Stratechery Plus

Subscribe

Learn More
Member Forum

Menu

Stratechery Plus

Subscribe

Learn More
Member Forum

Latest Podcast

Stratechery Plus Update

  • Apple Watch and Continuous Computing

    From day one of this blog I have insisted that I don’t do product reviews: I don’t buy every phone or, in this case, watch on the market, and I happily defer to publications that specialize in exactly that.1 That’s not to claim ignorance: I read voraciously, including reviews, talk to as many “normal” people as I can in as many places as I can, and think I have a sense for where various categories are at. And given that, I can’t quite shake the feeling that the Apple Watch is being serially underestimated. Nor, I think, is the long term threat to Apple’s position being fully appreciated.

    The Wrist is Interesting

    Back in 2013, at AllThingsD, Tim Cook said, “I see [wearables] as a very key branch of the tree,” and that “The wrist is interesting. The wrist is natural.” I fully agreed, and that, more than anything, was the basis for my optimism about the Watch over a year before its release. Over the long arc of technology, the fundamental characteristic of every new wave of devices that eclipses what came before is that they are smaller and (thus) more convenient:2

    • Minicomputers were smaller and more convenient than mainframes, meaning various departments in a corporation could have their own computers, instead of time-sharing
    • Desktop PCs were smaller and more convenient than minicomputers, meaning individuals could have their own computers
    • Laptops were smaller and more convenient than desktops, meaning individuals could have their own computers in more places
    • Phones were smaller and more convenient than laptops, meaning individuals could have their own computers with them nearly all of the time

    “Nearly all the time” is pretty amazing, and I get the arguments that the smartphone is the pinnacle of computer evolution: it’s portable, but readable, and multi-touch works and works well. But any interaction with your phone is still a cloistered one — you, your phone, and nothing else — which to my mind leaves at least one more evolutionary jump: continuous computing, no matter your context. Indeed, when it comes to ensuring a computer is always present and always accessible, the wrist is both natural and interesting.

    Still, success isn’t guaranteed: the ability of a watch, or in this case the Apple Watch, to enable a new area of continuous computing depends on three factors:

    • The physical design of the Watch
    • The interaction model for the Watch
    • The ability of the Watch to interact with its environment

    Apple and its competitors’ ability to deliver on each of these factors will determine whether the category ends up being a nice side business to phones, or the next step in the trend towards ever smaller and ever more convenient personal computers. And, for what it’s worth, after a few weeks with the Apple Watch, I’m increasingly bullish that it is the latter.

    Physical Design

    It may seem odd to declare that physical design is of equal import to the other factors that will determine a computer’s success, but a Watch is no ordinary computer: it’s one you wear. At Apple’s second Watch event Tim Cook said:

    Apple Watch is the most personal device we have ever created. It’s not just with you, it’s on you. And since what you wear is an expression of who you are, we’ve designed Apple Watch to appeal to a whole variety of people with different tastes and different preferences. But the one thing that is consistent is that we crafted each one of them with the care that you would expect from Apple and used incredibly beautiful materials.

    I added in How Apple Will Make the Wearable Market:

    There has been a bit of consternation about Apple’s focus on “fashion” and all that entails, but there is a very practical aspect to this focus: people need to be willing to actually put the wearable on their body. While “form may follow function” for tools, the priorities are the exact opposite when it comes to what we wear: function is irrelevant without a form we find appealing. In this case, design actually is how it looks.

    I’m not going to convince you that the Apple Watch is attractive or not, but to my eyes at least, it is significantly ahead of anything else on the market. And, frankly, I don’t think that surprises anyone. Apple’s industrial design is generally superior, but that superiority is maximized when a product or manufacturing technique is new: given that smartphones like the Xiaomi Mi Note, HTC One, or Samsung S6 are only just now approaching the iPhone, it’s reasonable to expect a substantial head start for the Watch.

    I get why most reviews only spent a sentence or at best a small section on the Watch’s appearance: it seems so shallow, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One’s skin, though, is as “shallow” as technology has ever gotten, at least compared to the depths of an office, a bag, or even a pocket. Each step towards the light increases the importance of aesthetics, and Apple’s advantage here can’t be overstated.

    On the other hand, “beauty being in the eye of the beholder” accentuates the downside of Apple’s integrated approach: what people wear is an expression of who they are, and while even the most idiosyncratic individual may be willing to have a phone that looks the same as everyone else’s, that may be a bridge too far when it comes to something on their body. This is why Apple launched with such a wide array of straps and case materials,3 and why the company has already opened the door to 3rd-party bands.

    For now, though, I think Apple Watch checks this box in a way other wearables to date have not: more people than not will be willing to wear it.

    The Interaction Model

    There is a hierarchy when it comes to actually interacting with the Watch, something Horace Dediu laid out in The Battle for the Wrist:

    The Apple Watch offers a hierarchy of surfaces onto which software can compete for attention:

    1. The Complication Layer
    2. The Notification Layer
    3. The Glances Layer
    4. The App Screen

    These surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy where the highest is the most accessible and the lowest is the least accessible.

    The ranking is not just about accessibility: it’s also the order in which the Apple Watch executes, from best to worst.

    • Complications4 are invaluable, and the delta between pulling out your phone to check your calendar, or the weather, versus looking at your wrist is massive5
    • The Taptic Engine is a revelation when it comes to notifications; in fact, I think Apple should have the sound turned off by default to accentuate the utility of an outwardly imperceptible tap of your wrist. The way a notification is displayed when you lift your wrist in response works well, and it’s easy enough to scroll through what you have missed6
    • Glances are where you put things you need to know that don’t merit a complication7 (or, in the case of 3rd-party apps, aren’t allowed — for now); they also serve as a more easily accessible app launcher
    • The App Screen is a place you only visit deliberatively, when you need a specific function. My favorites to date include Authy, for two-factor authentication, the New York Times app, with bite-sized stories, and Twitterific, for browsing mentions and direct messages. There’s no question, though, that hybrid apps are slow to load and often frustrating to use; one wonders if Apple wouldn’t have been better served keeping the doors shut until native apps are possible

    What is missing in Dediu’s hierarchy, though, is the most important feature of the Watch: Siri specifically, and the cloud broadly. Siri in particular impacts every other part of the hierarchy:

    • You can have, at most, 4.5 complications.8 To get any other information, you need to either use a Glance, an app, or, most efficiently, Siri:

      Siri-watch

      The virtual assistant is fantastic when it works, like in the first two examples. The third, though, pushed me to my phone — a terrible experience that far too many apps are mimicking — and to Bing at that, which was entirely unuseful (in stark contrast to Google):

      search-watch

    • Notifications are all well-and-good, but many, particularly messages, require a response, and Siri is the only option beyond a few canned responses, and a ghastly set of emoticons and mime hands. That’s not a bad thing! I already find speaking into my wrist to be a far more natural activity than speaking into my phone ever was, and truthfully, Siri on the Watch somehow seems vastly improved over Siri on the iPhone.

      More broadly, it’s clear that what the mouse was to the Mac and multi-touch was to the iPhone, Siri is to the Watch. The concern for Apple is that, unlike the others, the success or failure of Siri doesn’t come down to hardware or low-level software optimizations, which Apple excels at, and which ensures that Apple products have the best user interfaces. Rather, it depends on the cloud, and as much as Apple has improved, an examination of their core competencies and incentives argues that the company will never be as good as Google.9 That was acceptable on the phone, but is a much more problematic issue when the cloud is so central to the most important means of interacting with the Watch.

      There’s a second issue with notifications: in contrast to many reviewers, I’ve had no problem with the number of notifications being pushed to my wrist. In part this is because I long ago limited the number of notifications that I received, and I pruned the list still further when it came to the Watch. It’s fair to ask, though, how many customers will go to the effort? Indeed, here Google in particular may have a significant advantage with their efforts around Google Now: the very premise of the cloud service is to intelligently notify you about what you need to know when you need to know it, a proposition that is particularly compelling when it comes to something so intimate as literally tapping your wrist.

    • Both Siri and Google Now can launch apps, and again, both are essential to input in particular. I’m very frustrated at apps that don’t bother to include Siri input (LINE, I’m looking at you), but Siri itself is still frustrating, particularly because whenever it does screw up the transcription, there is no way to edit what you said. Probably the best solution is to simply continue to get better at transcription, but again, Google is ahead here and it impacts the experience far more deeply than it does on a phone

    Ultimately, the interaction model is the mirror image of physical design: Apple is playing catch-up, but it’s not out of the question that Siri becomes good enough, if it’s not already.

    Interacting With Your Environment

    This was the primary focus of the aforelinked article, How Apple Will Make the Wearables Market:

    It’s increasingly plausible to envision a future where…our physical environment are fundamentally transformed by software: locks that only unlock for me, payment systems that keep my money under my control, and in general an adaptation to my presence whether that be at home, at the concert hall, or at work.

    To fully interact with this sort of software-enabled environment, I will of course need some way to identify myself; for all the benefits of the human body, projecting a unique digital signature is not one of them. The smartphone clearly works, but it’s not perfect: the more you need it for interacting with your environment, the more noticeable is the small annoyance of retrieving it from your pocket or handbag.

    A wearable is different, particularly if it’s on your wrist: simply raising your arm is trivial. This makes it much more likely you will actually interact in a meaningful way with software-enabled objects around you, which makes even having said objects much more likely. To put it another way, I don’t think it’s an accident that the two hot new technologies are wearables and the Internet of Things; they are related such that each is made better by the other.

    As I noted in that article, this vision has a bit of a chicken-and-egg conundrum: software-enabled objects won’t be built for a Watch that isn’t widely available, which is why I suggested that Apple has a big advantage — the company has millions of loyal customers who will buy an Apple Watch simply because it’s made by Apple. This is further accentuated by point number one: Apple’s superior physical design makes it significantly more likely that a critical mass of Apple Watches will be sold.

    Still, Apple’s success with initiatives like Apple Pay and HomeKit is not assured: I’m bullish about the former, but it’s not a slam dunk, and the latter depends on Apple delivering on an API that the company itself doesn’t depend on, a situation that hasn’t always ended well.

    Looking Ahead

    It’s important to note that the factors I listed matter in order: you first have to build a wearable people are willing to wear, then deliver a usable interaction model, and finally catalyze a world of smart objects that interact with your wearable.

    Indeed, for now I think it likely that one of Apple’s oldest and most cherished skills — its ability to make beautiful, desirable objects — will make the Watch exactly what Tim Cook promised: another tentpole product that rivals the Mac, the iPod, the iPad, and even the iPhone. Framed as nothing more than A Watch that Does Stuff — and that you actually don’t mind wearing — Apple will rightly sell enough to kick-start a world that gets just a little bit smarter and little bit better when it knows who and where we are.

    Moreover, the Watch may even help Apple to rival Google when it comes to Siri and the cloud: the best way to improve a service like Siri is to have millions of customers using it constantly, and I for one have used Siri more in the last two weeks than I have the last two years. Multiply that by millions of Watch users and you have the ingredients for a rapidly improving service. Perhaps more importantly, the fact that Siri is critical to the Watch’s success in a way it isn’t to the iPhone’s may finally properly align Apple’s incentives around improving its cloud services.

    Ultimately, the Apple Watch has exceeded my quite high expectations. The complications and notifications fit into all the slivers of my life the iPhone has not, and the criticism I’ve levied at Siri has been primarily fueled by the appreciation of just how powerful it is to have a virtual assistant on my wrist instead of my pocket. As for apps, speed is the most easily solved issue in technology, thanks to Moore’s Law. I’m confident apps will be fully performant sooner rather than later.

    That said, I suspect there will be a bifurcation when it comes to the Watch’s relative importance vis-à-vis the smartphone between developed and developing countries: in the long run I do think that convenience trumps all, but there’s no denying a smartphone is already pretty darn convenient. To put it another way, if you can afford it there is a sufficient delta between Watch and iPhone functionality to make the former worth owning despite its dependence on the latter. I also think that when the Watch inevitably gains cellular functionality10 I will carry my iPhone far less than I do today.11 Indeed, just as the iPhone makes far more sense as a digital hub than the Mac, the Watch will one day be the best hub yet.

    Until, of course, physical devices disappear completely:

    her-movie-poster

    That is the ultimate Apple bear case.12

    Discuss this article in the Stratechery Forum (members-only)

    1. I do give my opinion on Twitter and Exponent  ↩

    2. They are also, in the long run, cheaper, in part because of scale. Indeed, the Apple Watch packs in an amazing amount of functionality for a mere $350 ↩

    3. I suspect had you told Tim Cook in 1998 that he would eventually oversee a product launch that included 38 models and 56 SKUs, he would have assumed he was having a nightmare — and certainly the number of SKU’s contributed to the Watch’s uneven launch ↩

    4. Complications are the “extra” features on a watch face beyond the time ↩

    5. Windows Phone tried to differentiate on this point, but the delta between a live tile and opening an app was far smaller than the delta between pulling out a phone and lifting up your wrist ↩

    6. And there’s an easy way to clear all notifications finally ↩

    7. For example, this is where I have my battery meter: the truth is I haven’t worried once about the battery running low ↩

    8. Modular and Simple (ironically) offer 4 complications plus the date ↩

    9. Nathan Taylor nailed this point on his excellent Praxtime blog two years ago ↩

    10. I agree it is several years off, but it’s clearly not impossible: several standalone smart watches exist today, not that I would want to wear any of them ↩

    11. Developers: heed this: don’t always assume the phone will be there! My biggest complaint about apps, outside of the terrible loading times, is that few outside of RSS readers (natch) let me read full articles. I read tens of thousands of words on this — I’ll do the same on the Watch ↩

    12. Yes, I know much of Her is not realistic; that doesn’t mean it’s not pointed in a broadly realistic direction ↩

  • Verizon-AOL, Facebook Instant Articles, and the Future of Digital Advertising

    At first glance, Tuesday’s two big stories — Verizon’s acquisition of AOL, and Facebook’s official announcement of Instant Articles — have little in common. A deeper look, though, suggests that both are a consequence of an ongoing transformation of digital advertising that will affect nearly every consumer-focused services company.

    Facebook’s Advertising Strength

    There’s no need for me to dwell on the Facebook news; I covered it at length in March in an article called The Facebook Reckoning. In that piece I noted a significant problem with Internet advertising: ad inventory is ever-increasing, which means the rates for an undifferentiated ad spot are ever-decreasing; the best way to combat that trend is through better ads, better placement, better targeting, and better measurement.

    Facebook is progressing on all these fronts: the company’s ad units are best-in-class, the targeting is frighteningly specific, and with its overhaul of Atlas the company is working to draw a line from Facebook ads to offline purchases. The vast majority of publishers, though, are in the opposite boat: mobile ads mostly stink, there’s no room for them on the screen (which leads to audience-antagonizing interstitials), and perhaps most problematically, it is much more difficult to target and track mobile users than it ever was on the desktop.

