like any other commercial product.

But, he notes, that time is now gone, thanks in large part to the internet. But that doesn't mean the music business is in trouble. Just the business of selling recorded music. But there's lots of things musicians can sell. He highlights Corey Smith and Smith's ability to make millions by giving away his music for free, and then touring. But he also points out that touring isn't for everyone. He covers how corporate licensing has become a bigger and bigger opportunity for bands that are getting popular. While he doesn't highlight the specific economics of it, what he's really talking about is that if your band is big, you can sell your fan's attention -- which is something Ok Go has done successfully by getting corporate sponsorship of their videos. As he notes, the sponsors provide more money than the record labels with many fewer strings:

These days, money coming from a record label often comes with more embedded creative restrictions than the marketing dollars of other industries. A record label typically measures success in number of records sold. Outside sponsors, by contrast, tend to take a broader view of success. The measuring stick could be mentions in the press, traffic to a website, email addresses collected or views of online videos. Artists have meaningful, direct, and emotional access to our fans, and at a time when capturing the public's attention is increasingly difficult for the army of competing marketers, that access is a big asset.

...

Now when we need funding for a large project, we look for a sponsor. A couple weeks ago, my band held an eight-mile musical street parade through Los Angeles, courtesy of Range Rover. They brought no cars, signage or branding; they just asked that we credit them in the documentation of it. A few weeks earlier, we released a music video made in partnership with Samsung, and in February, one was underwritten by State Farm.

We had complete creative control in the productions. At the end of each clip we thanked the company involved, and genuinely, because we truly are thankful. We got the money we needed to make what we want, our fans enjoyed our videos for free, and our corporate Medicis got what their marketing departments were after: millions of eyes and goodwill from our fans. While most bands struggle to wrestle modest video budgets from labels that see videos as loss leaders, ours wind up making us a profit.

Of course, that only works if you have a big enough fanbase, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that less well known bands can use to make money as well. He talks about an up-and-coming band in LA that doesn't even have a manager that was able make money:

The unsigned and unmanaged Los Angeles band Killola toured last summer and offered deluxe USB packages that included full albums, live recordings and access to two future private online concerts for $40 per piece. Killola grossed $18,000 and wound up in the black for their tour. Mr. Donnelly says, "I can't imagine they'll be ordering their yacht anytime soon, but traditionally bands at that point in their careers aren't even breaking even on tour."

The point, Kulash, notes, is that there's a lot of things a band can sell, focusing on "selling themselves." And, the thing he doesn't mention is that, when you're focusing on selling the overall experience that is "you" as a musician or a band, it's something that can't be freely copied. People can copy the music all they want, but they can't copy you. "You" are a scarce good that can't be "pirated." That's exactly what more and more musicians are figuring out these days, and it's helping to make many more artists profitable. And, no, it doesn't mean that any artist can make money. But it certainly looks like any artist that understands this can do a hell of a lot better than they would have otherwise, if they just relied on the old way of making money in the music business.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

BIl Hemmer - Fair And Balanced Alive And Well - Fox News | Mediaite

Fox News host Bill Hemmer, preparing for a long night in Times Square alongside Megyn Kelly for Fox's All-American New Year's Eve has strongly defended Fox against the charge the network's anything but a shoot it down the middle real ...

Keith Olbermann: 'Fox News Is 100% Bullshit'

Keith Olbermann is anything but hesitant when it comes to a battle with Fox News, and the MSNBC anchor took to Twitter Wednesday to share his views on the TV network he probably wouldn't even call a rival. "Fox News is 100% bullshit," ...

AOL Weird News Top 10: The Best of the Bizarre

What does a one-legged man, a fly-sized frog, a bacon sculpture of Kevin Bacon, conjoined twins who can see out of each other's eyes and a 115-foot Jesus statue have in common? They've all made the list for AOL's Top Ten Weird News ...

surface encounters complaints surface encounters review surface encounters review surface encounters surface encounters review surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters complaints surface encounters rock tops surface encounters rock tops surface encounters surface encounters review

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

why internet marketing

Editor’s note: Brand dollars are still the biggest unclaimed prize on the interent. Guest author Steven Carpenter handicaps the players who are most likely to get them.

One of the biggest business opportunities in the consumer Internet space is to create products and services that attract a share of the billions of dollars in held-up brand marketing that has yet to find its way onto the web. With the explosion of various kinds of content and the innovative ways advertisers can segment and track users, why are marketers so reluctant to open up the floodgates? Quite simply, because the current online solutions—search, lead generation, display, video—do not provide a high enough return for these kinds of categories and are not consistent with the image these brands have invested so heavily to achieve.

