Wetpaint CEO Ben Elowitz on the Future of Digital Media
This article was published as a guest post at AdAge, and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
In May, I predicted that Facebook would introduce a search offering by the end of 2012. Recent reports suggest that the battle for search may heat up even before the weather cools down – Facebook was already starting to link Open Graph with search results in June.
But the big question remains: Will Facebook’s search engine be better than Google’s anytime soon?
On the whole, no way.
Then is Facebook spending mega dollars to develop an algorithm that needs constant upgrading – one that will almost certainly be inferior to the search engines we already have – all for naught?
Here’s the thing: a Facebook search product doesn’t need to be better. Or, more accurately, it doesn’t need to be better all the time. If a Facebook search returns a better result once in twenty searches, it will be a success.
We tend to think of search as a winner-take-all market (in part because Google has practically taken it all with its 66% market share). And for the majority of searches, it’s true that Google can’t be beat. If I’m looking for an address, a specific article, the origin of a phrase, or that Mark Bittman recipe for pasta alla gricia, Google is my best friend. But what about when I’m searching for something less specific and more taste-based? On this front, the market leader leaves a whole lot to be desired.
“Good books.” “Restaurants in Bali.” “Car mechanic in Seattle.” The list I get from Google isn’t right – good book, interesting restaurant, reliable mechanic according to whom? Recommendations are the thin-edge-of-the-wedge: an entry point into search where Google is weak. Pinterest and Yelp have already staked out important segments of this otherwise unclaimed territory. But Pinterest isn’t going to help me with auto mechanics, and Yelp is struggling with its own “there’s no accounting for taste” problem.
The fact is, I’m already turning to Facebook for this kind of information – it’s just poorly organized. When my car window got stuck halfway open (not a tenable condition in my perpetually-drizzling city), I remembered a post from a few months back about my friend Jen’s amazing new mechanic and scrolled down through her timeline to find the name of the place. But what if I couldn’t remember which friend had posted? And how do I know that another friend didn’t rave about a mechanic just as great but in a closer neighborhood?
Searches for hotels, restaurants, books, movies, and music – just a few of the categories that would be greatly improved with access to friends’ recommendations – account for 650 million Google searches in the US every month (according to data pulled from Google’s keyword tool). That’s almost 6% of the 11.7 billion searches Google processed for US users in May. If Google brings in $36B in search ads annually, that’s a $2 billion slice of pie that Facebook could lift right out of Google’s lunchbox. And they could do it without even developing a full-web search.
In theory, Google could preemptively lock up that lunchbox by building their own recommendation search. They will almost certainly try to do just that, but they will lack the data to build a credible offering. Facebook has a 100X or better data advantage when it comes to recommendations, and that data advantage continues to snowball: Facebook logs 2.7 billion Likes every day to Google’s 20 million +1s. (Google doesn’t release the actual number of +1s, but let’s be generous and assume it’s roughly in proportion to the time spent on each network.)
Facebook is in a position to push with its greatest strength – a big and beautiful dataset of people and their relationships to brands, places, things, and other people – on Google’s most vulnerable point. And once Facebook gets a foot in the door with recommendation search, it won’t take much for them to push the door all the way open. The first time Facebook serves me five great beach reading recommendations from trusted friends is the last time I’ll even think of Googling “good books” before a vacation. And the same goes for choosing a new bank, finding a dentist, switching internet providers, buying car insurance, and on, and on, and on.
Pretty soon, 20% of my searches will be just as good or better on Facebook’s social search. And when Facebook finally does tack on whole-web results to the package (internally or through a partner like Bing), I’ll be much less inclined to leave Facebook, which is already my home base, to search for that Mark Bittman recipe on Google.
Survey data suggests that I’m not the only one who would be willing to give up the Google entirely if Facebook had a passable search offering. 17% of respondents in Greenlight’s 2012 “Search & Social Survey” would “definitely” or “probably” use a Facebook search engine as an alternative to Google. Another 27% indicated that they might be willing to make the switch.