    Cookies and the Rise of Programmatic Advertising

    On the desktop, tracking is relatively easy: various ad networks will set a cookie in your browser that collects information about your travels around the Internet, and then use that information to serve advertisements based on your browsing history. That information was sufficiently useful that said ad networks were able to charge advertisers rates well above those charged by publishers who knew nothing about their audience, meaning the ad networks, with a few notable exceptions, could offer publishers more money for their ad inventory than the publishers could make on their own. This was a fundamental shift: instead of focusing on specific sites as a proxy to reach specific types of people — a model that was very much in-line with non-digital advertising like television — advertisers could instead focus on specific types of people directly.

    This process has only grown more advanced: today users are identified not only by their browsing history, but also offline data like loyalty cards and other purchase histories, creating incredibly precise profiles. Advertisers can reach people based on those profiles through automated exchanges that use auction pricing and serve up ads in real-time, allowing for the collection of nearly immediate feedback on the campaign, making rapid iteration possible for the advertiser.

    The Mobile Advertising Challenge

    Programmatic advertising is not perfect: while the advertiser can specify the sort of content they don’t want their advertisement to be associated with, it’s questionable how well this works in practice; there’s also a mismatch between impressions (when an ad is loaded) versus the number of times an ad is actually seen (Google says 56% of ad impressions are never seen). Mobile, though, has presented the biggest challenge: apps don’t share cookies.

    Advertising networks have searched for some sort of common denominator that would allow them to track users in different apps; originally most settled on using a phone’s Unique Device Identifier (UDID), which the Wall Street Journal exposed as a privacy disaster in 2010:

    “The great thing about mobile is you can’t clear a UDID like you can a cookie,” says Meghan O’Holleran of Traffic Marketplace, an Internet ad network that is expanding into mobile apps. “That’s how we track everything.”

    Here’s a useful rule of thumb: the more giddy a quote from an ad network employee, the bigger the privacy violation for end users. To that end, both Apple and Google soon banned the use of unique identifiers, instead offering ad IDs that could be reset by users — or even turned off completely.1 Advertisers have adapted, but the reality is that tracking users and measuring campaigns on mobile remains a lot more difficult than on the desktop, and that’s even before you consider multiple devices.

    Tracking Users Effectively

    This reality is at the core of Facebook’s value proposition to advertisers: target users, not devices. Sheryl Sandberg said on Facebook’s Q4 2014 earnings call in January:

    If you look at how digital ads are being measured, they are being measured based on a cookie based world that assumes that people have one device, largely a PC. And that is not real, consumers have a phone, they have a tablet, they have PC’s as well and [we have] the ability to understand that one person to serve an ad and measure all the way through [to purchase] correctly.

    Note the transition Sandberg is highlighting: the locus of tracking and measurement is shifting from devices to users. It echoes the shift in advertising from publishers to ad networks, which is to say from content to users. Targeting and serving ads to individual users is the goal, and, as Ms. O’Holleran excitedly declared in 2010, the holy grail is some sort of “super-cookie” that a user can’t turn off.

    Facebook has this: it’s your name, and most of us have gladly handed over not only that but also our birthday, our history, our address, all of our friends, what we like, and more. Of course we’re logged in on our PCs, so that all of those Facebook ‘Like’ buttons can track our movement around the web, and Facebook is aggressively pushing developer products — including relatively highly paying ad units — so that our apps can keep an eye on us as well.

    Google is dominant as well; I’ve long maintained that Google+ was more of a success than people appreciate: it unified IDs across Google’s properties and ensured most of us are always logged in. Google may not have the explicit user-provided data that Facebook does, but the company makes up for that with their extensive ad networks across both the web and inside of apps that not only display ads but also track said users.

    Still, while both Facebook and especially Google have 3rd-party ad offerings, both — especially Facebook — are more focused on monetizing on their own sites. A whole plethora of ad-tech companies have risen up to fill in the rest of the web’s inventory, but no dominant player has emerged: until, potentially, now.

    Why the Verizon-AOL Deal Makes Sense

    AOL was a part of that plethora: while most people remember the eponymous dial-up service and “You Got Mail,” or perhaps know that the company is also the 4th biggest digital media property in the United States with nearly 200 million unique monthly users, Verizon was almost certainly interested in a much newer part of AOL’s business: its ad network. Over the last several years AOL has invested heavily, both through M&A and R&D, into its programmatic advertising offering both for its own sites and, more importantly, 3rd-party ones; it has also developed a particular expertise in video. This has made the company competitive in its ability to allow advertisers to target users instead of content, but the lack of an “AOL ID” puts a cap on upside, at least relative to Google or Facebook.

    Verizon, meanwhile, knows a lot about its users:

    • By virtue of being a paid service, Verizon knows users’ names, addresses, and even social security numbers (gotta run those credit checks!)
    • Because they are a phone carrier, Verizon knows your location, something that is useful not just for serving ads but also for ascertaining whether or not they were effective (seeing a McDonald’s ad and visiting the Golden Arches soon after is a powerful signal)
    • Because they are the ISP for your mobile phone (and for many customers, their home as well), Verizon doesn’t need a cookie or device identifier: they can set a “super-cookie” on their servers to track everything you do on the Internet, and that’s exactly what they’ve done2

    This is why the deal makes so much sense: AOL provides the technology to target individuals instead of content, and Verizon the ability to track those individuals — at least the over 100 million customers they already have — at arguably a deeper level than anyone else in digital advertising (for non-Verizon customers, AOL’s ad platform is still useful, albeit not as targeted; rates would be commensurately lower). The talk of this mashup joining Facebook and Google to form a “Big 3” of digital advertising is not unrealistic.

    That said, this isn’t a grand slam either. While there is a lot to like about this deal, it’s doubtful Verizon would be doing it were they not facing long-term growth questions, and that’s not always the best motivation to enter an entirely new kind of business. Moreover, there is a very real culture question: an infrastructure company and an online media company couldn’t have more different approaches to business, based on a history of solving fundamentally different problems. This clash will only compound the difficulty in realizing the vision I just painted — a vision that Facebook and Google have still only partially realized despite having the best software engineers in the world. And, of course, there is the potential for consumer backlash: if my skin crawled while describing a dystopian future of perfectly tailored ads based on perfect information about my activities, I trust your reading it inspired a similar sensation.

    The Re-ordering of Advertising

    Describing what Verizon and AOL are shooting for is another way of depicting just how much trouble most publishers are in. Beyond the fact most publishers know precious little about their users, few are must-reads that attract users to their streams (as opposed to their links). Worse, even those with compelling streams don’t have scale even remotely comparable to what programmatic ad networks offer: for now the most prestigious sites are looking to monetize on direct sales to brands, but if programmatic offerings ever figure out how to guarantee premium placement that is actually viewed by the exact right customer those revenue streams could dry up.

    Subscriptions remain an attractive proposition, but as the Toronto Star recently discovered, not all publishers are the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, which means many publishers will have to take what they can get. And, frankly, it’s hard to see them getting a better deal than Facebook’s Instant Articles offering:

    • Publishers use their own publishing tools, meaning no interruption to their workflow; Facebook makes it look good (although publishers can augment the post) to the publishers’ specification — a New York Times article won’t look like a BuzzFeed article
    • Facebook will share analytics data from Google Analytics and Omniture, and ComScore will count Instant Article visits as visits to the publisher
    • Facebook is giving publishers the opportunity to sell their own ads and keep 100% of the revenue (although, given Facebook’s superior targeting capabilities, I wouldn’t be surprised if 70% of a Facebook sale ends up being worth more)

    Meanwhile, most publisher websites will be increasingly reliant on programmatic offerings that care only about the site’s ability to attract a specific type of customer who a particular advertiser has bid on, a sure route to a meager existence predicated on driving page views.

    It’s not just publishers who might struggle, though: two weeks ago I chronicled Twitter’s cloudy future given their relative lack of scale and under-developed ad offering, and while I stand by that, it’s kind of amazing that a few hundred million active users might not be enough; that certainly has to be a sobering thought not only for unicorns like Pinterest and Snapchat (although I’m bullish on both), but for any startup looking to monetize through advertising. It wouldn’t surprise me to see more and more companies taking yet another page from Asia and increasing their focus on e-commerce and online-to-offline transactions, but it might take a few failures to fully presage such a shift. Hopefully there will be sufficient publishers to document the change in approach.

    Discuss this Article on the Stratechery Forum (members-only)

    1. On the iPhone, Settings -> Privacy -> Advertising -> Limit Ad Tracking ↩

    2. You can now opt-out  ↩

  • The AWS IPO

    One of the technology industry’s biggest and most important IPOs occurred late last month, with a valuation of $25.6 billion dollars. That’s more than Google, which IPO’d at a valuation of $24.6 billion, and certainly a lot more than Amazon, which finished its first day on the public markets with a valuation of $438 million.1 Don’t feel too bad for the latter, though: the “IPO” I’m talking about was Amazon Web Services, and it just so happens to still be owned by the same e-commerce company that went public nearly 20 years ago.

    I’m obviously being facetious; there was no actual IPO for AWS, just an additional line item on Amazon’s financial reports finally breaking out the cloud computing service Amazon pioneered nine years ago. That line item, though, was almost certainly the primary factor in driving an overnight increase in Amazon’s market capitalization from $182 billion on April 23 to $207 billion on April 24.2 It’s not only that AWS is a strong offering in a growing market with impressive economics, it also may, in the end, be the key to realizing the potential of Amazon.com itself.

    Understanding Amazon, Part 1

    Much of the analysis of Amazon tends to fall in two diametrically opposed camps that are strangely united in their lack of rigor and in-depth appreciation of the economics driving Amazon’s business. On one hand are the ardent skeptics, who see Amazon’s lack of paper profits as prima facie evidence that the company is dramatically over-valued by the stock market; on the other are the true believers who point to Amazon’s ever-increasing revenue numbers as equally obvious evidence that the company is undervalued and primed for ever bigger and better things.

    A more nuanced approach considers the fact that Amazon is not a monolithic operation, but rather a collection of businesses sharing resources, including a channel (Amazon.com), logistics, and a common technological foundation. These businesses range from bookshops to video game stores to home furniture to clothes to shoes to consumer electronics to auto accessories…the list is quite extensive at this point! True, consumers experience all of these different businesses as a unified Amazon.com, but inside the company some of these businesses are mature and (theoretically) throwing off cash, while others are reliant on investment as they work to get off the ground.

    The Amazon business model as drawn by Jeff Bezos on a napkin
    The Amazon business model as drawn by Jeff Bezos on a napkin

    This view is a more sophisticated take on the aforementioned bull argument: it’s not that Amazon is not making money, it’s that the company is reinvesting every dollar it makes into growing new businesses; were the company to stop investing, it would start throwing off cash. This is exactly how Jeff Bezos has represented the company — except for the stop investing and throw off cash part, of course.

    Why Amazon Started with Books

    In The Everything Store, Brad Stone explains that while Jeff Bezos had always planned to build a site that sold, well, everything, he started with books for a very particular reason:

    Bezos concluded that a true everything store would be impractical — at least at the beginning. He made a list of twenty possible product categories, including computer software, office supplies, apparel, and music. The category that eventually jumped out at him as the best option was books. They were pure commodities; a copy of a book in one store was identical to the same book carried in another, so buyers always knew what they were getting. There were two primary distributors of books at that time, Ingram and Baker and Taylor, so a new retailer wouldn’t have to approach each of the thousands of book publishers individually. And, most important, there were three million books in print worldwide, far more than a Barnes & Noble or a Borders superstore could ever stock.

    If he couldn’t build a true everything store right away, he could capture its essence — unlimited selection — in at least one important product category. “With that huge diversity of products you could build a store online that simply could not exist in any other way,” Bezos said. “You could build a true superstore with exhaustive selection, and customers value selection.”

    There was one more critical factor, though, that Stone only mentioned in passing a few chapters later: despite the fact that books were a commodity, they were exceptionally high-priced. The list price of a new book contained a 50 percent markup for the retailer, which meant Bezos — who a few years later would coin the famous phrase, “Your margin is my opportunity” — could sell books at a significant discount while still making money on each transaction (and over time, Amazon would not only bypass the wholesalers but eventually become large enough to dictate terms to publishers).

    Moreover, the nature of Amazon’s business — customers paid for books with credit cards immediately, while Amazon paid book wholesaler invoices months after delivery — resulted in a negative cash conversion cycle that freed up much more cash for investment than would otherwise be warranted by Amazon’s margins, an effect that was greatly magnified by Amazon’s growth rate.

    This made books, over the long-run, a truly profitable business for Amazon, and the company repeated the trick for many of the exact same reasons in CDs, DVDs, and video games: commodity products with massive selections traditionally sold at a significant markup and paid for 90 days later allowed Amazon to have a superior selection and lower prices and make money to boot.3

    Understanding Amazon, Part 2

    The problem with the bull case for Amazon is the assumption that all of Amazon’s different businesses are essentially the same: selling books is like selling DVDs is like selling clothes is like selling TVs, etc. However, while that may be true from an infrastructure perspective (same channel, logistics network, and technology stack), it’s absolutely not the case from an economic one.

    Consider books versus TVs: there are an effectively infinite number of books, but a relatively small number of TVs, which means it’s more likely a competitor will have the same TV, leading to lower prices and reduced margins. TVs are also relatively infrequent purchases, and customers are likely to research the best price, leading again to lower prices and reduced margins. Moreover, while an individual book is a commodity, that same book is highly differentiated from another book; not so with TVs, where the most expensive TV still accomplishes the same thing as a cheaper one, which leaves little room for luxurious 50% retail markups. This again leads to lower prices and reduced margins. And, on the flip side, while a book is a book is a book, so you can buy it anywhere with confidence, many consumers consider a TV worth checking out in person, and it’s expensive to ship to boot.

    That said, TVs are, relative to books anyways, expensive, as are computers, furniture, car accessories, and all the other businesses that Amazon has been developing over the last decade. In other words, all of this stuff that Amazon is selling is perfect for increasing revenue, but not so great at producing profit (that said, the benefits of a negative cash conversion cycle very much apply to these items as well; they are not being added in vain).

    That leaves the old stand-bys — books, CDs, DVDs, and video games — to produce the actual profit that funds all of the new businesses Amazon wants to build, and they have done just that for 20 years now. The problem, though, is obvious: each of these categories is being replaced by digital distribution, and Amazon has only been successful in reaping the benefits of that shift in the case of books and the Kindle (although they’re competing in all four areas with Amazon Music, Amazon Prime Video, and the Amazon App Store). Moreover, the impact of digital distribution is showing up in the financial results; Amazon has long broken out the sales of ‘Media’ and ‘Electronics and General Merchandise’ in their financial reports, and in the last quarter ‘Media’ declined three percent even as ‘Electronics and General Merchandise’ increased 20%. This raises the long-run question for Amazon: if ‘Media’ is in secular decline, how will they fuel eternal investment into their business, much less the fabled returns that at least theoretically underpin their sky-high stock price?