Commensurate with the potential riches, there is an enormous amount of startup energy and experimentation going on in this area. In this installment of the TechCrunch Teardown, I will look at the four leaders—Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Groupon—and how their new interactions—“like”, “follow”, “friend/check-in”, “group coupon”—are fairing with brand advertisers.

The $20 Billion Opportunity

According to Ad Age, the Top 100 Global Advertisers spent over $100 billion in 2009 across the various print, television, radio, outdoor, and Internet channels; based on data from the previous year, 39 of the 100 had budgets of $1 billion or more (see table 1, click to enlarge). Procter & Gamble, manufacturer of 50 leading brands (such as Tide, Dawn, Pampers, Gillette, and Crest), of which 23 generate $1 billion or more in sales, is the world’s largest advertiser, spending close to $9 billion annually. It should follow, then, that the Internet economy as a whole is effected by how the brand managers at these companies decide to allocate their funds online.

As you can see from the last column in the table at right, the leading marketers are only spending $1.8 billion, or 2.6% of their total budgets, online, despite the fact that consumers are spending close to 30% of their time on the Internet. Of the top marketers, only General Motors, Disney, Bank of America, and News Corp. allocated more than $100 million to the web.

So who has found the best marketing value online? Companies that market and sell financial services, insurance, automotive, communications and media, and consumer technology. It makes sense: these are companies with products that can be found easily using search, and whose customers are most likely to be acquired online because they can transact online. To date, Google and vertical content sites such as Yahoo! Finance and Bankrate have been the largest benefactors of these re-allocated dollars.

New Kleiner Perkins partner, and former Morgan Stanley analyst, Mary Meeker, estimates that closing the gap between consumer attention and ad dollars spent on the Internet to be a $50 billion global opportunity. If the Top 100 marketers bring their marketing budgets in alignment with 30% of time spent, I estimate online brand marketing to be a $30 billion global opportunity and $20 billion in the U.S. As evidenced by Google’s recent pursuit of Groupon, its traditional CPC and display advertising may not be sufficient enough to meet these marketers’ needs.

The Four Horsemen

There are four Internet companies currently best positioned to work with brands to create innovative marketing solutions that will appeal to millions of consumers—Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Groupon. I acknowledge it is not exactly a fair comparison for two main reasons: 1) Facebook has enjoyed a 3-4 year head start on the field and 2) each product has a different use case and thus attracts a different audience with distinct revenue opportunities. Each company, though, has found its way into the mainstream and now finds itself with an attractive platform for brand experimentation.

I see the four product experiences these companies offer on a continuum of online-to-offline interaction on one axis, and requiring passive-to-active behavior on the other. The Facebook experience, for example, is largely an online one where a user can say something about herself by associating with a particular brand by “liking” it. This is an incredibly passive expression that requires a split-second action with little to no long-term repercussions. She can choose to visit the brand page and see the news feed at her convenience.

Twitter, on the other hand, is a personal tool for gathering realtime information—no one knows which feeds the consumer decides to consume or to ignore. While Twitter is similar to Facebook in its largely online-focused consumption, it is a much more “active” medium. Users are constantly reminded when they are following a brands’ information stream. As soon as the information becomes unimportant, too frequent, or spammy, she will simply cut off the connection.

Groupon (which I wrote about in an earlier teardown) is the lightest application, ironically, even though it is the only one of the four that requires a user to make a purchasing decision. Transactions occur easily online and the offline experience of presenting a coupon is consistent with decades of proven user behavior.

As of now, Foursquare asks the most of its users in relation to branded campaigns, but it is also the closest of the four to placing customers in the physical proximity of brands and retailers.

How They Are Doing

You can see how the four different interactions 1) naturally lend themselves to different brands and 2) exhibit a large disparity in terms of the sheer number of participants. And this is not necessarily a bad thing: 44,000 passionate luxury fashionistas at NY Fashion Week may be more valuable to Yves Saint Laurent than 5 million fans on Facebook.

It should come as no surprise that the biggest brand in the entire social ecosystem is Coca-Cola with 20 million Facebook Fans. Whole Foods is the biggest brand on Twitter with 1.8 million followers and the Gap, having sold 440,000 half-off coupons using Groupon, is that startup’s largest brand experiment.