Facebook search will win us over slowly, by degrees. They’ll start with what they know – the likes and dislikes of you, your friends, and people like you – and they’ll woo us with exceptional answers to a few key questions. We’ll keep the old, reliable search engine around for a while…but as soon as Facebook makes the move, Google’s days will be numbered.
Facebook has maintained its squeeze on sending traffic out to web publishers for another month.
The average publisher on the Social Leaderboard lost 0.1 percentage points in social composition from May to June. The most social publishers fared the worst, with the top ten losing an average of 0.6 percentage points month-over-month.
Even after losing 1.5 percentage points since May, Wetpaint Entertainment held the top spot on the Social Leaderboard with almost 30% of traffic coming from Facebook and Twitter. The #2 spot was taken by NFL, which climbed three spots on the leaderboard and drew 12% of total traffic from social channels in June. After holding second place for two months, People fell to 4th place, and MTV held steady at 3rd.
Each month, we measure social traffic two ways: by composition (percent of traffic from social); and by total volume (number of social visits). In June, volumes also saw a slight decline. Wetpaint fared better than most, adding 100,000 visitors in June and becoming the 11th most social publisher by volume (not counting portals) with 1.4 million social visits. The Huffington Post still holds the top spot in the volume ranking, with 6.5 million social visitors in June.
While Facebook traffic to publishers was down this month, Google traffic was down even more. This could be a turning point – the gap between Google’s and Facebook’s traffic contributions to publishers has been widening in Google’s favor since March, but the June results show a reversal of the trend. Will Facebook finally close the gap and officially become a more important traffic source for publishers than Google? Check back next month to see if the trend continues.
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
|
||||||
|
Jun |
May |
Apr |
Name of Publisher (Owner) | URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
Wetpaint Entertainment | WETPAINT.COM |
4,172,874 |
29.3% |
-1.5% |
|
2 |
5 |
5 |
National Football League | NFL.COM |
4,005,954 |
12.0% |
1.6% |
|
3 |
3 |
4 |
MTV | MTV.COM |
10,314,480 |
10.8% |
-0.1% |
|
4 |
2 |
2 |
People | PEOPLE.COM |
12,424,002 |
10.5% |
-1.0% |
|
5 |
7 |
9 |
TMZ | TMZ.COM |
11,485,750 |
8.7% |
0.1% |
|
6 |
4 |
3 |
NBC Universal | NBC.COM |
5,210,665 |
8.5% |
-2.0% |
|
7 |
8 |
10 |
Yahoo! | YAHOO.COM |
155,141,946 |
7.3% |
0.1% |
|
8 |
10 |
11 |
Major League Baseball | MLB.COM |
14,857,814 |
6.8% |
0.1% |
|
9 |
9 |
8 |
Patch (Aol) | PATCH.COM |
11,178,542 |
6.7% |
-0.4% |
|
10 |
6 |
7 |
CBS | CBS.COM |
5,130,686 |
6.2% |
-2.7% |
|
11 |
11 |
12 |
Aol | AOL.COM |
48,274,409 |
6.2% |
0.0% |
|
12 |
28 |
31 |
E! Entertainment Television | EONLINE.COM |
6,036,527 |
5.8% |
2.1% |
|
13 |
15 |
16 |
Entertainment Weekly | EW.COM |
5,648,180 |
5.5% |
0.3% |
|
14 |
14 |
19 |
TV Guide | TVGUIDE.COM |
5,701,617 |
5.3% |
0.0% |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
IGN (News Corp) | IGN.COM |
8,385,741 |
5.3% |
0.1% |
|
16 |
19 |
21 |
CNN | CNN.COM |
42,355,439 |
4.9% |
0.1% |
|
17 |
18 |
22 |
MSN | MSN.COM |
93,297,562 |
4.9% |
0.0% |
|
18 |
20 |
20 |
FOX News (News Corp) | FOXNEWS.COM |
25,048,343 |
4.8% |
0.0% |
|
19 |
17 |
18 |
US Weekly | USMAGAZINE.COM |
6,349,666 |
4.7% |
-0.3% |
|
20 |
23 |
23 |
BBC News | BBC.CO.UK |
12,572,110 |
4.5% |
0.3% |
|
21 |
13 |
15 |
Discovery Channel | DISCOVERY.COM |
9,501,796 |
4.5% |
-1.0% |
|
22 |
21 |
13 |
TIME | TIME.COM |
6,980,029 |
4.3% |
-0.1% |
|
23 |
22 |