    Enter Amazon Web Services

    The incredible potential of Amazon Web Services is as clear as its initial prospects in 2006 were, well, cloudy. AWS only came about after Amazon had experimented with more full-service offerings like powering the websites of Target or Toys-R-Us,4 and there were plenty of skeptics as to whether companies would entrust critical operations to a 3rd party. It soon became apparent, though, that both economics and simplicity were overwhelmingly in the public cloud’s favor, and Amazon was years ahead of everyone.

    Today, public clouds are the future for the vast majority of businesses; the economics of scale achieved by Amazon (and its closest competitors, Google and Microsoft) are so incredible that multi-billion dollar companies like Netflix view it as more efficient to pay Amazon than to build their own data centers. The calculus is even more stark when it comes to any sort of startup: it’s so much easier and cheaper to get started with AWS that the idea of buying your own server infrastructure — an expense that consumed the majority of venture capital in the dot-com bubble era — is preposterous. This is great from Amazon’s perspective: the company effectively has a stake in nearly every significant startup, and for free; if the company succeeds, Amazon will be paid, handsomely, and if they fail, well, Amazon covered their own costs of providing cloud services along the way.

    The big question about AWS, though, has been whether Amazon can keep their lead. Data centers are very expensive, and Amazon has a lot less cash and, more importantly, a lot less profit than Google or Microsoft. What happens if either competitor launches a price war: can Amazon afford to keep up?

    To be sure, there were reasons to suspect they could: for one, Amazon already has significantly more scale, which means their costs on a per-customer basis are lower than Microsoft or Google. And perhaps more importantly is the corporate culture that results from a “your-margins-are-my-opportunity” mindset: Amazon can stomach a few percentage points of margin on a core business far more comfortably than Microsoft or Google, both fat off of software and advertising margins respectively. Indeed, when Google slashed prices in the spring of 2014, Amazon immediately responded and proceeded to push prices down further still, just as they had ever since AWS’s inception (the price cuts in response to Google were the 42nd for the company). Still, the question remained: was this sustainable? Could Amazon afford to compete?

    This is why Amazon’s latest earnings were such a big deal: for the first time the company broke out AWS into its own line item, revealing not just its revenue (which could be teased out previously) but also its profitability. And, to many people’s surprise, and despite all the price cuts, AWS is very profitable: $265 million in profit on $1.57 billion in sales last quarter alone, for an impressive (for Amazon!) 17% net margin.

    A New Foundation for Amazon

    The profitability of AWS is a big deal in-and-of itself, particularly given the sentiment that cloud computing will ultimately be a commodity won by the companies with the deepest pockets. It turns out that all the reasons to believe in AWS were spot on: Amazon is clearly reaping the benefits of scale from being the largest player, and their determination to have both the most complete and cheapest offering echoes their prior strategies in e-commerce.

    Moreover, Amazon has cleverly found a way to approximate the negative cash conversion cycle trick: instead of paying billions to build data centers up-front, before they are ever used to earn revenue, Amazon is building its data centers with capital leases that effectively let the company pay for the data centers as they use them. True, this is a riskier strategy, and one that casts a pessimistic hue on Amazon’s admonition that investors look at free cash flow,5 but it’s also a strategy that presumes growth, an excellent assumption to make when it comes to AWS — provided the company’s investment can keep up. Contrary to my initial skepticism (members-only), I think the capital leases are a win-win.

    Perhaps the biggest implication of AWS, though, is its impact on Amazon.com. Last summer I lost my patience with the company, wondering when if ever Amazon would fully focus on seizing what looked to be a massive e-commerce opportunity, instead of dallying with devices and video. More importantly, would they do so before the ‘Media’ money train ran out of steam?

    Today that is a moot point: the sky is the limit for AWS, and if the service is profitable at its current scale, what expectations should we have for five years from now, or ten? More importantly, that profitability can over time replace the role of ‘Media’ in the Amazon engine: cash to build new e-commerce businesses, or to explore what is next (a la AWS), or both of the above. Or, in the fantasy of Amazon’s investors, to actually provide a return to shareholders.6

    Discuss this post in the Stratechery Forum (subscribers-only)

    1. With an ‘m’! ↩

    2. Amazon’s market cap has since decreased to $197 billion; like I said, I’m being facetious — this isn’t a real proxy for AWS’s value — but the spike was meaningful ↩

    3. This was the foundation of my bullish article on Amazon in 2013 called Amazon’s Dominant Strategy  ↩

    4. but ultimately, why help your competitors? ↩

    5. Amazon is now reporting “Free Cash Flow Less Finance Principal Lease Repayments and Capital Acquired Under Capital Leases” which is what their cash flow would be if they purchased data centers up-front; it’s significantly lower than the number the company trumpets publicly ↩

    6. So yes! As predicted, I am changing my mind about Amazon. Again. ↩

  • Twitter Needs New Leadership

    Yesterday Twitter released very disappointing quarterly results, with misses on both user and revenue growth. From the Wall Street Journal:

    Twitter Inc. delivered its weakest quarterly revenue growth as a publicly traded company, casting a shadow on its fledgling advertising business, which until now has been a consistent bright spot. Investors, who sent the company’s stock down nearly 20%, were hit with a double whammy Tuesday as Twitter’s first-quarter results were leaked on the social-media service itself an hour before their release was expected.

    The symbolism of the leak was appropriate: Twitter the service is so clearly indispensable, at least for some, but Twitter the company can’t seem to get it right.1 And so, after five years in charge, I believe it’s time for Twitter’s leadership, in particular CEO Dick Costolo, to make way for new leadership that has improved credibility with Wall Street, with developers, and within Twitter itself.

    Note: At the bottom of the article I have included a number of links to previous articles and Daily Updates where I developed many of the individual pieces of this argument; in other words, this is not a knee-jerk reaction to one bad earnings report, but rather a culmination of years of concern

    Twitter’s Fundamental Problem

    Twitter’s fundamental problem is that their active user growth is simply too small given their current size. Twitter yesterday reported the service had 302 million Monthly Active Users (MAUs), an increase of only 18% year-over-year and 5% quarter-over-quarter (and the company said the current quarter would be worse!). This is a fraction of Facebook, half of Facebook Messenger, fewer than Instagram and not that much bigger than SnapChat; presuming the latter service passes Twitter later this year, Twitter will be only the 5th most popular U.S.-based social networking service looking to monetize through advertising. This distinction — which excludes WhatsApp, at least for now — is a critical one, because the issue with advertisers is most don’t have the time or ability to work with multiple services; it’s likely most digital advertising spending (which I believe is set to expand greatly) will be consolidated onto the biggest networks (along with Google’s properties), with Facebook taking the lion’s share. Were that to happen, it’s easy to see Twitter as the odd network out.2

    Worrying Signs from Advertisers

    Twitter’s recent results suggest this shakeout may already be happening. CFO Anthony Noto was asked repeatedly on the earning’s conference call about Twitter’s success in retaining advertisers, and Noto repeatedly refused to answer the question, instead stating that “year-over-year growth [in total advertisers] was very similar to what it was in the fourth quarter.” The problem, though, is that later in the call Noto noted that Twitter’s advertising load factor was flat: if Twitter was adding advertisers, but not ads, that strongly suggests that the company is in fact losing advertisers just as quickly as it is adding them.

    Noto’s other justifications for Twitter’s revenue miss weren’t very compelling, either:

    • The first was that “some advertisers limited spending at higher levels of scale because the bids required to win incremental auctions were higher than they were willing to pay, which limited additional spending.” In other words, larger advertisers had in mind a price they were willing to pay, and preferred to reach fewer users rather than pay a higher price, suggesting that advertisers saw limited value in Twitter’s ads

    • The second was that Twitter “improved the quality of leads for direct response advertisers using our Website Cards by raising the bar on what constitutes an engagement or click”; Costolo later explained that some types of ads were moving from a cost-per-engagement model to a cost-per-action model, which was worth more to advertisers but more difficult to achieve, and that while the number of clicks decreased more than the price Twitter was able to charge increased, in the long-run this trend would reverse itself. The problem is that Twitter started this shift last summer when they rolled out app-install ads, which calls into question why the company failed to forecast the decline? Clearly the decrease was worse than they expected.

    These two justifications are particularly interesting in light of one more factoid that emerged in the earnings call: the aforementioned app install ads were one of the key ad types that underperformed. What makes app install ads especially interesting is that the companies buying these ads are able to be very sophisticated in their measurements of just how much these ads are worth to them. Thus, for example, said companies would almost certainly have a price limit on how much they were willing to pay for an ad placement (justification one), and we know their particular ad type is measured on a cost-per-action basis (justification two). In other words, it seems likely that not only does Twitter suffer from a potentially fatally small user base, but that their direct response ads may in fact be less effective than hoped, as evidenced by the pullback by app install advertisers.

    Indeed, Twitter’s direct sales team, which is focused on brand advertising from large advertisers, has long dominated Twitter’s revenue numbers, and that was again the case this past quarter (Noto noted that “direct sales was once again the largest contributor to year-over-year dollar growth”); this is a significant contrast to both Google and Facebook’s reliance on self-serve ad products. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing — I think branded advertising is set to explode past direct marketing — except that it is specifically brand advertisers who care the most about having an efficient way to reach a lot of people. In other words, Twitter’s limited user base is a particularly pressing problem in the ad category it excels at.

    Twitter’s Abandoned Users

    The trouble for Twitter is that awareness of the service has long outstripped its usability. And yet, despite the fact that Twitter has struggled with new user growth for years, almost nothing was done to improve the product or on-boarding experience until just the last few months, when the company finally rolled out a new logged-out page meant to entice people with Twitter’s content, as well as an instant timeline that helped people get started. Unfortunately, both efforts seem to be too little too late: Twitter admitted on the earnings call that neither improvement had increased retention.

    This isn’t a surprise: Business Insider reported last year that Twitter likely had 697 million abandoned accounts (and that number, presuming it was correct, has certainly grown). The problem is that those 697 million users, having already decided that Twitter isn’t a useful service for them, are much less likely to even experience things like the new logged-out page or instant timeline, even though Twitter @-handles and hashtags continue to be plastered all over TV and the web.

    The Problem with Twitter’s New Strategy

    This suggests, then, that Twitter needs a new strategy: the timeline has taken the company as far as it can, so how else can the company grow?

    To that end Twitter has taken to increasingly focusing on logged-out users, both on twitter.com, and also those who see Twitter’s content around the web. Ad Age reported from last fall’s analyst day:

    The company’s central focus was on the “largest daily audience” notion, driving the point that Twitter content flows and appears across the web and beyond. The company told investors to consider Twitter’s reach in four concentric circles: logged-in users, logged-out ones, eyeballs from Twitter posts’ syndication around the web; and, finally, the expanse of Fabric, its new mobile software platform. With this reach, Mr. Noto said the platform is en route to becoming “better than anybody else in digital advertising.”

    The problem is in the last line: “better” when it comes to digital advertising is only partially about reach: targeting, effectiveness, and measurement matter just as much. To that point, such an approach abandons Twitter’s biggest differentiation when it comes to its ads: the knowledge it has about logged-in users’ interests. Jay Yarow of Business Insider pressed Costolo on this point in February:

    Q: How do you think about [logged-out users]? When you look at a company like Yahoo, the display business is down. It seems like all the ad growth online is mobile, or social, or native advertising. What you’re essentially creating is a display ad unit for logged out users. When you have people who come in through search you don’t get the rich targeting like you do in your app. Are these logged-out users going to be less valuable than people in the app?

    Costolo: We still are going to be using the same native ad units, the Promoted Tweets. The content that’s also an ad is going to be the same unit. We like our ad unit a lot, we know that others in the market have replicated it, so were going to stick with that.

    As regards targeting, look we have this whole internal scrap about people who are logged in, it’s also the case that we’ll know a lot about people who are coming as logged-out users and why they’ve come there. A lot of those users come direct via searches, directly from a search engine, so we’ll know about them. We’ll know of course around events and specific topics, and in the moment what’s happening in the world, we’ll know the kinds of things that are happening and be able to direct our targeted ads into those experiences. So there’s a lot of the existing targeting capabilities that we’ll still be able to bring to these experiences.

    You’ll note that Costolo didn’t answer Yarow’s question, because the answer is obvious: logged-out users are significantly less valuable, and all those signals Costolo is counting on are no better than Yahoo’s. It is difficult to interpret this new focus on significantly less valuable users as anything other than giving up on acquiring new users, and I believe it is absolutely the wrong strategy.

    A Different Strategy

    Instead, Twitter should redouble its efforts to acquire new users even as it redefines what Twitter the company is all about. I wrote about this in What Twitter Might Have Been:

    What makes Twitter the company valuable is not Twitter the app or 140 characters or @names or anything else having to do with the product: rather, it’s the interest graph that is nearly priceless. More specifically, it is Twitter identities and the understanding that can be gleaned from how those identities are used and how they interact that matters. If one starts with that sort of understanding — that Twitter the company is about the graph, not the app — one would make very different decisions.

    Specifically, Twitter should dramatically increase the number of applications — and thus the number of potential reasons — a potential user might create and maintain an active user account. For example, Twitter could follow the Facebook strategy and build out a family of apps — one for messaging, another for news, others for specific events — and enhance the ways one could interact with Twitter content, whether that be through comments, private communities, etc. It’s ok that this is aping Facebook; what differentiates social networks is not their feature set but rather their organizing principle. Facebook is about people you know, and Twitter about those that share your interests. Everything else — including all the quixotic features that Twitter holds dear — are implementation details.3

    Alternatively, Twitter could empower third-party developers to build these sorts of applications that feed back information into the Twitter interest graph. An application like Nuzzel, for example, which uses your Twitter graph to create a news app, has much more of a one-way relationship with the social network: Nuzzel is getting all the benefit, and not sending much information back to Twitter. Twitter would be better off retooling their API and developer agreements to ensure they are learning from every application they interact with, and in return sharing their graph along with advertising in the form of their MoPub or Namo Media-derived offerings. The advantage of this approach is that the imagination and ingenuity of a massive developer ecosystem will always be far faster and more innovative than anything any one company can do on its own — just ask Apple.

    As an aside, something that has hurt Twitter on the public markets has been the expectation/hope that the social network would follow Facebook’s path with regards to user numbers and monetization. Clearly the company as presently constructed isn’t anything close to that; however, the open approach that I’m advocating could in fact become something exponentially larger. Last week I wrote about Facebook’s AOL-like dominance and concluded, “What might be the broadband to Facebook’s dial-up?” The answer, I think, is this open Twitter: an identity system for the rest of the web that connects people and apps according to interests, not just superficial relationships, and monetizes accordingly.

    Obstacles

    Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see Twitter under its current leadership getting even close to this ideal:

    • A Facebook-type strategy would require a level of execution and speed that is pretty much the exact opposite of what Twitter has demonstrated throughout its existence. Facebook seems to be updating or testing new designs for its various products on a nearly weekly basis, while it feels like Twitter’s product hasn’t really evolved in years (in stark contrast, I might add, to the composition of its executive suite).