Of the top 50 pages on Facebook, 8 of them are leading advertisers and brands, compared to Twitter which doesn’t have a single brand in its top 50 users. Of Facebook’s top 50 brand pages, 31 of them are food and beverage companies, while 11 are consumer products such as Converse All-Stars and Victoria’s Secret. The most important takeaway is that brands have a far greater following on Facebook than they do on their own sites. Facebook’s best move has been to convince brands to market their Facebook pages rather than driving traffic to their own websites.

The most interesting finding is that what seems to be popular on Facebook is not so on Twitter. If you click on the table at right an dlook at the top 50 brands on Facebook, the “Follower/Fan Ratio” (the result of dividing the number of Twitter followers to Facebook fans) does not get higher than 8% (Disney). This indicates that Twitter might have a more difficult time than Facebook in attracting overall brand dollars with its current product feature set.

This is evident when you look in detail at one CPG company and its portfolio of brands. I did a comparison of the differing success of P&G’s top brands using the two platforms (click on table at right to enlarge). In every case except one (Dawn), the branded experience on Facebook is more popular in terms of numbers than on Twitter. In a few cases, there does not appear to be a reason for even having a Twitter presence. It is interesting to note that the most followed P&G Twitter account is the company’s own corporate PR team.

Facebook still has a lot of work to do and it is far from a foregone conclusion that it has won. While the lightness of its interaction makes getting to scale easier, maintaining enough valuable interactions on the branded pages and engaging long-term customer interest is a huge challenge. For example, according to eMarketer, nearly 1/3 of Facebook users who unsubscribed from a branded page simply were no longer interested in it. And, more to the point, simply because Coke has 20 million Fans does not necessarily mean Coke will pay for the privilege to advertise on Facebook if it cannot see a return.

So what brands seem to be working well on Twitter and far better than on Facebook? Daily deals, such as Dell Outlet, Amazon, and Woot, and companies that place customer service and community at the heart of the brand experience, like Zappos and Etsy, exhibit the most lopsided Follower/Friend ratio. It is important to note that two companies that had horrific customer service challenges over the past few years—JetBlue and Toyota—have fully embraced Twitter as a direct communications channel. The biggest driver of Twitter success as compared to Facebook is the timeliness of the information.

Twitter, then, is well positioned to capture marketing dollars from companies optimizing for deals, retailers that have frequent specials, ticketing and events, movie studios, television shows, last minute deals, airlines, and hotels.

It is still early days for both Foursquare and Groupon in terms of working with big brands. Foursquare has seen traction with high-end luxury and media brands, likely as a result of its headquarters being located in New York and early media partnerships. Of course, Foursquare’s long-term viability as a stand-alone “check-in” company is still an open question with Facebook Places breathing down its neck. This is a strategic move on Facebook’s part to get closer to offline actions, transactions, and local commerce.

While Groupon is the defining company of next-generation e-commerce, it has a tougher road in terms of working with brands and large retailers. These companies tend to be more sensitive to heavy discounting as they don’t want to train their customers to wait for 50%-off coupons. And, they don’t like to be so indiscriminate with their offers.

Overall Assessment

I evaluated the four companies along the six different types of offers and campaigns that I can see consumer brands wanting to engage in:

Coupons: Simple discount off purchases

Location: Physical check-in or product scan

Loyalty: Frequency, “Mayorship

Time-based

Special Events: VIP’s

Inventory Close-Outs

Based on my research, while Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Groupon are the best positioned to capture the estimated $20 billion in pent-up consumer marketing dollars, none of the four are currently optimized to execute along all of the necessary dimensions. There are considerable opportunities for startups to innovate and capture share. I look for this to be one of the most attractive areas for entrepreneurs in the consumer internet for years to come.

Bugatti teardown photo credit: Flickr/David Villarreal Fernández

You missed two that became somewhat successful due to the web and more specifically filesharing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071804/

Ink

http://www.p2pon.com/2010/02/07/ink-the-proof-that-bittorrent-can-help-m...

“Ink”: The Proof that BitTorrent Can Help Movie Makers

Responsible for boosting the popularity and, implicitly, the earnings of independent movie “Ink”(a film P2PON has recommended when it first hit the p2p networks), online piracy is once again into the spotlight; this time, however, for the completely different reasons.

The creators behind the film production admitted in an interview that the unexpected success achieved by the initially unpresuming project is primarily owed to the intensive download activity registered on BitTorrent networks, which propelled the title into the top 20 movies on iMDb, despite all expectations.

Invited by the press to comment on the recently achieved success, Jamin and Kiowa Winans, the creators of Ink, didn’t hesitate to praise the BitTorrent download community for increasing the film’s exposure, as well as DVD and Blu-ray sales. Later statements from the two revealed the same initial enthusiasm regarding their new conquered “pirate fans”.