27 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) | HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
38,557,478 |
4.1% |
-0.2% |
|
24 |
12 |
14 |
Break Media | BREAK.COM |
8,666,861 |
3.9% |
-2.0% |
|
25 |
29 |
29 |
New York Daily News | NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
10,818,073 |
3.7% |
0.0% |
|
26 |
24 |
26 |
National Geographic Society | NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM |
5,410,317 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
27 |
35 |
6 |
The Guardian | GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
8,035,982 |
3.7% |
0.7% |
|
28 |
25 |
24 |
The Washington Post | WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
16,253,595 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
29 |
26 |
25 |
New York Times | NYTIMES.COM |
25,415,028 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
30 |
33 |
33 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | NICK.COM |
10,489,580 |
3.6% |
0.4% |
|
31 |
31 |
30 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) | IMDB.COM |
34,449,740 |
3.5% |
0.3% |
|
32 |
32 |
36 |
Bleacher Report | BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
10,126,821 |
3.4% |
0.2% |
|
33 |
27 |
28 |
CBS News | CBSNEWS.COM |
10,775,680 |
3.3% |
-0.5% |
|
34 |
30 |
32 |
FORBES | FORBES.COM |
11,733,587 |
3.3% |
-0.1% |
|
35 |
38 |
35 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | LATIMES.COM |
14,005,725 |
3.2% |
0.5% |
|
36 |
36 |
38 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) | CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
9,270,980 |
3.0% |
0.1% |
|
37 |
34 |
34 |
Food Network (Scripps) | FOODNETWORK.COM |
13,629,536 |
2.6% |
-0.4% |
|
38 |
37 |
37 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) | WSJ.COM |
12,259,307 |
2.5% |
-0.2% |
|
39 |
41 |
40 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) | FOXSPORTS.COM |
17,869,805 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
40 |
40 |
39 |
Reuters | REUTERS.COM |
10,285,882 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
41 |
39 |
41 |
USA Today (Gannet) | USATODAY.COM |
16,604,354 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
42 |
42 |
43 |
WebMD | WEBMD.COM |
14,952,061 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
43 |
43 |
42 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) | CNET.COM |
22,956,989 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
44 |
44 |
44 |
Bloomberg | BLOOMBERG.COM |
6,373,252 |
1.7% |
0.0% |
|
45 |
46 |
45 |
everyday Health | EVERYDAYHEALTH.COM |
9,426,117 |
1.6% |
0.0% |
|
46 |
45 |
46 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) | BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
6,490,385 |
1.6% |
-0.1% |
|
47 |
48 |
49 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) | LIVESTRONG.COM |
14,265,338 |
1.2% |
0.1% |
|
48 |
49 |
48 |
About.com (NY Times) | ABOUT.COM |
51,103,478 |
1.1% |
0.1% |
|
49 |
47 |
47 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) | THEPOSTGAME.COM |
7,594,651 |
1.1% |
0.0% |
|
50 |
50 |
50 |
Mayo Clinic | MAYOCLINIC.COM |
10,112,971 |
0.9% |
0.0% |
|
51 |
51 |
51 |
eHow (Demand Media) | EHOW.COM |
50,306,160 |
0.8% |
0.1% |
Social Leaderboard Results for May: Traffic Is Down Across the Board
Facebook threw publishers a curve ball in April: an algorithm change combined with a pullback in social reader promotion. And it had a big impact, causing the top 50 web publishers to lose more than 10% of their social traffic in just one month. The May Social Leaderboard shows that they still haven’t recovered: the average publisher’s social traffic was flat in May, matching April’s dip.
The dramatic drop in traffic set off alarms with some social publishing pioneers – the Social Reader had been the one bright spot on an otherwise dark and winding path into digital media. Is the honeymoon over?