      Given that Twitter seems afraid to make even obvious changes to its core product for fear of messing up what they don’t seem to understand, I’m not particularly confident the current leadership team has either the vision or the internal credibility to lead such an effort4

    • The open strategy I endorse has an additional x-factor outside of Twitter’s control: the cooperation of 3rd-party developers. And, given that Costolo was the CEO when Twitter burned its bridges with developers in 2012 (and, two weeks ago, with its data providers), the company under its current leadership has no credibility with the folks who might make such an effort a success

    • Most importantly, now that Twitter is a (struggling) public company, it is exceptionally difficult to see Wall Street having the patience for the amount of time such a strategy realignment would take. After all, it took the company nearly nine months to come up with its current strategy of being Yahoo-lite; how much longer to map out much less execute the sort of ambitious plan proposed here? Unfortunately, any credibility the company may have had with Wall Street is, after yesterday’s huge miss, surely gone

    New Leadership is Needed

    To summarize:

    • Twitter has a user growth problem that, as of this quarter, is showing significant signs of manifesting into an advertising growth problem
    • Twitter’s current strategy of expanding to serve an audience they don’t know with undifferentiated ads is barely sustainable and a considerable waste of Twitter’s potential as the owner of the interest graph
    • There are different strategies available, but the current leadership team doesn’t have the credibility internally, with developers, or with Wall Street to consider or execute them

    That is why I believe it is time for a change. Twitter needs a better strategy, and more importantly, it needs fewer obstacles in its path to executing that strategy. There’s no question Costolo in particular has done excellent work at Twitter, taking over a dysfunctional company with a brilliant product and building it up into an actual business, and I wouldn’t begrudge him a particularly large golden parachute. But I firmly believe the time to act is short.

    In fact, it may already be too late. It seems ridiculous to, as I did earlier, put Twitter in the same conversation as Facebook, given that the former owns 70% of social referrals and Twitter a pitiful 3%. Moreover, Facebook’s developer offerings are considerably more advanced, and its monetization opportunities significantly greater. Instead, as I hinted at in my previous article, there is a lot about a Google-Twitter merger that makes sense: the former pays the bills, and the latter provides a road into the brand advertising future. That, though, would likely require an even greater run-down in the stock.

    I don’t want that for Twitter. I want one last shot for my favorite and most essential social network to truly take over the world, not just the headlines; I just want someone else taking that shot.

    Background

    I am not the first person to discuss this issue. Last November, the Wall Street Journal quoted Walter Price, an Allianz Global senior portfolio manager as saying “People are losing confidence in [Costolo]”, and in December Robert Peck, an analyst at Sun Trust told CNBC “We think there’s a good chance he’s not there in a year”, which may have caused a mini-rally in the stock.

    More importantly, I have been building up the substance of my argument for over two years here on Stratechery; the following are a selection of articles and Daily Updates that contain many of my concerns (please note the Daily Updates are members-only)

    • September 16, 2013 — There are Two Twitters; Only One is Worth Investing In — This article written when Twitter filed for its IPO, and predicted that Twitter would monetize relatively well but that it would struggle with user growth
    • April 30, 2014 — Daily Update: Twitter’s Earnings — This Daily Update discussed, in the context of Twitter’s earnings, why I was increasingly concerned that the company’s new user problem was intractable given the fact that many people had already tried the service
    • May 1, 2014 — Twitter’s Marketing Problem — This article posited that Twitter’s new user problem was exacerbated by the fact the company had never had to figure out product-market fit; the core product was so good it appealed to a very large number of users without any effort on Twitter’s part, but now the company did not know how to grow marginal users
    • July 30, 2014 — Daily Update: The Twitter Enigma — This Daily Update expressed my concern that Costolo did not seem to have a clear vision for the company
    • October 23, 2014 — Daily Update: Twitter Fabric — This Daily Update discussed the fact Twitter seemed to be giving up on Twitter the service and turning its attention to developer-based services and monetization options, and the difficulties they would have with such a strategy
    • October 28, 2014 — Daily Update: The Twitter Mismatch — This Daily Update discussed the disappointing number of advertisers on Twitter, both in terms of direct-sale brand advertisers as well as self-service direct marketing focused advertisers, and posited that Twitter was in danger of losing out on advertiser attention completely because it was simply too small
    • October 31, 2014 — Daily Update: Twitter Changes, Again — This Daily Update discussed yet-another Twitter executive reshuffle, this time around product
    • November 13, 2014 — Daily Update: Twitter’s Analyst Day — This Daily Update discussed Twitter’s analyst day announcements and my concerns that the company was increasingly focused on pandering to Wall Street at the expense of making need product improvements
    • February 6, 2015 — Daily Update: Twitter’s Results, Algorithm, and Value — This Daily Update discussed Twitter’s new plan to focus on non-logged in users and the financial ramifications of doing so
    • March 13, 2015 — Daily Update: Nuzzel and the Unbundling of Twitter — This Daily Update explored the possibility that the 140-character timeline was a minimum viable product that is being unbundled in favor of speciality services, and that Twitter should embrace that
    • April 15, 2015 — Twitter and What Might Have Been — This article, just two weeks ago, explained how Twitter was cutting off access to its interest graph due to its increasingly desperate need to monetize, and explored how much brighter the company’s future may have been had the company been more open with developers in particular

    1. To be fair, the specific mistake in this instance was Nasdaq’s reponsibility. But, as we’ll discuss, there seem to be excuses for everything that is, at the end of the day, Twitter’s responsibility ↩

    2. Moreover, Twitter’s MAU numbers are not necessarily what they seem, particularly from an advertising perspective. The company disclosed last year that 14% of its MAUs never visit Twitter’s website or apps; rather, these users have connected 3rd-party applications and websites that don’t display Twitter ads; for example, you can log into Twitter from Instagram in order to post a link to a photo. Moreover, that number doubled over the previous year, a stark contrast to Facebook’s <5% figure. Worse, a sizable portion of those users may be lapsed completely; according to Twitter approximately 8.5% of MAUs are due to applications that automatically ping Twitter without any user involvement.

      One example of such an application was iOS 7 Safari: in Twitter’s 2014 4Q results the company blamed its slowing user growth numbers on iOS 8, which ended Safari’s practice of pinging Twitter for its Shared Links whether or not the logged-in user ever read that section. The proper interpretation, though, was not that Twitter’s user growth numbers were accidentally and temporarily slowed, but rather that the company had been over-counting MAUs for at least a year. Add in the fact that, according to Twitter, up to 5% of MAUs are likely spam accounts, and it’s fair to wonder just how many people are actually being served ads from Twitter’s advertisers ↩

    3. Arguably Twitter is on this path with Vine and Periscope, but progress is painfully slow; the company needs to be moving 10x faster ↩

    4. And, I might add, I remain disappointed and disillusioned by Twitter’s hire of a head or product who, at the time, only had 72 tweets to his name; to Costolo’s credit he fixed this mistake quickly ↩

  • Facebook and the Feed

    In a week where much of the Internet was all atwitter about Mobilegeddon, Google’s pre-announced algorithm change that will favor mobile-friendly sites in mobile search results, a potentially far more impactful announcement was much more of a surprise: Facebook is tweaking the News Feed algorithm.

    This is a big deal for publishers in particular: according to Shareaholic, social referrals passed search referrals last summer and are now up to 31% of site traffic as of December, and Facebook is responsible for an incredible 79% of those social referrals.1 What is perhaps more interesting though, is what these changes mean for Facebook itself.

    Understanding Facebook’s Dominance

    It is increasingly clear that it is Facebook — not iOS or Android — that is the most important mobile platform. Facebook’s family of apps account for 24% of time spent on mobile, and the main Facebook app is responsible for 75% of that. Mobile apps thrive on “found time” — moments in line, or on the bus, or even on the couch where people simply want to look at something interesting — and Facebook consistently delivers for an increasing number of users all over the world. More impressively, Facebook isn’t just increasing its user base: its existing users continue to deepen their engagement with the app over time.

    In this respect Facebook really is the new AOL: in the 1990s the service provided a far easier and more accessible way to get online, and by 1997 nearly 50% of all Americans got online via the service. And, just as publishers and anyone else eager for people’s attention flocked to get their content on AOL, the same is the case for Facebook: as I discussed last month publishers like the New York Times and BuzzFeed are reportedly on the verge of placing their content directly on Facebook. As long as Facebook is the easiest way to access content on mobile, publishers have little choice but to go where their readers are.

    The problem with this comparison — at least from Facebook’s perspective — is that 1997 was AOL’s peak. North America’s first broadband service had launched the year previously, and as more and more customers got online through their phone or cable providers, AOL’s moat — dial-up access — evaporated away. And in the end, AOL’s content, compelling though it may have been, simply couldn’t compete with the breadth of the entire Internet.2

    Facebook’s Moat

    This is where, to my mind, the AOL comparison falls apart. AOL provided an essential utility that was far easier-to-use than the alternatives, but that utility was obsoleted by broadband. Facebook, on the other hand, is built on the social graph: its users’ relationships. And given that the very nature of humanity is to connect and communicate with other humans, the need that Facebook has traditionally met will be with us forever. The only danger is that another service somehow takes Facebook’s place as the Rolodex of the world.

    I simply don’t see that happening. At this point, my most extreme Facebook bear case is that the service is the equivalent of an email address: something nearly everyone has because you can’t function without it, even if it’s not their preferred means of communication.

    However, I say “extreme” for a reason: for many Facebook is much more than that. Here in Asia, for example, Facebook is LinkedIn: it is standard for an introductory business meeting to conclude with Facebook friend invites. Facebook is also the homepage for the vast majority of businesses: a page is much more discoverable and much easier to maintain, and most don’t even bother with a website.3 A significant amount of e-commerce happens on Facebook as well, and most celebrities and well-known bloggers post primarily or exclusively on Facebook (although Instagram is increasingly important as well). True, messaging services like WhatsApp and LINE increasingly handle one-on-one or private group conversations, but in country after country that I visit or research the social paradigm is Facebook + X social network; the X changes (and is often a Facebook property), but Facebook is the constant.4

    Still, the argument I just made is about the ongoing usefulness of having a Facebook account. What about engagement?

    What Drives Facebook Engagement?

    This is the central question facing Facebook, and a fascinating way to think about yesterday’s News Feed changes. The Verge has a good summary:

    Facebook has announced it’s twisting the knobs that control what content you see in your News Feed to favor more content from your close friends. In a post titled “News Feed FYI: Balancing Content from Friends and Pages,” Facebook said it’s making three changes. The first is that it won’t let people reach the “end” of a News Feed as easily, because it will be willing to show more content from the same publisher than it was before. Previously, you wouldn’t be likely to get two posts from the same Page. But the other two changes are more ominous for publishers, but potentially great for users who actually want to see content from their friends: “content posted by the friends you care about” will be “higher up in the News Feed.” Also, if a friend interacts with a post from a brand or publisher page, it will be less likely to show up in your News Feed.

    This is hardly the first major change to Facebook’s News Feed algorithm:5 consider, for example, this major update from December 2013:

    We’ve noticed that people enjoy seeing articles on Facebook, and so we’re now paying closer attention to what makes for high quality content, and how often articles are clicked on from News Feed on mobile. What this means is that you may start to notice links to articles a little more often (particularly on mobile)…

    While trying to show more articles people want to read, we also don’t want people to miss the conversations among their friends. So we’re updating bumping to highlight stories with new comments…With this update stories will occasionally resurface that have new comments from friends.

    This December 2013 change had a huge effect, crushing viral sites like Upworthy while bumping up traffic for sites like BuzzFeed, Business Insider, and The Guardian. What is perhaps more interesting, though, is that yesterday’s changes seem to run in the opposite direction: prioritizing friends, when 2013’s update prioritized news; and deprioritizing friends’ comments and likes, when 2013 bumped them up.

    Here’s the thing: I’m quite sure the 2013 changes weren’t arbitrary. Facebook is a very data-driven company, and all available evidence suggests that the changes had their intended effect: as I noted above Facebook is not only increasing users but also deepening the engagement of their existing users quarter after quarter. That’s why I’m curious just how important data was in yesterday’s changes compared to the personal preference of Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his belief about what makes Facebook valuable.

    Facebook’s Vision and Potential

    Zuckerberg is quite clear about what drives him; he wrote in Facebook’s S-1:

    Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected.

    I am starting to wonder if these two ideas — company versus mission — might not be more in tension now than they have ever been in the past. I’m increasingly convinced that Facebook has an absolutely massive business opportunity on its hands: to capture, almost completely, the imminent wave of advertising dollars deserting TV for digital. To do so, though, will require an embrace of Facebook’s status as the “homepage of the Internet” (on mobile in particular), and an abdication of sorts of the social interactions that built the company.

    For several years now the percentage of people’s attention devoted to digital has far outstripped the percentage of advertising devoted to the medium. Television and (especially) print, on the other hand, keeps a far greater share of advertising than it seems they deserve:

    via BuzzFeed
    via BuzzFeed

    A big reason for television’s dominance in particular is that it is simply the easiest way to reach a large audience. Twitter may offer interest-based targeting, for example, but your typical brand manager simply doesn’t have the time or expertise to optimize every dollar across a broad array of platforms. Efficiency is just as much a feature of advertising as is targeting capability, conversion tracking, or price.

    Still, as I wrote in Old-Fashioned Snapchat, advertisers care above all about attention, and there’s no question that television is losing it both to alternative video services like Netflix but also to digital services, especially Facebook. Last year the average user gave Facebook over 40 minutes of attention a day (and another 20 minutes to Instagram, a property capable of supporting a very Facebook-like advertising unit), and that number continues to grow. Given Facebook’s excellent targeting capabilities and aspirations for Atlas’s ability to provide conversion tracking (members-only), it’s not inconceivable that, at some point in the relatively near future, it is Facebook that is the default advertising medium, commanding dollars that exceed its already dominant share of attention. Still, this outcome depends on Facebook driving ever-more engagement, and I’m not convinced that more “content posted by the friends [I] care about” is the best path to success.

    What Matters to Users?

    Everyone loves to mock Paul Krugman’s 1998 contention about the limited economic impact of the Internet:

    The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law”–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!

    It’s worth considering, though, just how much users value what their friends have to say versus what professional media organizations produce. Again, as I noted above, Facebook made the 2013 decision to increase the value of newsworthy links for a reason, and in the time since, BuzzFeed in particular has proven that there is a consistent and repeatable way to not only reach a large number of people but to compel them to share content as well. Was Krugman wrong because he didn’t appreciate the relative worth people put on what folks in their network wanted to say, or because he didn’t appreciate that people in their network may not have much to say but a wealth of information to share?

    I suspect that Zuckerberg for one subscribes to the first idea: that people find what others say inherently valuable, and that it is the access to that information that makes Facebook indispensable. Conveniently, this fits with his mission for the company. For my part, though, I’m not so sure. It’s just as possible that Facebook is compelling for the content it surfaces, regardless of who surfaces it. And, if the latter is the case, then Facebook’s engagement moat is less its network effects than it is that for almost a billion users Facebook is their most essential digital habit: their door to the Internet.

