Social Media Monitoring

Social Media Monitoring

Posts 1-6 of 6
  • Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker
    Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    Media companies’ lust for social networks has cost them a bit of money. For instance:

    1 - MySpace has slipped from world leader to a distant second since Rupert Murdoch bought it for $580m in 2005

    2 - UK television company ITV last year sold the Friends Reunited site for a seventh of what it paid in 2006.

    3 - AOL’s purchase followed the same trajectory: Bebo now attracts about 12m unique visitors a month, according to ComScore, down from about 22m when AOL bought it in 2008 for $850m.

    2010-06-17 (Thursday) it was announced that the California-based merchant bank Criterion Capital Partners bought Bebo for under $10m.

    AOL will also receive a deferred benefit on tax assets in the second quarter of $275m-$325m, according to a regulatory filing on Thursday. Following the transaction, AOL will treat the common stock of Bebo as 'worthless' for tax purposes according to a regulatory filing on Thursday

    ===> http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1468516/00011931251014115...

    Some things are also interesting, Facebook gets about:

    - 40 x the monthly visits compared to what Bebo's, and
    - 4 x those pageviews of what MySpace gets!

    It seems as if Facebook as managed better to focus on usability instead of confusing its users with too many changes as Bebo did.

    MySpace was slow to make moves that would improve the user experience but reduce page views (and so advertising revenues).

    CONCLUSION
    Monetisation of users is important but it cannot distract the social network from user needs.

    As well, users are fickle and will leave when fed up with a network (e.g., Ning).

    One of my colleagues regarding the above said it nicely regarding the Bebo sale: AOL still exists?

    What is your your opinion, to you have an example where it worked for the company taking over the social media platform? Please share
    • 20 Jun 2010, 6:02 pm
  • Deborah Drake
    Deborah Drake
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re: ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    Urs,

    I bet you wonder where the heck I have been, absent #1 fan of ComMetrics, your work and co-moderator of this group...our very own Social Network....behaving more like a lurker and not a co-moderator...well wonder no more.

    I've been reading posts, honest and always have the best of intentions to interact and comment and get interrupted by something. There is me behaving like a human, procrastinating, as I feel overwhelmed by all the input that is available. The calls, the emails, the inbound chats, the daughter home from school....like too many windows on my desktop open.

    "Calgon, take me away..." You wouldn't know this (necessarily) but this is a soundbite of a famous (at least in my history) line from a defunct TV commercial for a product that is still to be found on grocery store shelves.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVLzkTuVmrw&NR=1 (found it on...you guessed it...YouTube!)

    "The dog, the doorbell, the baby, the Tweets, the FB updates, the 100s of emails (yes email is still around), and finally those pesky phone calls from the ludites among us." MY FRESHLY REVISED VERSION of that AD copy.

    How true are these statements of yours in the conclusion:

    "Monetisation of users is important but it cannot distract the social network from user needs.

    As well, users are fickle and will leave when fed up with a network (e.g., Ning)."

    I am continuously watching as an interested and detached Observer the lightening speed shifting of how mass media communications can occur. The rise and fall of new options is dizzying. And interested in technology and mass communication as I am, it also makes me want to run and put my head in the sand from time to time.

    Whatever product or service is created it seems critical to consider the user needs, the solutions the service/product provides and in this ERA of OPEN MASS COMMUNICATIONS how can a company not consider what turns its users on and off.

    Don't we all ultimately leave situations when we are that fed up? Knowing we have other options or can create one of our own design?

    Hence a greedy company -- be it a start-up utilizing the Power of "the Force" of the Global Network of the WWW or a rock solid Brand embracing new technology --will in time be seen for its true or its shifting motives.

    I don't want to be lured in by free, only then to be approached relentlessly for marketing purposes.

    How about a straight up approach with good value offered from the get go. How about being honest about the intention of a new site, service, product? Trials are free and if the experience is good, why would I not convert?

    I challenge Media companies to returning to a way of doing business as was done in the past...while utilizing technology to spread the good word, the great offer, the value added proposition that much more elegantly...

    Am I being naive again?
    • 21 Jun 2010, 12:44 am
  • Rüdiger Mühlhausen
    Rüdiger Mühlhausen    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re: ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    Interesting topic from Urs.

    What I am missing in all these business 2.0 kind of things is the viable buisness modell behind. Building a big community and a good name is good but than starts the important question: How can I make it profitable? And the answer on this is hard to get.

    I worked for the last 12 years in the telecom industry and had this question on Skype. It is a great tool, I love to use it personally and I enjoy to have a video conference in an excellent quality for free! It broke the rules of the industry and was in my opinion one of the driving forces to erode the income and to destroy the business modell of the big telecom carriers from Deutsche Telekom til AT&T.

    But again: There was only one person who could economically benefit from Skype. That was the founder Niclas Zenstrom who sold it to Ebay for a hell of money. But Ebay was never happy with Skype because they too were unable to gain any money out of it. As long as all these things including Facebook are for free I doubt that they will last for long. Very soon there will come the next new hype along and replace Facebook, Twitter ....