Publishers who embraced Social Readers have every right to feel like Facebook’s scorned lovers right now. Facebook seemed to have pulled the plug, right when the relationship was blossoming. But through the tears, might this actually be good for the relationship? In the long term, what’s in the best interest of publishers is also in the best interest of Facebook: if users are being served the right content at the right time in the right way and clicking through at a high rate, everybody is happy.
Facebook, it seems, has decided it needs some space. Before they fully commit, they’re sowing their wild oats by experimenting with user experience, testing and tuning. This experimentation happened to take the publisher-friendly form of heavy Social Reader promotion over several previous months – but now they have turned the dial back.
Presumably, Facebook is dialing back social reader promotion to figure out how much friction is right for sharing. Frictionless sharing may be part of our future, but accidental over-sharing could undermine the present. Imagine the scenario: I unwittingly broadcast “Ben is reading Home Hair Removal for Men,” and the phone rings: It’s my mother with her assuredly well-intentioned advice. And yet, how mortifying. Who could blame me for deleting my account forever?
More tuning will bring about the right controls to manage private activity. Ultimately, those controls will support more sharing. At that point, the lead-out dial on Facebook’s dashboard will likely be turned back up, and we can all start planning our second honeymoon.
As for the top publishers this month, nobody on the Leaderboard made great strides in social traffic, but a few publishers kept their heads above water better than others. MTV gained 2 percentage points in social traffic composition, bringing them up to 10.9% social and making them the third most social web publisher. People held onto the #2 spot on the board by holding steady at 11.5%. NFL and TMZ were the only other publishers to improve their social composition this month, each gaining 1 percentage point.
Wetpaint Entertainment had a cushioned lead – we lost 7 percentage points of social composition from April to May, making us the most hard-hit publisher by the Facebook changes, even while holding on to the lead. While my company is still the leader on percentage terms, total volume tells a different story, as the benchmark data shows we slid seven spots (to #14) in that ranking.
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
|||||||
|
May |
Apr |
Mar |
Publisher | URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
Wetpaint Entertainment | WETPAINT.COM |
4,012,641 |
30.8% |
-7.3% |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
People | PEOPLE.COM |
12,174,195 |
11.5% |
0.1% |
|
3 |
4 |
8 |
MTV | MTV.COM |
9,674,892 |
10.9% |
1.9% |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
NBC Universal | NBC.COM |
7,964,950 |
10.5% |
0.4% |
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
National Football League | NFL.COM |
4,821,558 |
10.4% |
1.4% |
|
6 |
7 |
4 |
CBS | CBS.COM |
7,190,888 |
8.9% |
0.1% |
|
7 |
9 |
9 |
TMZ | TMZ.COM |
12,288,156 |
8.6% |
0.9% |
|
8 |
10 |
15 |
Yahoo! | YAHOO.COM |
154,820,184 |
7.2% |
-0.2% |
|
9 |
8 |
12 |
Patch (Aol) | PATCH.COM |
11,746,588 |
7.1% |
-0.6% |
|
10 |
11 |
10 |
Major League Baseball | MLB.COM |
14,100,489 |
6.7% |
-0.2% |
|
11 |
12 |
17 |
Aol | AOL.COM |
46,798,608 |
6.2% |
-0.1% |
|
12 |
14 |
7 |
Break Media | BREAK.COM |
7,987,804 |
5.9% |
-0.1% |
|
13 |
15 |
13 |
Discovery Channel | DISCOVERY.COM |
11,213,913 |
5.5% |
-0.2% |
|
14 |
19 |
18 |
TV Guide | TVGUIDE.COM |
6,077,003 |
5.4% |
0.2% |
|
15 |
16 |
11 |
Entertainment Weekly | EW.COM |
7,348,060 |
5.2% |
-0.4% |
|
16 |
17 |