    Facebook’s Choice

    I’ve written previously about publishers and the smiling curve, the idea that value is increasingly flowing to aggregators on the right and differentiated content creators on the left; publishers are being left in the cold.

    The Publishing Smiling Curve

    Facebook is slowly but surely building a bridge between the left and right sides of that curve: publishers are being invited into a revenue-sharing content-on-Facebook deal now, but what is to stop the program from extending to individuals? Same thing with Facebook’s video unit, which is on pace to attract more advertisers than YouTube. Were this to happen, it’s easy to see Facebook as a one-stop shop for even more users than today, and were that to happen, advertisers would inevitably follow to an even greater degree.

    This course, though, depends on Facebook giving users exactly what they want, or at least a good enough mix, in their news feed, and as I noted, I’m not convinced personal updates is enough. Moreover, while Facebook may view “the network” as their differentiator, the fact is that a lot of “friend” sharing is indeed moving to alternative networks like Snapchat and LINE and WhatsApp. With this News Feed update I am concerned that Facebook is limiting itself and committing to a battle — the private sharing of information — it can’t necessarily win.

    Consider Facebook’s smartest acquisition, Instagram. The photo-sharing service is valuable because it is a network, but it initially got traction because of filters. Sometimes what gets you started is only a lever to what makes you valuable. What, though, lies beyond the network? That was Facebook’s starting point, and I think the answer to what lies beyond is clear: the entire online experience of over a billion people. Will Facebook seek to protect its network — and Zuckerberg’s vision — or make a play to be the television of mobile?

    I will admit, I write this analysis with mixed feelings: from a strategic perspective, I think Facebook should go for it — be the dominant interaction model on mobile for every user on earth (outside of China). On the other hand, as an advocate and beneficiary of the open web, I do fear this future and wonder: What might be the broadband to Facebook’s dial-up?

    1. Pinterest is second, with 16% of social referral, and Twitter a distant third, with only 3% of social referrals ↩

    2. AOL — now Aol — still exists of course, but it’s basically another Yahoo; relatively high-traffic sites monetized through relatively undifferentiated advertising. That said, it is more profitable…thanks to dial-up! ↩

    3. As I’ve written previously, WeChat fills these roles in China, where Facebook is banned ↩

    4. That is why I was not surprised to see this month’s Pew Research report that showed that Facebook was still the dominant social networking service amongst teenagers, past scaremongering notwithstanding ↩

    5. Buffer’s blog has a running list  ↩

  • Twitter and What Might Have Been

    Twitter’s blog is generally a cheery place, with one big exception from 2012: the innocuously named Changes Coming in Version 1.1 of the Twitter API, and in particular, the section called “Changes to the Developer Rules of the Road” that attempted to put the kibosh on 3rd-party Twitter clients:1

    If you are building a Twitter client application that is accessing the home timeline, account settings or direct messages API endpoints (typically used by traditional client applications) or are using our User Streams product, you will need our permission if your application will require more than 100,000 individual user tokens.

    As you might expect, as with any decision by a big company to lock out 3rd-party developers, people were upset. Twitter’s move, though, cut far more deeply: it wasn’t just that people really loved their 3rd-party apps; rather there was a deep sense of betrayal because 3rd-party app developers were unusually responsible for Twitter’s success up to that point.

    A Brief History of Twitter and 3rd-Party Developers

    Twitter launched as an SMS service, but quickly the web app became the company’s primary focus. No surprise: at that time, the conventional wisdom was that websites would be the dominant interaction layer for a good long time. Of course that idea seems positively quaint: we now know that on phones, the platform with by far the largest share of both computers and attention, apps are far more important than the web, and the companies that recognized that shift early have benefited tremendously. Twitter is on that list, but not by their own doing.

    Just months after the first iPhone’s release Craig Hockenberry built Twitterrific, the first mobile Twitter client, and the use case was so compelling that all sorts of people who would normally not consider jailbreaking did it anyway just for his app. In fact, I would not be surprised if Hockenberry’s app had a direct impact on Apple’s decision to open up the App Store. The impact on Twitter was just as profound: it turned out that character-limited tweets and a timeline focused on the here-and-now were a brilliant match for a computer that was in your pocket and thus available in found moments and unusual happenings. Over the next few years Twitterrific and a host of competitors honed the Twitter user experience, and these developers — and users — pioneered many of Twitter’s most important features, making the company, by 2011, worth $8 billion and on the road to a 2013 IPO. And Twitter was slamming the door in their face!

    Twitter’s Mistake

    In fact, I think Twitter’s decision was absolutely justified: in April 2010 Twitter launched promoted tweets on their website, but as just noted, it was already clear that for most users the website was a secondary platform for consuming Twitter. If Twitter were to succeed in advertising it needed to place those promoted tweets and any other advertising inventory it might devise into Twitter apps. The problem, though, was that by definition Twitter had little control over how its content was presented in apps built by 3rd-party developers. And so, three days before the promoted tweets announcement, Twitter bought Tweetie, an app many (including myself) thought was the best 3rd-party Twitter app of all.

    This was the context for the aforementioned post: advertising works best at scale but 3rd-party apps were peeling away too much of Twitter’s audience. That is why the company made such a big mistake: they didn’t kill 3rd-party apps completely. The post noted:

    We will not be shutting down client applications that use those endpoints and are currently over those token limits. If your application already has more than 100,000 individual user tokens, you’ll be able to maintain and add new users to your application until you reach 200% of your current user token count (as of today) — as long as you comply with our Rules of the Road. Once you reach 200% of your current user token count, you’ll be able to maintain your application to serve your users, but you will not be able to add additional users without our permission.

    The funny/sad thing about this entire episode is that Twitter was clearly trying to bend over backwards for its 3rd-party developers: it was strategically stupid and financially unwise to let them continue to exist, but Twitter left this massive loophole open that limited growth but didn’t kill successful apps like Twitterrific or Tweetbot. And yet, the company was pilloried and tarred with a reputation for being especially unfriendly to developers, a reputation that strongly persists to this day.

    Meerkat and Datasift

    The reason this history matters is that Twitter has spent the last month cracking down once again. The first target, famously, was Meerkat, an app that allows you to stream live from your phone to anyone else with the Meerkat app. Within days of its release the app was a huge hit in tech circles, aided by its use of the Twitter graph: you signed in with your Twitter login and were immediately able to follow anyone you already followed on Twitter. Just two weeks after its launch, though, and on the eve of South-by-Southwest, Twitter cut them off.

    The second target was more surprising, but in retrospect — like the app situation — telegraphed by Twitter. A year ago Twitter acquired Gnip, at the time one of only four companies with access to the full Twitter firehose of every tweet passing through the service. And then, over the weekend, came the other shoe: Twitter is going to cut off Gnip-competitor Datasift and everyone else.

    Twitter’s Justification

    Both of Twitter’s decisions are correct, albeit for different reasons:

    • The most obvious justification for killing Meerkat was that Twitter was on the verge of launching Periscope, an app that does basically the exact same thing (Periscope has since launched). Why should Twitter be expected to give its direct competitor a leg up?

      Still, I think that Twitter’s decision would have been justifiable even if they weren’t about to launch Periscope. A fundamental part of Twitter, first established by Twitterrific on a jailbroken iPhone, was its sense of immediacy and incredible ability to broadcast information about what was happening right now from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world. That, though, is exactly what makes Meerkat/Periscope so amazing: immediate access to what is happening anywhere in the world is exactly what they provide, but in a superior format: video. Twitter risked being unbundled, and given their floundering user growth, the company simply can’t afford to lose its claim on its most marketable attribute.2

    • Datasift is a little more troublesome. For one thing, in the same post where Twitter announced the 3rd-party app limitation, the company promoted data analysis as an opportunity for 3rd parties to build on the platform:

      Today on Twitter we see a broad and deep variety of individual developers and companies building applications using data and content from the Twitter API…with our new API guidelines, we’re trying to encourage activity in the upper-left, lower-left and lower right quadrants, and limit certain use cases that occupy the upper-right quadrant.

      dev_chart

      Datasift falls squarely in the lower-left bracket, which means Twitter’s decision is a complete reversal of their previous stated stance, a stance that led to investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s an ugly move.

      The problem for Twitter is the aforementioned user growth: it’s even uglier. Last quarter the company was celebrated for adding 13~16 million users, but I was far more troubled by the company’s explanation that it lost 4 million users because of iOS 8. What actually happened was that if you ever signed up for Twitter on iOS 7, Safari kept syncing your tweets whether or not you used the service. iOS 8 fixed that, which means those 4 millions users were only counted as active because of an iOS bug! Given that Twitter’s reported metric is monthly active users, how many of their 288 millions active users are actually humans reading their timeline as opposed to randomly updating apps or visits by an abandoned user to a page with an embedded tweet?

      The company has responded by doubling down on monetization, and that’s where this decision makes sense. Wall Street actually loved last quarter, because Twitter monetizes so well, and in the absence of user growth the company is clearly focused on growing revenue per user instead, and data is a low-hanging fruit.

    Still, even though all of Twitter’s decisions are understandable, I can’t shake the feeling that the company could have chosen a very different path.

    What Might Have Been

    It’s interesting to ponder why it is that Twitter is able to monetize effectively – and if they can keep it up – even as they are surpassed in active users by social networks like Instagram and (soon-if-not-already) Snapchat, never mind Facebook. I made this argument at the time of Twitter’s IPO offering:

    Whereas Google is valuable because it knows what I want, when I want to get it, Facebook knows who I am, and who I know. Ideally, they also know who and what I like, but it’s a much weaker signal. Twitter, on the other hand, knows exactly what I like and what I’m interested in. It’s obvious both from what I tweet about, but especially based on who I follow. If an advertiser wants to reach someone like me – and they certainly do, given my spending habits – Twitter is by far the best way to find me. Were Twitter able to consistently capture this signal and deliver effective ad units that caught their user’s attention, they could command some of the highest average revenues per user on the Internet.

    Indeed, I would argue that what makes Twitter the company valuable is not Twitter the app or 140 characters or @names or anything else having to do with the product: rather, it’s the interest graph that is nearly priceless. More specifically, it is Twitter identities and the understanding that can be gleaned from how those identities are used and how they interact that matters.

    If one starts with that sort of understanding — that Twitter the company is about the graph, not the app — one would make very different decisions. For one, the clear priority would not be increasing ad inventory on the Twitter timeline (which in this understanding is but one manifestation of an interest graph) but rather ensuring as many people as possible have and use a Twitter identity. And what would be the best way to do that? Through 3rd-parties, of course! And by no means should those 3rd-parties be limited to recreating the Twitter timeline: they should build all kinds of apps that have a need to connect people with common interests: publishers would be an obvious candidate, and maybe even an app that streams live video. Heck, why not a social network that requires a minimum of 140 characters, or a killer messaging app? Try it all, anything to get more people using the Twitter identity and the interest graph.

    As for monetization, Twitter actually already nailed it: that’s exactly what MoPub should have been focused on. I hoped at the time of the acquisition:

    I think it’s very likely MoPub is Twitter’s AdSense: Twitter has a great signal about its users — whom I follow is a great approximation for what I’m interested in. That’s even more valuable than whom I know. However, Twitter is not a great platform for any sort of display advertising; the targeting would have to be much more precise than what is possible with current technology for users to tolerate anything more than promoted tweets. MoPub solves this riddle; Twitter can serve up highly targeted ads everywhere but Twitter proper. It’s a great acquisition.

    Mostly right, I think, except for the focus on display ads: native advertising is exactly what works best on mobile, which is why Twitter bought native advertising company Namo last summer. Twitter’s offering is an attractive alternative for mobile publishers in particular, it’s just a shame that all those publishers aren’t building on top of Twitter’s identity, but then again, who can trust the company? The past is not dead…

    Twitter and Google

    Twitter’s story in many respects makes me think of Google: both companies started out benefiting greatly from openness and the power of both connecting users to what they were interested in and opening up powerful APIs to developers. The monetization model is even similar: note the AdSense reference above. Over time, though, Google has pulled more and more of its utility onto its own pages (and the revenue balance in the company has followed), just as Twitter focused on its own apps, and now Google is even starting to eat its best customers like travel websites and insurance agents (members-only), just like Twitter ate Datasift.

    Frankly, the arc of both companies is simultaneously understandable and saddening to me. I’ve loved them both for the ways they have connected me to truly new ideas and new people, and it’s frustrating to see the growth imperative push both companies to turn increasingly inwards. One does wonder if they might find salvation in each other.3

    1. The introduction originally read as follows:

      Clearly, Twitter would like you to forget one particularly controversial moment in its history:

      Screenshot 2015-04-15 at 8.43.34 PM

      In case you can’t make out the URL, the page in question is a blog post entitled “Changes coming in Version 1.1 of the Twitter API”, and the most upsetting news was in the section called “Changes to the Developer Rules of the Road”. From The Internet Archive:

      It turns out the blog post was moved, not deleted. I apologize for the mistake ↩

    2. That’s why I don’t really object to the celebrity pressure either. ↩

    3. This eternal rumor was repeated this week; for the record, I think it’s highly unlikely, first and foremost because Twitter is simply too expensive now. And, I might add, Twitter is doing (surprisingly) ok for now, at least in the stock market; missed potential doesn’t mean outright failure. The long-term danger of slowing user growth is real though: advertisers will want to consolidate which means the revenue growth not only won’t be sustainable but could actually decline ↩

  • It’s Not 1999

    The question of whether or not we are in a tech bubble has been raised regularly for years now; 2012, particularly Facebook’s acquisition of an app1 called Instagram for a ridiculous2 $1 billion, was a particular high point. The fact that Instagram is now valued at $35 billion suggests the 2012 doomsayers were just a bit off.

    Still, it’s possible to be off in timing but right in meaning; in retrospect Alan Greenspan was correct to, at the end of 1996, characterize what we now call the dot-com bubble as a period of “irrational exuberance”; the correction just took a few extra years to materialize, and it was all-the-more painful for having taken as long to arrive as it did. Might the tech industry be facing a similar reckoning?

    I don’t think so.3

    Changing Markets

    If you’ll forgive a brief diversion, a pet peeve of mine is when people analyze the mobile phone market, particularly iOS versus Android, through the lens of Apple versus Microsoft in the 80s and 90s. The issue is not the obvious differences — this time Apple was first, the absolute numbers are much larger, etc. — but rather the fact that many of these commentators simply have their facts wrong. Windows didn’t win because it was open or all the other nonsense that is ballyhooed about; it won because MS-DOS was the operating system for IBM PCs, and at a time when personal computers were sweeping corporate America, “no one got fired for buying IBM.”4 By the time the Mac arrived in 1984, the battle was already over: businesses, the primary buyers, were already invested in MS-DOS (and, over time, Windows), and not many consumers were buying PCs. Today, of course, the situation is the exact opposite: consumers vastly outnumber business buyers. Thus, the chief reason iPhone/Android is not Windows/Mac is because the market is fundamentally different.