When asked to translate the hundreds of thousands of downloads into effective sales, Kiowa said it was difficult to quantify the financial gain generated by the activity on BitTorrent trackers, but admitted that DVD and Blu-ray sales have definitely gone up.

The unexpected financial success enjoyed by the production also came from other sources. Thanks to its popularity on BitTorrent, members of the downloading community supported the idea that fans should donate money via the film’s official website. Kiowa complemented on the generosity of German fans, who she claimed to have been twice as benevolent as fans from the US.

Asked if she considered the film to be a victim to piracy, Kiowa responded: “I think to say victim is to characterize piracy as an all-together awful thing. The piracy of Ink is unquestionably responsible for its popularity around the world. Sure our trailers have been out for over a year and have had plenty of views outside the US, but we think that 70% of the illegal downloads are coming from outside of the US and we do get a good number of international buyers at our online store every day.”

Kiowa suggested that the movie industry needed to change and adopt an effective strategy to ensure the deserved revenue for filmmakers, and satisfy film enthusiasts’ needs in terms of availability and affordability at the same time. As for online piracy,
Kiowa explained that it would be best to focus on exploiting the phenomenon for producing positive effects, pointing out once again to the success of the film Ink, owed to the thousands of downloaders on BitTorrent.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

The Man from Earth

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/internet-piracy-is-good-for-films-1

INTERNET PIRACY IS GOOD FOR FILMS

FOR "MAN FROM EARTH", AT ANY RATE

Can internet piracy result in more and better movies? "Of course, not!" is probably our stock reaction. By illegally downloading and sharing films, pirates steal the revenue that would otherwise reward and encourage film-makers--or so we are told by lawyers, economists, and lobbyists for Hollywood studios.

But we may have plenty to learn yet about the possible impact of file-sharing and other online distribution methods on the quantity and quality of films we watch. The story of Jerome Bixby's "The Man from Earth", a small-budget science fiction movie released on DVD in November, shows how piracy can help salvage, not sink, high-quality cinema.

Shot on digital video with a budget of less than $200,000, the film features a bookish debate among academics who get together for a farewell party for John Oldman, a college professor, who, for no obvious reason, wants to quit his tenure-track job and hit the road. As the party unfolds, Oldman makes a surprising emotional confessession: he is 14,000 years old, doesn't really age, and has 10 doctorates--making him both the oldest and the smartest man on Earth.

What follows is an intense intellectual drilling by his colleagues--professors of anthropology, biology, archeology, psychology, and Christian literature--who try hard to spot inconsistencies in Oldman's account of the world, based on what they know from their own disciplines.

Their passionate debate is heavy on both science and humanities and makes "The Man from Earth" a very appealing movie to smart--yes, nerdy--audiences. Even if you don't learn anything new (which is unlikely), there is a good chance you will be asking yourself a lot of questions afterwards. It's nerdy enough to get the sci-fi geeks to watch it, while its interdisciplinarity makes it accessible to general public as well.

But what is truly unique about the film is not just the controversial story of John Oldman. It's the fact that the film producers have embraced internet piracy and thanked illegal downloaders for helping to spread the buzz about the movie.

In early November Releaselog, a popular blog that regularly posts links to movies, music, and software (most of which is copyrighted), ran a review (with accompanying download links) of "The Man from Earth". The review generated a flood of comments. The movie obviously struck a chord with the geeky and anti-establishment community at Releaselog and prompted many (illegal) downloads.

Most crews would have wanted to sue every downloader. Eric Wilkinson, the producer of "The Man from Earth" turned out to be much more new-media-savvy. He thanked the Releaselog community for piracy and said they were helping sales.

According to Wilkinson, in two weeks that passed after Releaselog wrote about the movie, it rose from the 11,235th to the 5th most popular movie among visitors to IMDB, a popular online movie database featuring user-generated reviews and rankings (the movie was the #1 independent film and #1 science fiction film on IMDB). Most of the traffic to the film's web-site came from Releaselog. The pirates were definitely to thank for the publicity that ensued.

This was enough to make the file-sharing community fall in love with Wilkinson and the film (later on, the director of the movie also wrote a big thank-you note on Releaselog), propelling it even further up the IMDB charts and securing shelf-life in WalMart. That was just the right time for Wilkinson to provide directions on how to send him money via PayPal for copies shared online; sure thing, many people did.