16 |
IGN (News Corp) | IGN.COM |
8,612,512 |
5.2% |
0.0% |
|
17 |
18 |
6 |
US Weekly | USMAGAZINE.COM |
6,873,880 |
5.0% |
-0.2% |
|
18 |
22 |
26 |
MSN | MSN.COM |
95,931,716 |
4.9% |
0.0% |
|
19 |
21 |
21 |
CNN | CNN.COM |
42,308,122 |
4.9% |
-0.1% |
|
20 |
20 |
22 |
FOX News (News Corp) | FOXNEWS.COM |
24,392,403 |
4.8% |
-0.2% |
|
21 |
13 |
19 |
TIME | TIME.COM |
8,870,094 |
4.4% |
-1.8% |
|
22 |
27 |
31 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) | HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
39,361,623 |
4.3% |
0.4% |
|
23 |
23 |
23 |
BBC News | BBC.CO.UK |
14,030,015 |
4.2% |
-0.4% |
|
24 |
26 |
20 |
National Geographic Society | NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM |
8,096,974 |
4.0% |
0.0% |
|
25 |
24 |
24 |
The Washington Post | WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
16,415,782 |
4.0% |
-0.4% |
|
26 |
25 |
27 |
New York Times | NYTIMES.COM |
28,401,893 |
3.9% |
-0.3% |
|
27 |
28 |
25 |
CBS News | CBSNEWS.COM |
11,668,152 |
3.9% |
0.0% |
|
28 |
31 |
35 |
E! Entertainment Television | EONLINE.COM |
6,905,095 |
3.7% |
0.3% |
|
29 |
29 |
30 |
New York Daily News | NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
10,059,573 |
3.7% |
0.0% |
|
30 |
32 |
28 |
FORBES | FORBES.COM |
12,413,284 |
3.4% |
0.1% |
|
31 |
30 |
33 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) | IMDB.COM |
34,981,883 |
3.3% |
-0.2% |
|
32 |
36 |
32 |
Bleacher Report | BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
9,248,603 |
3.2% |
0.2% |
|
33 |
33 |
29 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | NICK.COM |
8,960,646 |
3.2% |
0.0% |
|
34 |
34 |
38 |
Food Network (Scripps) | FOODNETWORK.COM |
13,652,316 |
3.0% |
-0.1% |
|
35 |
6 |
14 |
The Guardian | GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
8,481,112 |
3.0% |
-5.9% |
|
36 |
38 |
40 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) | CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
8,035,517 |
2.8% |
0.0% |
|
37 |
37 |
39 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) | WSJ.COM |
12,792,880 |
2.7% |
-0.2% |
|
38 |
35 |
34 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | LATIMES.COM |
15,064,947 |
2.7% |
-0.3% |
|
39 |
41 |
42 |
USA Today (Gannet) | USATODAY.COM |
17,570,870 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
40 |
39 |
41 |
Reuters | REUTERS.COM |
8,928,289 |
2.0% |
-0.4% |
|
41 |
40 |
36 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) | FOXSPORTS.COM |
19,207,713 |
2.0% |
-0.1% |
|
42 |
43 |
46 |
WebMD | WEBMD.COM |
14,441,556 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
43 |
42 |
37 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) | CNET.COM |
22,672,657 |
1.8% |
-0.2% |
|
44 |
44 |
45 |
Bloomberg | BLOOMBERG.COM |
7,351,621 |
1.7% |
0.0% |
|
45 |
46 |
43 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) | BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
6,256,325 |
1.7% |
0.3% |
|
46 |
45 |
44 |
everyday Health | EVERYDAYHEALTH.COM |
9,883,208 |
1.6% |
0.1% |
|
47 |
47 |
47 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) | THEPOSTGAME.COM |
10,242,755 |
1.1% |
-0.1% |
|
48 |
49 |
48 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) | LIVESTRONG.COM |
14,378,579 |
1.1% |
0.0% |
|
49 |
48 |
49 |
About.com (NY Times) | ABOUT.COM |
57,358,285 |
1.1% |
-0.1% |
|
50 |
50 |
51 |
Mayo Clinic | MAYOCLINIC.COM |
10,746,954 |
0.8% |
0.0% |
|
51 |
51 |
50 |
eHow (Demand Media) | EHOW.COM |
54,128,475 |
0.7% |
0.0% |
The publishers included in the Media Industry Social Leaderboard are the top 50, as ranked by comScore-reported uniques, whose primary business is web publishing. Once they are selected, data from Compete.com is used to estimate the amount of traffic referred to each by Facebook and Twitter.