    I tell this story because I think a similar mistake is made when comparing today’s funding environment to the dot-com era: it’s easy to look at numbers, whether that be valuations, revenue multiples, or simple counting stats, but any analysis is incomplete without understanding markets. In 1999 most consumer markets were simply not ready, whether it be for lack of broadband, logistics build-out, etc., while most enterprise opportunities were in selling licensed software to CIOs. And, in this latter market especially, the competition was other tech companies.

    Today, by contrast, many of the most valuable unicorns are consumer-focused companies like Uber or Airbnb. Moreover, these companies are competing not with other tech companies5 but rather with entirely new (to tech) industries like transportation or hospitality. And, even for more traditional pure software plays like Snapchat or Stripe the implications of mobile-everywhere means a whole lot more time — and contexts — to reach consumers. In short, the size of the addressable market for tech companies has exploded — why shouldn’t valuations as well?

    Changing Business Models

    Today’s startups also have very different business models than companies did in the dot-com era (to the extent they had business models at all, of course). The difference is the most stark when it comes to enterprise software: back in the late 90s enterprises bought software licenses that were usually paid for up-front. Thus, when a company closed a sale, they would get paid right away.

    Today, on the other hand, most enterprise startups sell software-as-a-service (SaaS) which is paid for through subscriptions. In the long run this is a potentially more lucrative business model, as the startup can theoretically collect subscription revenue forever, but it also means revenue is much slower to arrive as compared to the old software licensing model. For example, suppose you spend $1006 to acquire a customer who pays $35/year: in year one, for that customer, you will lose $65, but then profit $35 every year thereafter. It’s a great model, but it looks bad, especially when you consider growth:

    Year New Cust Growth CAC Total Cust Total Rev Annual Profit/Loss
    1 1 — $100 1 $35 ($75)
    2 2 100% $200 3 $105 ($95)
    3 3 100% $300 6 $210 ($90)
    4 6 100% $600 12 $420 ($180)
    5 12 100% $1200 24 $840 ($360)

    No company, though, can double forever, so watch what happens when the growth rate slips to, say, ~30%:

    Year New Cust Growth CAC Total Cust Total Rev Annual Profit/Loss
    6 7 29% $700 31 $1085 $38
    7 9 29% $900 40 $1400 $500
    8 12 30% $1200 52 $1820 $620
    9 15 29% $1500 67 $2345 $845
    10 20 30% $2000 87 $3045 $1045

    This is a simplistic example: there is no churn on one hand, and no decrease in CAC (which usually happens at scale) or increase in revenue/customer via add-on services on the other. The takeaway, though, is that particularly during a period of hyper-growth, SaaS companies need a lot of capital, and more pertinently, a lot more capital than a company that monetizes through up-front software licenses.

    There is a similar dynamic for many consumer companies, particularly companies that monetize through advertising. Advertising works at scale, which in today’s world means hundreds of millions of users; getting all of those users requires years of operating without revenue, which means a lot of capital. All of this is magnified for companies that operate in markets that include network effects: network effects translate into winner-take-all opportunities, which significantly increases the growth imperative, requiring, again, significant amounts of capital.

    Changing Nature of Capital

    The question, then, is where does all that capital come from? Traditionally, from one place: the public markets.

    There are multiple advantages to an IPO, for all of the various stakeholders in a startup:

    • The company gets additional capital to fuel growth, non-dilutive shares to use for acquisitions, and a bit of added prestige that can help with sales, particularly to enterprises
    • Founders and employees can finally be fully compensated (by selling shares) for their years spent building the company
    • Venture capitalists get a return on their investment that they can distribute to their limited partners

    There are downsides, though, as well. The run-up to an IPO is very difficult, and requires a lot of attention from senior management, the disclosure of a lot of information, and a large expense that has only increased because of recent legislation. The disclosure and expense continues, too, on a quarterly basis, which brings its own pressures and risks, including activist shareholders and SEC oversight.

    On the flip side, a number of IPO advantages have been peeled away:

    • The most important has been the emergence of a new type of capital: growth capital. Growth capital is less speculative than traditional venture capital; it seeks to make relatively larger investments for relatively smaller stakes in companies with provably viable businesses that are seeking to grow for all of the reasons listed above. Now an IPO is no longer necessary for growth
    • Secondary markets and special purpose vehicles that buy stock from founders and early employees give founders and early employees a way to realize some of their gains, again, without an IPO. This too removes a previous forcing condition for an IPO
    • Finally, more and more early investors have determined that doubling down on winners often provides a better return than spreading bets widely; indeed, an increasing number of venture funds are explicitly marketed to limited partners as a combination of venture and growth capital

    Just as Arthur Rock and Fairchild Semiconductor birthed venture capital, Yuri Milner and Facebook deserve the most credit for the development of growth capital.7 In 2009 Milner and Facebook shocked the Valley with a $200 million investment that valued the company at $10.2 billion. This investment was the growth capital archetype: a large amount of money in absolute terms for a surprisingly small stake in a provably viable business, and it paid off handsomely. Facebook would go on to further expand the growth capital market, first to private equity (Elevation Partners in 2010) and then to Wall Street (Goldman Sachs in 2011): Facebook was clearly a winner, and if Goldman Sachs’ clients wanted in, then growth capital was the answer. Since then nearly every huge startup has followed the same path, and Wall Street especially has responded: growth is no longer found by investing in IPOs, but in private companies that need the money but not the hassle of an IPO, and any qualms have been drowned in an environment where multiple countries are issuing negative rate bonds (a big contrast from 1999) — growth is hard to find!8

    What’s the Downside

    So to recount:

    • Today’s startups have massively larger markets than in 1999
    • Today’s business models require significantly more capital than ever before
    • Thanks to Facebook, funding this growth via Growth Capital has been established as a viable alternative to an IPO

    In short — and I’m not the first to say this — it’s less that valuations are unnaturally high than it is the fact that there is a completely new capital market — the growth market.

    There are, though, some downsides and new risks:

    • The most obvious downside is that the best growth opportunities are increasingly out of the reach of retail investors like you or I. Goldman Sachs Facebook Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), for example, required a minimum $2 million buy-in
    • Companies like Facebook, Uber, or Palantir may be obvious winners, but the difficulty in investing in them creates a powerful sense of FOMO — Fear of Missing Out. This has the potential of pushing less sophisticated investors desperate for growth towards higher-risk companies
    • Relatedly, there is very little oversight around these investments, particularly when it comes to the disclosure of audited financial information. A lot of these growth investors are plunging in a bit blind

    Bill Gurley, an investor I greatly admire and have learned a lot from (his blog is a must-read), is worried the last two points in particular are leading to a risk bubble:

    All of this suggests that we are not in a valuation bubble, as the mainstream media seems to think. We are in a risk bubble. Companies are taking on huge burn rates to justify spending the capital they are raising in these enormous financings, putting their long-term viability in jeopardy. Late-stage investors, desperately afraid of missing out on acquiring shareholding positions in possible “unicorn” companies, have essentially abandoned their traditional risk analysis. Traditional early-stage investors, institutional public investors, and anyone with extra millions are rushing in to the high-stakes, late-stage game.

    Read that carefully: much of the media has adopted Gurley as the apostle of the “here we go it’s 1999 all over again” mantra, but that was a valuation bubble. Companies simply weren’t worth what they were priced at. Gurley is arguing that the private market with its limited information and oversight is producing something very different: investors putting too much money in companies without enough information or enough potential upside to justify the risk.

    To be fair, given that risk should be priced in, a risk bubble is a valuation bubble. The fact of the matter, though, is that it’s the word “bubble” that is mistaken. Go back to concern one: the lack of access for retail investors. It turns out this has its advantages, because the lack of liquidity is arguably a firewall against this truly being a bubble. For one, if everything goes sour, the folks taking a hit can very much afford it. More importantly, a bubble is less about companies than it is a bet on euphoria — the assumption that no matter how nonsensical your investment, there will always be someone on the other end ready-and-willing to buy. While many of these growth investors are arguably making such a bet on a future IPO that may or may not materialize, there is no question the combination of increased investor sophistication necessary to participate in this market and the lack of liquidity makes betting on euphoria a far more risky — and thus far more unlikely — outcome.

    Or, to put it another way, bubble talk is less 1999 than it is Y2K: a potential problem, and some people will lose money, but in all likelihood a far smaller deal than many in the media are making it out to be.

    1. Make sure you read this sentence with the proper amount of condescension; if you have forgotten, it was exceptionally heavy ↩

    2. This should be read with disgust ↩

    3. And this is where I desperately hope this article isn’t hung around my neck in a year or two ↩

    4. Moreover, it was IBM, not Microsoft, that made the PC open in order to get it more quickly to market, and it was a decision they came to dearly regret when “IBM-compatible” PCs, led by Compaq, undercut the IBM PC and came to own the growing market (and why were they “IBM-compatible”? Because they ran MS-DOS on Intel chips)  ↩

    5. Sorry Lyft ↩

    6. I.e. your customer acquisition cost (CAC) is $100 ↩

    7. Although Chris Sacca deserves special credit for coming up with the idea of special purpose vehicles that raise money in order to invest in a specific startup, an increasingly common vector for growth capital ↩

    8. As an aside, this is why I don’t take the relatively poor performance of many recent IPOs as a bubble indicator; increasing stock prices are about an increasing expectation of future growth, but if much of the growth has been realized, then why should we expect stocks to do anything more than hover? ↩

  • Tidal and the Future of Music

    I’m a couple of days late in writing about Tidal, Jay Z and friends’ new streaming service, so I’ve been saved the trouble of predicting it will fail. The most scathing and, unsurprisingly, best critique was levied by Bob Lefsetz. This is the key paragraph:

    Suddenly, just because Jay Z is a famous musician he expects all of his fans to pony up ten bucks a month? Raw insanity. As is the position of the artists on the stage. I’d be much more impressed if they all ankled their deals, got rid of the major labels and went it alone. That’s why they’re not making much money on Spotify, not because of the free tier, but because their deals suck. But these same deals apply on Tidal! They’ve got to license the music from their bosses! It’s utterly laughable, like nursery school kids plotting against the teacher, or a kindergartner running away from home. Grow up!

    Lefsetz’s criticism is based on the basic structure of the music industry:

    FullSizeRender-1

    The role of three of the four is obvious:

    • Artists make the music
    • Distributors (Apple, Spotify, YouTube, Pirate Bay, etc.) get the music to fans
    • Fans listen to the music

    The more interesting question is about labels: why do they still exist, and why do every single one of the artists behind Tidal remain attached to them?

    The Role of Record Labels

    In the pre-Internet era (or, to be more precise, the pre-Napster era) one of the roles of labels was obvious: they handled distribution. Actually making and distributing a bunch of records (or 8-tracks or cassettes or CDs) was a capital-intensive task that required significant investment in production lines, channel development, and logistics. As with many such businesses, it was the cost structure of these activities – significant fixed costs, but relatively small marginal costs (a CD costs pennies to make) – that determined the business model: an outsized focus on big hits. The New York Times broke this down back in 1995:

    Setting prices “is very arbitrary,” said a top executive at a major label, who described his company’s pricing policies only on condition of anonymity. “We’re trying to raise CD prices,” he said. “The reason for this is that our costs are escalating in such a marginal way, everything from marketing to promoting to signing bands. It costs $400,000 to $600,000 to sign a band. The first video costs a minimum of $50,000. Touring is more expensive, and people’s salaries are a lot higher. Our profit margins are being squeezed.

    “It’s a very speculative business that we’re in. If a label can break one new band a year, they’re having a good year. The first 300,000 to 500,000 copies a record label sells of most CD’s don’t make money. That’s 80 percent of all records that don’t make money; the other 20 percent have to pay for the 80 percent.”

    There’s a bit of circular logic here – many artists are unprofitable because of marketing and promotional (fixed) costs, but the ever-higher marketing and promotional costs existed because of the pursuit of breakout winners, which are necessary to cover the ever increasing fixed costs.1 Still, the logic makes sense. The reality is that a Jay Z or Coldplay will more than pay for a whole roster of unprofitable artists, and this has always been the case.

    This is why, by the way, I’m generally quite unsympathetic to artists belly-aching about how unfair their labels are. Is it unfair that all of the artists who don’t break through are not compelled to repay the labels the money that was invested in them? No one begrudges venture capitalists for profiting when a startup IPOs, because that return pays for all the other startups in the portfolio that failed.

    In fact, this gets to the first reason why labels are still relevant: although the distribution function has gradually gone away (although, CDs still made up over 50% of all album sales in 2014), the venture capital function of record labels remains. Apple, Spotify, et al are not interested in discovering and speculatively funding new artists; it’s a difficult and specialized job and the labels are quite good at it. And, like the best sort of VCs, record labels don’t just provide money but also guidance in both an artist’s sound and their business dealings.

    Of course labels don’t just find artists who magically become popular: the record labels also help make them so with the aforementioned marketing and promotion costs. This can be everything from getting artists booked on TV, featured in iTunes, or promoted on blogs, but the biggie, even in 2015, is getting artists on the radio. According to the Nielsen 2014 Year End Music Report radio remains the number one source of music discovery: an amazing 91.3% of the U.S. population listens to the radio at least once-a-week, and 51% of those surveyed based their buying decisions off of what they heard on the radio. Record labels have entire divisions devoted to getting their artists on the radio, and while the old under-the-table payments have been outlawed, there still is no expense spared when it comes to getting in front of listeners. Marketing is expensive, and the competition is steep.

    The Motivation of Artists

    This is why Jay Z and his chart-topping partners are taking on Spotify, not their labels. Jay Z is the extreme example here: he has his own label that deals with artists directly, but Roc Nation is a part of Universal Music Group, which handles distribution, and is financed by Live Nation (making a move into the record labels business) to the tune of $150 million over 10 years. Jay Z isn’t giving that money back so that he can make his music exclusive to Tidal, nor are any of the other artists.

    Moreover, even if Jay Z and company were truly independent, they would be heavily incentivized to avoid exclusivity as well: remember that music has high fixed costs but (especially on the Internet) zero marginal costs. That means the best way to make money is to sell as many units as possible in order to spread out those fixed costs. That, by extension, means the optimal strategy for whoever owns the music is making it available in as many places as possible – the exact opposite of an exclusive.2

    This ultimately is why Tidal will fail: it’s nice that Jay Z and company would prefer to garner Spotify’s (minuscule) share of streaming revenue, but there is zero reason to expect Tidal to win in the market. Not enough people care – or are even capable of appreciating – the hi-fi option,3 and unlike Beats headphones (but like Beats the music service) software isn’t a status symbol. Moreover, Tidal doesn’t have Spotify’s head-start or free tier, it doesn’t have Apple’s distribution might and bank account, and it doesn’t have any meaningful exclusives4 — and to be successful, you need a lot of exclusives; it’s too easy and guilt-free to pirate (or simply skip) one or two songs.