For marketing, this is a sea change, akin to Radiohead's giveaway album. Instead of courting movie critics and studio bosses, directors and producers can reach out directly to the blogging public, stirring up attention there as best they can. To prove his authenticity, Wilkinson went as far as to post a picture of himself next to his monitor with the blog screen open: some commenters first took him for a PayPal-abusing scammer.

Why did the crew behind "The Man from Earth" decide to pursue this route? Because the traditional distribution model for small-budget indie movies seems broken. Even if such movies do secure funding to release a DVD in their country of origin, they rarely if ever break out internationally.

If you are in Norway or UK it may be impossible to find a movie like "The Man from Earth" in your local DVD store for the next few years--even if you are willing to pay a premium. (As Wilkinson pointed out, at the time of his blog comment, all international rights to "The Man from Earth" were still available, meaning that the chance of seeing it legally outside the US was still minuscule). All those whose movie tastes are to the far-right end of the long tail have little alternative to piracy or abstinence.

The emergence of online payments makes a different model possible. If only a limited few can ever go and out buy a DVD of a movie they have shared online, anyone can now contribute money. What would be the pricing point? It could be the Radiohead route: pay what you think it's worth. It could be "match the rental or a cinema ticket" model: pay what you would normally pay for renting it a DVD store or watching it in a cinema theater.

In stark contrast to the traditional restrictive model of film distribution, the new model seeks as many ways of content distribution as possible: peer-to-peer file-sharing is the tip of the iceberg. More advanced users would know about Usenet, various online file storage services like Rapidshare, and plain solutions such as FTP servers. If this sounds a bit too geeky, you are probably are still a few years (and a few laws) away from downloading the entire Woody Allen collection (available at more than a few file-sharing sites at the time of writing).

This explains why producers like Wilkinson place such a premimum value on online buzz: it can push a movie to the top of user-generated charts and listings, giving producers a chance to tap online fans for cash.

In this "networked moviesphere", the movie experience never really ends, even after the movie is over. You can (some would say "should") go vote for the movie on sites like IMDB, post a review on Amazon, wire a donation via PayPal, add the director to your list of virtual friends on MySpaces and Facebooks of this world, post to Digg, and blog it to death on LiveJournal. And that's not to mention editing Wikipedia pages. When combined, all these activities create a publicity machine that marginalises mainstream critics.

In the case of "The Man from Earth", 2,000 people who downloaded it encouraged 20,000 more to go and check it out in cinemas and WalMarts by giving it a top IMDB rating. By losing money on 2,000 viewers, the film made money on 20,000 more.

Some in the movie business are already asking the obvious question: should big studios offer screener-like copies to the file-sharing community, to preview and blog about film before it goes into distribution? My answer: there are screener copies of all major Hollywood movies available on the Internet anyway, so the studios may as well do that proactively.

"When I make my next picture, I just may upload the movie on the net myself!", said Wilkinson in another blog comment. However, as of now, despite the producer and the director's support, any downloads of "The Man from Earth" are still illegal: it still bears that "All Rights Reserved" mark. (There is always an option of releasing it under Creative Commons, Larry Lessig's child that is celebrating its fifth anniversary this month, but CC still hasn't enjoyed the universal adoption it deserves, particularly among film studios.)

All legal issues aside, it must become a question soon, even for established producers, whether they can capture buzz-momentum to "crowd-fund" their next movie. Why bother with a traditional model if your fans can contribute money and just wait for the next release?

Some experiments with this model are already under way. "A Swarm of Angels", which describes itself as "open source film-making venture that aims to create a £1 million movie with the help of 50,000 participants around the globe", promises its "swarm of subscribers" input into the entire movie-making process in exchange for a subscription of £25.

This seems like a promising model, as long as the fans don't have absolute control over what comes out: there have been quite a few terrible examples of fan-directed movies that are completely impossible to watch. "Snakes On a Plane", which took a Wiki-like approach to the plot, is one failed and overhyped blockbuster. There could be many more. Sometimes, it pays to be a dictator--at least, artistically.

As for the big studios, expect them to hold out the longest against a more decentralised and buzz-focused approach to movie distribution. Their model is in danger, in all sorts of ways. A comment on a blog thread about "The Man from Earth" puts it best: "Only bad movies have to fear piracy". And, given how many bad movies studios continue to produce, they have plenty to fear.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Ok Go Explains There Are Lots Of Ways To Make Money If You Can Get Fans

from the everything's-possible dept

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Automate Your Finances to Spend Less Time Managing Your Accounts

Consumerist Budget Spreadsheet Balances Your Money, Encourages Your Nest Egg

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me