This article was published as a guest post at AdAge, and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
Facebook will replace online display advertising as we know it. It will save digital media by reversing the commodity pricing trend. And it will become the highest grossing media property in history.
Believe me? If you’re one of the investors who was burned by Facebook’s disappointing IPO, you might not be so bullish. At a multiple of 28X last year’s earnings, Facebook’s offering price presumed fast-growing and scalable revenue streams. But the reality of Facebook’s advertising trajectory has been lagging, and continued percentage growth isn’t going to make it up.
Facebook needs a huge discontinuity in its advertising revenues to make that math go round.
Fortunately, I think we’re about to see a huge discontinuity. Facebook’s great opportunity is to create an advertising product that the world has never seen. And it can be done.
The key is in a single idea, and Facebook is singularly able to deliver on it: SELL RELATIONSHIPS, NOT IMPRESSIONS.
The first 100 years of brand advertising was built on the paradigm of a captive audience with interruption advertising in TV, radio, print, and online. That created a $540 billion market to reach a mostly-right audience at the mostly-right time, with a sometimes-right message delivered via occasionally-great creative. The basic idea being that if you reach those people with enough frequency and decent creative, they’ll eventually hear your message.
But never, ever, ever has any brand had an advertising platform that could create a relationship with a consumer before she makes a purchase.
Until now.
A relationship is worth a hundred or a thousand times an impression – or more – depending on how you monetize it.
The ability to sell relationships puts Facebook in a completely different business than every other media company – and their product is orders of magnitude more valuable. To undermine that premium would be absolute folly. That’s why Facebook should never, ever sell impressions.
But with no proven model for selling relationships, how will Facebook make relationships a reality? Here are five unwritten rules that should guide them, memorialized here so we will all know what to expect:
1. Create an offering that can’t be price-shopped or commoditized
Facebook has the commodities of digital media in abundance: 900 million users, 1 in 7 minutes of our online attention, and 500 billion pageviews per month.
But they won’t – and shouldn’t – open the banner ad floodgates, because they saw this movie back in 2007: MySpace flooded the market with banner ad inventory and watched their value plummet to pennies per thousand views. There’s no scarcity of ways to reach a target demographic with a banner ad, and anything remotely similar to a banner ad will be price-compared to a banner ad.
By creating truly original ad products that have no comparables in the market, Facebook will be able to create and sustain its own price point. And because Facebook is the only game in town when it comes to selling consumer relationships at full scale, they have a lock on that market. Scarcity of sources with huge reach and a product that cements relationship for life could be a killer combination. (Sidenote to Adam Bain: shouldn’t you sell Promoted Follows for 100X the value of Promoted Tweets?)
2. Create an offering that can’t be measured in one-time conversions
Back when she was at Google, Sheryl Sandberg designed AdWords and AdSense to do something nobody had ever done before at scale: form a direct link between the cost and value of an ad. She had pretty good results – today Google owns more than 60% of the market for direct response advertising.
Now that she’s with Facebook, Sheryl knows better than to fight Google for the same pie – especially when Facebook’s opportunity is so much larger. As a medium of connection rather than transaction, social is perfectly suited to brand advertising. And the market for brand advertising happens to be 9 times the size of the direct response advertising universe that Google has increasingly dominated.
What’s more, advertisers have been pent up, waiting to invest in brand advertising on the web. To date, they’ve allocated only 40% of their online ad spend to branding, even though more broadly brand advertising garners 90%. As a relationship broker, Facebook is the one who can convince them to spend. Just as Google proved the value of direct marketing online, Facebook can prove that brand relationships can be built more effectively on social media than through any magazine spread.
3. Create an offering that enhances rather than compromises the user experience
The holy grail of media is advertising that actually adds to the value of the content. You can see it today in the print editions of magazines like GQ and Vogue – the advertising spreads are so gorgeous and smart that readers think of them as content.
Not so online. Users often think of ads as a tradeoff, a price to pay for access to free content and services. (For some high-end brands, online advertising is even seen as an image liability. That’s why Hugo Boss and Louis Vuitton have yet to embrace digital ads – they know it is interruptive rather than additive.)