    Looking Forward

    The key to the record label’s resilience is that their role has always been about more than distribution; it has also been about discovery, funding, and promotion. Each of these is under threat in different ways:

    • Discovery: A combination of social media and YouTube has made it massively easier for a musician to spread via word-of-mouth. On the back-end, tools like Shazam are providing real data about what artists are blowing up long before a traditional record label would ever notice. Both of these channels are much more actionable for one of the distribution companies (Apple,5 Google/YouTube, and Spotify) than a traditional talent discovery process
    • Funding: The cost of producing a basic record has come down dramatically over the years. Sure, things like samples and extensive production raise those costs, but those are also often the luxuries of the already-established. Thanks to computers an artist can put together something good enough to get noticed for remarkably little money6
    • Promotion: The more that distribution moves away from CDs and to online channels, the more valuable those channels become in terms of promotion. iTunes already has significant expertise in this regard, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple in particular is considering an acquisition of Pandora to give Beats an even stronger promotional channel

    Still, it’s often far easier to theorize an industry’s downfall than it is to actually effect it. The fact remains that the labels can – and do – take just as much advantage of social and Shazam data as anyone else, and they retain a core competency in developing and nurturing raw material into something popular. Moreover, sometimes better music costs money, and the record labels remain the only source. Finally, promotion generally and radio generally remain a big deal: the more noise there is, the more valuable is the ability to break through the noise.

    I would again draw an analogy to venture capital: startups can spread via Twitter or new discovery services like Product Hunt; minimum viable products are cheaper to build than ever thanks to Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, etc.; and distribution channels like App Stores have natural promotional channels. And yet the importance – and amount – of venture capital has never been greater. The truth is that because so many folks can now get started it is that much harder – and more expensive – to cut through the noise. Consumer companies need massive growth for many years, and enterprise companies need expensive salesforces, and the only folks enabling both are venture capitalists.

    The Exceptions

    There is one big problem with this story of continued label importance: Macklemore. The Seattle rap artist made it to the top of the charts – multiple times – and won multiple Grammys7 without the help of a label. Techdirt transcribed a podcast where Macklemore explained his path:

    With the power of the internet and with the real personal relationship that you can have via social media with your fans…I mean everyone talks about MTV and the music industry, and how MTV doesn’t play videos any more — YouTube has obviously completely replaced that. It doesn’t matter that MTV doesn’t play videos. It matters that we have YouTube and that has been our greatest resource in terms of connecting, having our identity, creating a brand, showing the world who we are via YouTube. That has been our label. Labels will go in and spend a million dollar or hundreds of thousands of dollars and try to “brand” these artists and they have no idea how to do it. There’s no authenticity. They’re trying to follow a formula that’s dead. And Ryan and I, out of anything, that we’re good at making music, but we’re great at branding. We’re great at figuring out what our target audience is. How we’re going to reach them and how we’re going to do that in a way that’s real and true to who we are as people. Because that’s where the substance is. That’s where the people actually feel the real connection.

    Macklemore now works with labels on distribution – CDs still sell! – but he hires them, he doesn’t give away everything before he’s even started. Is he an exception that proves the rule, or the start of a wave?

    In the short term I think the former, but the long term is very much an open question: there’s no question the world is changing. Returning to Lefsetz, he made a similar observation in an article about BuzzFeed Motion Pictures:

    Are you watching this? It’s kind of like digital photography. We heard about it for a decade and then it happened overnight. We heard about internet delivery of television programs and in the last two weeks, it’s arrived.

    And what do people want to see? That’s BuzzFeed’s mission. To capture eyeballs. And to replace the cable TV producers. [Head of BuzzFeed Motion Pictures] Ze [Frank] thinks their model stinks. Thinks the music labels’ model stinks. Wherein you throw a ton of money at the wall and hope something sticks to pay for it all. Ze believes you’ve got to pay as you go. Everything’s got to win…

    The key is to create content people can identify with, see themselves in, that they can access at any time. Length, story? Irrelevant…Which is why you’d rather work at BuzzFeed Motion Pictures. Where you get to put your hands on the wheel. Where you’re the master of your own domain. Where you can become a star.

    “Become”, not “are.” This is the biggest problem with Tidal. The stars of today would like a few more pennies-per-stream. It’s the stars of tomorrow, though, that will decide the music industry’s fate, and while I might think Jay Z the better rapper, it’s very much possible that Macklemore is the greater inspiration.8

    1. When the unnamed executive refers to costs “escalating in such a marginal way” he is referring to the way marketing spend increases with each artist; marketing, though, is a fixed cost for any one album. The more albums you buy, the less the marketing costs on a per-album sold basis ↩

    2. Longtime readers will make the connection to my arguments as to why Google’s services will always work on the iPhone, and why I was so aghast at Microsoft strategy of using their services to differentiate Windows Phone (since abandoned, thankfully): both companies have horizontal business models that dictate a strategy of reaching as many consumers as possible. This is the case for most services, and Apple’s are the exception that proves the rule: their services serve to differentiate their hardware, which is where they make money, thus the exclusivity ↩

    3. If anything the hi-fi offering has hurt Tidal by anchoring the price at $20/month in too many people’s minds ↩

    4. Some outlets are reporting that Tidal has exclusive rights to Taylor Swift’s back catalog, but that’s incorrect; Swift’s catalog is available on any streaming service that doesn’t have a free tier ↩

    5. This is another potential angle to Apple’s Topsy acquisition  ↩

    6. This is the biggest different from video, in my opinion. Quality television is still significantly more expensive than self-produced content; the delta in music is less (and dramatically less when it comes to text)  ↩

    7. Which should have gone to Kendrick Lamar, but that’s neither here nor there ↩

    8. Speaking of business models only, mind you! I bet Jay Z, who himself couldn’t get a label at the beginning and who has proven to be a brilliant businessman, would follow the same path were he starting today ↩

  • The Facebook Reckoning

    Earlier this week the New York Times reported that Facebook was offering publishers a deal:

    With 1.4 billion users, the social media site has become a vital source of traffic for publishers looking to reach an increasingly fragmented audience glued to smartphones. In recent months, Facebook has been quietly holding talks with at least half a dozen media companies about hosting their content inside Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site.

    Such a plan would represent a leap of faith for news organizations accustomed to keeping their readers within their own ecosystems, as well as accumulating valuable data on them. Facebook has been trying to allay their fears…To make the proposal more appealing to publishers, Facebook has discussed ways for publishers to make money from advertising that would run alongside the content.

    The prevailing wisdom seems to be that this is a bad idea. The late great David Carr, who first broke the news about Facebook’s initiative last fall, said, “Media companies would essentially be serfs in a kingdom that Facebook owns.” Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic recounted Facebook’s previous efforts in this space, particularly its Social Reader, and concluded:

    The company will work very hard to satisfy the altar of engagement—in fact, it’s a business imperative that it always work harder. But history shows just how fickle, and how unpredictable, that idol can be.

    Ryan Chittum at the Columbia Journalism Review declared flatly: “The news business should refuse Facebook’s deal,” adding:

    The point is not that news organizations and other publishers can ignore Facebook and Google and the like. The point is that it’s intolerably risky to build their business models around them.

    Perhaps my favorite warning, though, came from John Gruber:

    I can see why these news sites are tempted by the offer, but I think they’re going to regret it. It’s like Lando’s deal with Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.

    For those who don’t remember, or who (gasp!) have never seen Star Wars, Darth Vader, thanks to a tip from bounty hunter Boba Fett, arrives at Lando Calrissian’s Cloud City to set a trap for the Millennium Falcon and its crew. We find out later that this is when Vader and Lando made their deal: Vader will get Luke Skywalker, Boba Fett will get Han Solo, while Calrissian can keep the Millenium Falcon, Chewbacca, and Leia. Ultimately, though, Vader intends on keeping everyone, delivering his famous line: “I am altering the deal; pray I don’t alter it any further.”

    The problem with Gruber’s criticism is that Lando never really actually had a choice. Vader was far more powerful than he was; taking a chance on a deal was the best of a bunch of bad options. That, I think, is the case with most publishers when it comes to Facebook.

    Publications’ Mobile Problem

    I’ve written several times about the dramatic impact that the Internet has had on journalism, in particular Newspapers are Dead; Long Live Journalism and just a few weeks ago in Why BuzzFeed is the Most Important News Organization in the World. Succinctly, the Internet dramatically increased competition, not only for readers, but also for advertisers. Many newspapers with obsolete print-centric cost structures were ill-equipped to compete; however, many online-only publications, built from the ground-up for Internet economics, quickly appeared to take their place.

    This mixture of online newspapers and online-only publications primarily monetized with display ads that appeared alongside the content, and the results have been decidedly mixed. The problem is that online ads are inherently deflationary: just as content has zero marginal cost, so does ad inventory, which means it’s trivial to make more. A limited amount of total advertising dollars spread over more inventory, though, means any individual ad is worth less and less. This resulted in a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma: the optimal action for any individual publication, particularly in the absence of differentiated ad placements or targeting capability, is to maximize ad placement opportunity (more content) and page views (more eyeballs), even though this action taken collectively only hastens the decline in the value of those ads. Perversely, the resultant cheaper ads only intensify the push to create more content and capture more eyeballs; quality is very quickly a casualty.

    What is interesting is the particular impact that mobile has had on this dynamic:

    • First, mobile display ads stink. Unlike a PC browser, which has a lot of space to display ads alongside content, content on mobile necessarily takes up the whole screen (and if it doesn’t, the user experience degrades significantly, making quality a casualty once again). This results in mobile ad rates that are a fraction of desktop ad rates (and remember, desktop ad rates are already a fraction of print ad rates)
    • Second, on mobile, clicks are expensive from a user experience perspective. Not only do PCs typically have faster broadband connections to download assets and more powerful processors to render pages, they also have multiple windows and tabs. On a phone, on the other hand, clicking on a link means you can do nothing but wait for it to open, and open quite slowly at that. The cost of clicking a link, already quite high because of the deluge of crap content and particularly-annoying-on-mobile ads, is even higher because of the fundamental nature of the device

    Note that all of these issues with mobile affect new online-only publications just as much as they do old-school newspapers; the problem stems from the display ad business model.

    Enter Facebook.

    Facebook and Native Advertising

    There are three ways to combat the deflationary trend in online advertising:

    • Sell/display more ads (which is problematic for the reasons listed above)
    • Sell more effective ads that better engage the viewer
    • Sell better targeted ads that reach the advertiser’s target audience

    Facebook, in stark contrast to publishers, is dominant in all three areas:

    • Facebook’s fantastic targeting capabilities are well known, and the company is pushing to make tracking, particularly for brand advertising that results in offline purchase, even more effective
    • The company is actually selling fewer ads on the desktop – increasing the price per ad – even as it continues to grow its mobile inventory
    • Perhaps most importantly, Facebook has an incredibly effective ad on mobile: a native one

    Native advertising has a bit of a bad rap thanks to poor executions like The Atlantic’s Church of Scientology disaster, leading to accusations that native advertising only succeeds to the degree to which it “tricks” the reader. And, for the record, I completely agree that this sort of native advertising is a bad idea, particularly for the publications that employ it: not only does it ruin the publication’s credibility, it doesn’t even work that well.

    Instead, the sort of native advertising that is interesting is the type that lives in a stream like the Facebook news feed. I detailed a couple of years ago how Facebook had the best digital ad unit in the world:

    The Facebook app owns the entire screen, and can use all of that screen for what benefits Facebook…You can’t help but see the advertising, which makes it particularly attractive to advertisers. Brand advertising, especially, is all about visuals and video (launching soon!), but no one has been able to make brand advertising work as well on the web as it does on TV or print. There is simply too much to see on the screen at any given time.

    This is the exact opposite experience of a mobile app. Brand advertising on Facebook’s app shares the screen with no one. Thanks to the constraints of mobile, Facebook may be cracking the display and brand advertising nut that has frustrated online advertisers for years.

    There’s just one catch to this sort of advertising: it depends on people immersing themselves in the stream. Clearly, that’s not a problem for Facebook; incredibly, despite its dominance both in terms of users and engagement, the company continues to grow both! Twitter, too, although suffering from a small user base, is monetizing very well because of its immersive nature. Similar opportunities await Instagram, Pinterest, and Snapchat. Each of these services has hundreds of millions of users voluntarily opening their app daily.

    Destination Sites

    That bit about visiting directly is critical: native advertising only really works if customers go directly to your site or app; it’s much less effective if your site is only ever at the end of a link in another stream (which is the case for the majority of publications). It follows, then, that if native advertising is the only truly sustainable advertising on mobile, that the only sites or apps that can succeed with ads are “destinations” – sites or apps that users go to directly.

    Most people don’t have many destinations: a few social networks, and maybe a web page or two; I suspect my list is on the high side when it comes to quantity (and truthfully, the news sites are mostly visited via Twitter or Nuzzel):

    My destination apps and sites
    My destination apps and sites. The full list: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Nuzzel, Snapchat, Grantland, Techmeme, The Information, ESPN, Daring Fireball, Brew Hoop, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Financial Times

    The problem is that it’s really hard to become a destination: you need compelling content of consistently high quality. Notice, though, that that is precisely the opposite of what most online publications have focused on: in their race for ever more content and ever more clicks most publications have lowered their quality bar and made themselves uniquely unsuited to making money on mobile.

    Of course native advertising is not the only option: three of my “destination” sites (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times) require a subscription. The quality and consistency bar for a subscription is even higher than for a destination site though, because it requires customers to actually pay money.

    The Facebook Future

    I believe the vast majority of publications, particular newspapers and older online-only outfits, are in serious trouble on mobile. Not only does their chosen business model (display ads) monetize incredibly poorly, but the incentives that model creates work against those sites becoming destinations capable of supporting effective native advertising.

    In this light the Facebook offer is a lifeline:

    • Facebook will enforce a quality user experience
    • Facebook will utilize its superior targeting and ad unit to generate revenue
    • Publishers will be incentivized to create content that is shared, not just clicked

    In fact, the incentives will look a lot like BuzzFeed’s – and that’s a good thing. As I noted a few weeks ago:

    By not making money from display ads, and by extension deprioritizing page views, BuzzFeed incentivizes its writers to fully embrace Internet assumptions, and just as importantly disincentivizes pure sensationalism. There is no self-editing or consideration of whether or not a particular post will make money, or if it will play well on the home page, or dishonestly writing a headline just to drive clicks. The only goal is to create – or find – something that resonates.

    As an aside, there should be zero surprise that BuzzFeed is a pilot member of Facebook’s initiative: their entire business is predicated on understanding how to get content shared. The fact that they make money by selling this ability to brands is what makes them independent (and is why they are important).

    Of course most publishers won’t replicate that part of the BuzzFeed model, which means by partnering with Facebook they are committing their future to a company that has very different priorities and could change course at any time, just as they did with the old Social Reader. The problem, though, is that while the Facebook path leads to an uncertain future, uncertainty is preferable to what is probably certain irrelevance (and death). After all, there’s little question in my mind that Facebook will over time favor content that is on site, slowly freezing out everyone else; I think this likely explains the New York Times’ involvement: I just noted the New York Times is unique in that it is a destination, and one that can charge a pretty steep subscription fee to boot. Absent Facebook, though, its growth is almost certainly limited.

