After a week of on-and-off rumors about Google making an offer for Groupon, there are now multiple reports that the web giant is close to paying as much as $6 billion for the social-shopping service, which has been growing faster than just about any tech-related company in recent memory — including Google. If true, the deal would be almost twice the size of the search company’s largest acquisition ever (the $3.1-billion purchase of DoubleClick in 2007), and would be a gigantic bet on two trends that Google has so far failed to really take advantage of: namely, the movement of local advertising onto the web, and the rise of social behavior online.

Google’s $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube in 2006 makes a good comparison for its apparent interest in Groupon: At the time, online video — and just as important, the sharing and embedding of that video — was clearly the future of the web, but Google was a tiny player in that market and wanted to get big quickly. So it paid what seemed like a massive amount of money at the time for the startup, and has spent the past few years trying to figure out how to monetize that content.

The nice part about Groupon is, while YouTube was located more towards the social end of the spectrum and less the monetization end, the group-buying service is a monetization machine — although one that is also socially oriented, since it takes advantage of consumers’ desire to trigger discounts by forming a group. Clearly one of the big attractions for any acquirer is the fact that Groupon is bringing in an estimated $50 million in revenue a month, and expects to close the year with more than half a billion dollars in sales. That’s after less than two years in existence.

Why has Groupon been able to grow so quickly? As I outline in my latest GigaOM Pro report (subscription required), the startup’s rapid success is a sign of how explosive the power of social media can be when applied to a revenue-generating idea like coupons. As co-founder and angel investor Eric Lefkofsky described in a recent interview about Groupon, the company (which was originally called The Point, and focused on connecting people around social issues and activism) didn’t really take off as a business until it married the viral nature of a group-buying offer with the desire by local retailers to reach out to potential customers. Email is the company’s primary method, but it’s also fueled by social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

More than anything, Groupon has been riding the social-advertising wave, which is something Google desperately wants to own. In many ways, it’s the next step beyond AdWords and AdSense: While those products involve advertising keywords that sit next to searches and capture surfers who are looking for information about specific topics, Groupon reaches out to people who may not even know they want the item yet. The company’s DoubleClick acquisition gave it control of banner advertising, but banners are the past; social advertising is the future. As Macquarie Research analyst Ben Schachter said in a research note this morning, the purchase “is about much more than Google generating revenue from emailed coupons — it’s about Google’s ability to potentially access and utilize the social graph for eCommerce.”

The other important aspect of the deal is that it is primarily focused on local or regional businesses. Groupon has also started promoting national deals of the kind it did with The Gap, but the company’s real power is in helping small and medium-sized retailers, restaurants and other merchants connect with customers directly, and boost demand for their services and products. That’s a market Google hasn’t been able to really capitalize on, despite attempts to do so through its Places feature. That was the rationale behind the web giant’s reported interest in buying Yelp — a deal which didn’t go forward, for unknown reasons — and it is driving its interest in Groupon as well.

What would web advertising look like if Google were to acquire Groupon? Instead of just keyword ads targeted to what you searched for, you could start to see offers directed specifically at your location, or based on things you have searched for in Google Places, or places you have checked in at through Google Latitude, or services you have rated via the web giant’s new and somewhat underwhelming Hotpot recommendation service. Google’s knowledge of algorithms could provide better matching and sorting of those deals, and the search company could also use the knowledge that it gains from Groupon’s millions of users and advertisers to fine-tune some of its other locally focused services.

In a recent interview, Don Rainey of Grotech Ventures — an investor in Groupon’s largest competitor, LivingSocial — talked about a future in which consumers and local businesses could participate in a kind of real-time auction-style marketplace for deals on products and services, so people looking for deals on dinner tonight could survey the offers from local restaurants and pick the ones they wanted, and merchants could fine-tune their offers based on real-time demand. That is one future that Google desperately wants to be part of, and $6 billion probably seems like a small price to pay for a seat at that table. For more on Groupon, please see my GigaOM Pro report.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

Why Google Should Fear the Social Web

Lessons From Twitter: How to Play Nice With Ecosystem Partners

What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s Open Platform

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Groupon and TechCrunch

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.

Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.

Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.

The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?

Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?

There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.

That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.

Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

bench craft company scam

About Me 0126

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Making Money Off Youtube

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

Bad <b>news</b> from freed detainee: The Jews used witchcraft on me at <b>...</b>

Julian Assange | Sarah Palin | Fox <b>News</b> | Mike Huckabee | Mediaite

<b>News</b> Corp. Sells Fox Mobile Group To Investment Firm Jesta

No comments:

Post a Comment