Facebook is poised for this challenge. Zuckerberg has always put the user experience forever ahead of revenue today. He knows better than to devalue the audience’s experience with advertising products that serve advertisers while frustrating users. No doubt advertisers – not to mention Wall Street investors – will continue to be annoyed by their second-class status in the short term, but Facebook’s unyielding focus on user experience will serve all their constituencies well in the end.
4. Create an offering that closely guards the data
Facebook’s greatest competitive advantage is the incomparably rich dataset it owns about each and every one of its 900 million users. That data is scarce and tremendously valuable for targeting – which means that Facebook will be able to charge a premium for every advertising offering it puts forth using it.
Much to the chagrin of advertisers and publishers alike, there is overwhelming strategic value in keeping that data limited rather than selling it wholesale. Facebook will never give advertisers the data. They could sell access to the list of people predisposed to buy your product, or they could make all user data available and let anyone analyze it. The former preserves scarcity and the other destroys it.
And that’s also why Facebook will lend its data sparingly. Even in the most recent FBX announcement (an enhancement to its least valuable form of advertising), Facebook kept their own dataset out of it completely, allowing use of third-party data only. When it comes time to sell, or more realistically, lease, that data, Facebook will do it with tight controls and at a huge premium.
Remember: the media industry was once robust and profitable. What was different then? The targets were the same, but the ways to reach them were fewer.
5. Create a supernetwork that has no borders
If Facebook plays by the four rules above, they will create the killer ad offering that will finally bring the big brand advertising dollars online. But Facebook ads on Facebook will be only the beginning. Just a few days ago, Facebook took its first step in the direction of the bigger opportunity: extending those services to other publishers on the web.
I’m not talking about AdSense – I’m talking about creating a far more intelligent programmatic relationship between users, their interests, and branded content. Every publisher would be better off if they were using Facebook’s comprehensive and lifelong relationship with users to inform their advertising – and if they themselves had a way to sell relationships, not impressions. Ultimately, exporting the offering to the rest of the web (86% of user attention is spent elsewhere, after all) will send more value right back to Facebook in the form of a larger dataset. Not to mention a nice cut of the revenues that Facebook would be entitled to.
This is a huge opportunity for the entire digital media industry. Online advertising has become a commodity (thanks, Google!). Facebook is digital media’s one best hope to reverse that trend and make online advertising more valuable than offline advertising by tenfold. Google took direct marketing and made it extremely efficient, allowing advertisers to spend less. Facebook has something to sell that might actually make advertisers open their wallets more: a magic brand relationship machine that far exceeds the value of transactional clicks.
Wall Street would much rather that Facebook ignored the five rules above, because Wall Street wants profits now. Facebook wants profits forever. May the latter prevail.
This article was published as a guest post at Business Insider, and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
(image via Steven Leary)
We spend more time on Facebook than anywhere else on the web. Out of every seven minutes online, one of those minutes is spent on Facebook. Second place Google captures only one in ten – and that’s including YouTube!
But you wouldn’t know it from looking at the way advertisers allocate their money. Globally, advertisers spent $36 billion with Google in 2011. They threw $4 billion at Yahoo (which captures 8% of our web time). But for Facebook? $3 billion and change.
Facebook garners only 4% of internet advertising spend when they’re capturing 14% of our online attention. And the discrepancy deepens when we look at online and offline combined: because advertisers haven’t shifted money to digital as quickly as we’ve shifted our attention, Facebook gets shortchanged even more (by 7x, to be exact) in the big picture.
What would Facebook revenues look like if brands matched ad spending to consumer attention?
(For context: the entire US magazine industry brings in advertising revenues of $18 billion.)
The revenues in the chart above hypothecate only that Facebook gets “back to even” with other forms of advertising. But Facebook has an asset no other brand advertising vehicle has: a treasure trove of targeting data. Facebook’s greatest business opportunity is to use that targeting data to sell relationships, not impressions. And if it can do that, then it may be able to achieve even more than “average” pricing. And it could deserve it – if it can offer relationships with consumers that are worth exponentially more than a magazine spread or a keyword ad on Google.
Larry Page, are you sweating yet?