    That said, even with Facebook’s offer, I think the next few years are going to be difficult ones for the journalism industry. Too many sites have bad business models with bad incentives, and there will be a shakeout. I think, though, this will on the whole be a positive transition for consumers especially. Creating a destination,1 giving customers content that resonates, or building up alternative revenue streams that benefit from a site’s journalism2 all argue against the sort of content-farming and click-bait writing that dominates the web today. If it takes Facebook to hasten that shift, so be it.

    1. I think Vox Media fits here; check out this excellent profile of The Verge on Nieman Lab, and note that one of my destinations – BrewHoop – is an SB Nation site; note also, though, that the company also has a very thoughtful Facebook strategy as well ↩

    2. Recode is an excellent example here; the journalism drives the prestige and access of the Recode Conferences ↩

  • The Changing — and Unchanging — Structure of TV

    The on-again/off-again rumor mill about Apple’s TV efforts is spinning again, thanks to a new report in the Wall Street Journal that Apple Plans Web TV Service in Fall:

    The technology giant is in talks with programmers to offer a slimmed-down bundle of TV networks this fall, according to people familiar with the matter. The service would have about 25 channels, anchored by broadcasters such as ABC, CBS and Fox and would be available on Apple devices such as the Apple TV, they said.

    For now, the talks don’t involve NBCUniversal, owner of the NBC broadcast network and cable channels like USA and Bravo, because of a falling-out between Apple and NBCUniversal parent company Comcast Corp., the people familiar with the matter said.

    I wrote extensively about the TV industry in a series of articles back in 2013 (here, here, and here), but the most pertinent part to this discussion was my conclusion in The Cord-Cutting Fantasy:

    Cable TV is socialism that works; subscribers pay equally for everything, and watch only what they want, to the benefit of everyone. Any “grand vision” Apple, or any other tech company, has for television is likely to sustain the current model, not disrupt it directly.

    That certainly seemed to be the plan for Apple; from what I understand, the Wall Street Journal’s characterization of Apple’s talks with Comcast is correct: Apple originally sought to work with Comcast much as they have worked with telecoms around the world – Apple would provide the user interface (the cable box) and Comcast the infrastructure and live content. However, I can’t say I’m surprised those talks fell apart; to understand why a disagreement was probably inevitable, as well as why Apple’s Plan B looks the way it does,1 it’s useful to step back and consider the overall structure of the TV industry and how and why that structure is evolving with the advent of the Internet and mobile devices.

    The Structure of Television

    TV can be broken up into five distinct parts:

    • Content Creation is the actual creation, filming, and production of a TV show
    • Content Production is the commissioning and funding of a TV show, usually by a studio
    • Content Aggregation is the packaging of several different TV shows into a single offering, usually by a network/channel
    • Service Offering is the marketing of multiple networks and channels to consumers, usually on a subscription basis
    • Delivery is the actual transfer of television content into your home

    FullSizeRender

    In most markets, including the United States, these five parts have been under only two roofs:

    • Content creation, production, and aggregation are frequently handled by conglomerates that manage multiple channels, including Disney, Viacom, Fox, etc.
    • Service offering and delivery were handled by cable or satellite companies

    This division of labor has resulted in two distinct business models:

    • The cable or satellite companies own the customer relationship and make most of their money from rent on content delivery
    • The content creators, on the other hand, own attention and have traditionally made most of their money from advertisers

    This neat division, though, misses an essential piece: affiliate fees. Way back in 1982 ESPN was just a startup struggling to make a profit with advertising when a new vice-president, Roger Werner, came up with the idea of charging cable companies for the privilege of carrying the sports network. As you might expect cable operators were not interested, but when ESPN, already cable’s largest network, threatened that they were about to go out of business, about half of cable operators gave in. Within a few years, especially after ESPN secured the rights to National Football League games in 1987, they all had.

    The way in which affiliate fees came to be foreshadowed a shift in power from the cable companies to the content creators. Over the ensuing years content companies realized that the reason consumers paid cable companies was because they wanted access to the creator’s content (like the aforementioned NFL deal); that meant content companies could make the cable companies pay them ever increasing affiliate fees for that content. Even better, if multiple channels banded together, the resultant conglomerates – Viacom, NBCUniversal, Disney, etc. – could compel the cable companies to pay affiliate fees for all their channels, popular or not. And best of all, it was the cable companies who had to deal with consumers angry that their (TV-only) cable bills were rising from around $22 in 1995 to $54 in 2010.2

    Poor cable companies…well, not so poor. The cable companies weren’t exactly on the road to the poor house thanks to their natural monopoly. Cable TV was originally called “Community Antenna Television” as its purpose was providing access to broadcast TV for communities unable to receive strong over-the-air signals, but over time, particularly with the rise of multi-unit housing, even communities with strong broadcast signals saw the need for cable systems and contracted with private companies to build out the physical infrastructure. These companies didn’t just get to leverage local governments’ unique powers such as eminent domain, but they also retained control of the lines themselves, eventually adding new cable-only stations in addition to the broadcast networks3. Over time various alternatives have arisen, including TV delivered over DSL and satellite, but by and large the cable companies have had significant pricing power.

    The end result was an industry that looked like this:

    IMG_0991

    Everyone is making money: the cable companies make rent on their infrastructure while the content creators earn affiliate fees on top of advertising. And truthfully, while this seems like a raw deal for subscribers – they are the ones paying for those rising affiliate fees in particular – the reality is that this system has resulted in an absolute golden age in content. The advertising-only model of the 60s and 70s resulted in blah, lowest-common-denominator content; the affiliate fee model, on the other hand, meant content creators had to have must-see content for some fraction of subscribers – that was their leverage for jacking up affiliate fees. Some, like ESPN, have bought that must-see status with exclusive sports rights deals, while others, like AMC, have earned it with compelling content like Mad Men or Breaking Bad.

    It should be pointed out that HBO has never quite fit this model; unlike most cable companies HBO does not earn affiliate fees from every single cable customer whether or not they care for HBO. Rather, HBO charges a higher fee (~$15/month) only of customers who explicitly want the network (pursuant to the above industry model, though, HBO has long relied on the cable companies to actually manage the customer relationship). This means that the burden has long been especially high on HBO to not just earn customers’ attention but also their money: small wonder the network has produced amazing TV like The Sopranos, The Wire, or Game of Thrones.

    All in all, I think this is a win-win-win: consumers pay a monthly fee that seems steep but that is actually quite cheap when you consider how much TV the typical home watches, cable companies collect rent and manage the customer relationship (poorly, but that’s the nature of monopolies), and content companies compete on quality for the sake of charging ever increasing affiliate fees on top of advertising.

    The Impact of the Internet

    The Internet and spread of mobile devices has impacted this model in several ways, many of which bring to mind the classic Jim Barksdale quote: “There are only two ways to make money in business: One is to bundle; the other is unbundle.”

    • Individual TV shows – even individual episodes – could be unbundled from channels, bypass the cable provider service offering, and be delivered directly to the customer
    • New forms of integration became possible. Netflix, for example, is doing all of the jobs in the middle: they are commissioning the content, bundling it together, and managing the customer experience
    • This entire middle part became optional; individual content creators are able to connect directly with end users

    Still, none of these shifts necessarily threatened the TV model; too many people had too many shows (especially sports) that were only available on cable, and the content owners had little incentive to break up a good thing.

    However, there is one important stakeholder in this model that doesn’t care about subscriber numbers, affiliate fees, or quality for that matter: advertisers. They care about attention, and as I noted in Old-Fashioned Snapchat, it is attention that is under assault from Internet services broadly and mobile devices in particular:

    There is more and more evidence that actual viewership is in decline. According to Nielsen, after remaining steady for years average monthly viewing time in 2014 decreased by six hours; January was particularly bad, with viewership down 12.7 percent year over year. The biggest culprit is streaming, up 60% year over year. The problem with streaming, though, is that it too is for-pay; there are no ads on Netflix or Amazon Prime Video. In short, TV is increasingly shifting away from advertising, to affiliate fees on the network side and subscription fees on the streaming side.

    The result is this:

    IMG_0990

    In that article my intent was to explain why it is that Snapchat is potentially so valuable: if advertisers are increasingly unable to reach their intended audience on TV, they will seek other channels, and Snapchat is fashioning itself into a likely recipient (the same argument applies even moreso to the serially under-appreciated Facebook – members-only). The question, though, is what about the content companies who have been relying on advertising revenue for decades?

    As I noted, the answer is an increasing reliance on money from the consumer. In part this is affiliate fees, but it’s also direct payment for shows on iTunes, streaming deals with Netflix and Amazon Prime, and now, potentially, this deal with Apple.

    The Dynamics of Apple’s Rumored TV Service

    Make no mistake: the content owners have had a golden goose when it came to the current TV model: provided their content is “must-see TV” content creators can charge ever increasing fees and force cable companies to deal with customer angst. The fracturing of attention, though, is not only a threat to their advertising revenue, but also makes it harder for customers – particularly young ones, the ones that advertisers covet – to justify paying ever higher monthly fees. Losing them would be a double-whammy.

    On the other hand, there is great opportunity as well: in the old model the billing unit was the “home”, no matter how many people might live there. With mobile devices, though, it becomes possible, even preferable, to deliver content to individuals. And, by definition, there are a lot more individuals than homes. The problem for content creators is that, as noted previously, they have never developed the capabilities to deal with consumers directly; cable companies were always their intermediaries.

    These factors make Apple (and later, Google, Amazon, etc.) a particularly attractive partner for content companies. Apple can provide access to individuals, increasing the addressable market; Apple is one of the few companies that has successfully gotten young people to pay for content; and Apple is experienced at managing the customer relationship. I believe these factors explain why it is that HBO Now is launching first with Apple: the people willing to pay for HBO are likely already using Apple devices, Apple can get them to pay, and Apple has the infrastructure to manage the relationship.

    Apple has one more unique offering: data. The New York Post reported yesterday:

    Apple is offering to share data with programming partners to get them on board with its cable-like TV network package, The Post has learned. The company is willing to share details on who its viewers are, what they watch and when they watch it to entice broadcast networks and others to go along with the service, sources said. The information could help programmers better target shows to viewers and advertisers, who are increasingly chasing niche audiences.

    This is even more valuable than it seems: a huge problem for content owners is that as viewing has shifted to mobile devices traditional TV-centric tracking services like Nielsen are increasingly unreliable. Apple, on the other hand, has a view across every device. There’s potentially one more interesting part of Apple’s data offer, too: the 2013 purchase of social-media analytics firm Topsy. Sentiment analysis is increasingly more important to both content creators and especially to advertisers, and Apple owns one of only three companies with access to the Twitter firehose. In short, there are a lot of reasons for content companies to sign on.4

    The dynamics are much different when it comes to the cable companies, in particular Comcast. Cable companies have long viewed their ownership of the customer relationship as their core competency and the key to avoiding becoming a dumb pipe. Indeed, this is almost certainly where the Apple-Comcast negotiations broke down: an Apple TV box would be based on your Apple ID, relegating Comcast to a (theoretically) easily substitutable piece of infrastructure. That, of course, is exactly what Apple did to wireless carriers: Apple commanded tremendous loyalty from customers who wanted an iPhone regardless of which carrier they had to switch to to get it. This is intolerable to Comcast, and the deal broke down.

    What is particularly interesting is the fate of NBCUniversal, the media company that Comcast acquired in 2013. They are noticeably absent from the list of partners that Apple has lined up for their Web TV service, and the reason is almost certainly a strategy tax: Comcast wants to see Apple fail, and it’s likely they view withholding NBCUniversal as their best bit of leverage.

    I’m dubious; many of NBCUniversal’s channels including NBC, USA Network, and Bravo are widely watched, but few of them are “must-see”: only USA and CNBC rank in the top 25 in affiliate fees, and NBC has relatively few dominant sports packages outside of the Olympics, Premier League (less important in U.S.) and Sunday Night Football (which is owned by Verizon for mobile anyways).

    More importantly, though, I think Comcast is likely overreacting: the fact of the matter is that the Internet has made the cable companies even more powerful than they were in the days when TV dominated. All of the investment required for supporting hundreds of high definition channels lent itself wonderfully to supporting the fastest – and in many locations, only – broadband access to the Internet. Moreover, while Congress regulated just how much rent cable companies could collect on television, the latest net neutrality regulations largely give broadband providers free rein as long as they treat all content equally (the explicit model is the wireless industry, as I explained here).5 I would argue that the future for Comcast – even as a dumb pipe – is quite bright.

    Moving Money Around

    Let’s assume that the Apple Web TV service is successful. That means:

    • The cost will be higher than perhaps many people may have hoped; the Wall Street Journal reported $30~$40/month. This really shouldn’t be a surprise though: content companies aren’t going to abandon the lucrative cable model for any amount of money less than they currently earn
    • Comcast may lose the relatively low-margin revenue they make on TV services, but they will make it back on their exceptionally high margin (97 percent!) Internet service. Moreover, it’s only a matter of time until Comcast switches from speed-based pricing to data-based pricing along the lines of the U.S. wireless industry. This would be particularly convenient given the amount of data that an Apple TV service would require. In fact, I would bet that Comcast’s per-customer profit would increase under such a scenario (much like wireless carriers have financially benefited from the iPhone)
    • Apple will finally, at least for some number of (likely wealthy) customers, own the interaction layer for the final frontier for tech companies: the TV. Everyone has been gunning for Input 1, and maybe, just maybe, Apple will finally pull it off.

    Notice, though, who is not winning here, at least financially: consumers. The money is simply moving around. In fact, of the three major players in this proposed deal, Apple will likely earn the least:

    • Content owners have pricing power because they create must-see TV
    • Cable companies have pricing power because they own the pipe
    • Apple is simply proposing to be content’s customer service layer in place of the cable companies

    The benefit for Apple is the strengthening of their ecosystem: owning the TV will make the iPhone and Watch more valuable (see Apple’s New Market); this too is the main way in which consumers win, and why they will switch: a better UI, better integration with their devices, and a company that actually cares. Just be prepared to pay the same, if not more, than you pay today.

    UPDATE: What will truly disrupt TV? See part three of the aforementioned TV series: The Jobs TV Does

    1. I believe this most recent Wall Street Journal report is largely correct ↩

    2. From the FCC  ↩

    3. The broadcast networks were carried for free for many years, until the 1992 Cable Act gave broadcast networks the right to charge retransmission fees ↩

    4. I presume that all data would be anonymized and aggregated. That said, in some respects it does seem like a departure from Apple’s focus on privacy, but I don’t think so: the data isn’t tied to an individual for the purpose of serving targeted data, but that is admittedly a fine distinction ↩

    5. I have seen a whole bunch of people suggesting that net neutrality will stop Comcast from raising prices; it will stop Comcast from raising prices on Apple data specifically, but not data generally. Expect the latter ↩