    For this reason I am always asking myself why „old economy“ companies take over these 2.0 companies. They buy often communities but if they have no excellent plan how these can leverage their current business I am convinced they will fail.
    This post was changed on 25 Jun 2010 at 09:31 am by Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker .
    • 24 Jun 2010, 09:55 am
  • Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker
    Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^2: ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    Ruediger

    Thanks for replying to my post and yes, you do raise Important questions

    The Why .....
    Well eBay thought it made sense and synergies could be created with buying Skype. eBay learned that the synergies did not materialize as planned, so Skype was sold.

    Warner thought it had to take over AOL which in turn bought Bebo...... and we know how much this hurt Warner shareholders.

    But for me the real challenge is what makes people pay for things and what seems to fail to get them to dole out cash.

    I listed some of the issues I have been thinking about below:


    1 - convenience - solving a problem/need
    Warren Buffett - convenience works see Apple - people are willing to pay for convenience.... and something that solves a problem and/or satisfies a need (examples: iPod, iPhone.... iTunes versus Gillette shaver and cream)

    People don't buy music on iTunes - they pay for the convenience to get the music on that platform and synchronize their music library with various Apple hardware.... Apple makes money with the hardware.

    ===> http://commetrics.com/articles/should-we-copy-gillette-or-ap...

    2 - Channel and culture
    If things come via mobile phone, people seem to be used to have to pay.
    Therefore, individuals are more likely to pay for a subscription on their iPhone using an App to get news, music, infos about flight delays, etc. than if it comes via the Internet.... but again it is related to convenience.

    I get the news on my smartphone while riding the train or bus to and from work. So for this convenience people are willing to pay....
    I am not sure if this willingness to pay if one gets something via a smartphone is due to the channel (mobile) and/or convenience (read while riding the train).

    What you think?. Or is it maybe a combination of convenience and the channel that makes people spend so much for getting content via their mobile?


    3 - Physical or virtual product, service or tool
    If I sell a physical product, people are willing to pay (e.g., book, camera).
    If I sell a service it depends. . Most people are willing to purchase a concert ticket online and pay for the privilege. For instance, we pay for the ticket online to go to the concert sometime in the future.
    BUT we also have to pay a service charge for being able to purchase a ticket online. Probably one reason why companies like Ticketmaster do so well.

    It is amazing, try to purchase some tickets online, via phone these days without paying for the privilege. In the past I could call a toll-free number or go to the ticket booth and get the ticket while paying the price that was listed on the ticket. These days it is via the Internet and I pay $2.00 service charge on top of the ticket price...

    GREAT business model: Get customers to do the work and pay for this privilige on top (same with airline tickets - Lufthansa charging me a service fee for getting an e-ticket online)

    But again, getting a concert ticket using an Internet-based service is ultimately still linked to the physical world.

    4 - Selling services online
    - Success: Xing sells higher level subscriptions so people are willing to pay for that.
    - Failure? Facebook hopes that advertising will bring in enough to make ends meet.... so far NOT
    - Works - Sofware-as-a-service --- works well with businesses as we have learned with our software.... less well with individuals (not willing to pay as likely as a business).

    Of course, without a good plan of execution taking over a Web 2.0 company does not necessarily lead to success. And Facebook claiming that all Indian customers will have enough money to spend using their mobiles to access the site seems wishful thinking.

    I probably raised more questions than I provided answers but this is such a difficult area ..... to gain insight.

    Ruediger, thanks so much for sharing.
    • 25 Jun 2010, 10:03 am
  • Rüdiger Mühlhausen
    Rüdiger Mühlhausen    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^3: ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    Urs,

    The crucial point you have raised is 'convenience'. IMO all your examples can be broken down to convenience. I don't pay for mobile access because mobile is a different channel but because it is more convenient to use. I can do it where ever I am when I have the spare time to do it (e.g. in the train). I pay a premium fee for Xing because it offers more convenience like sending messages. And I buy my tickets online because it is for me the most convenient way (no queuing up, always open...).

    Coming back to the original question for all the new social media applications: I believe they will be successful if they offer a service that solves a problem or satisfy a demand I have, in a way that I am willing to pay for. Very honest: If facebook would ask me to pay a monthly fee I would quit. That might be different for other people and also be question of generations.
    Giving things for free might be good to get the ball rolling but there must be a clear path how to make it a service to pay for. BTW: This is the big challenge for our media industry e.g. newspapers. What can they offer online that gives me a personal advantage to pay for it? Maybe the I-Pad and the concept of apps are the big step towards a paid solution?!
    • 29 Jun 2010, 09:38 am
  • Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker
    Prof. Dr. Urs E. Gattiker    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^4: ROI flop - media companies lust for social media - AOL is getting out of it
    I just added another story:

    News Corporation finally managed to sell off its troubled Myspace social-networking site in a deal that values the business at $35m.

    ==> http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110630006065/de/ (German)

    ===> http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110629006740/en (English)

    ===> News Corp paid $580m for it in 2005.

    At the time, CEO Rupert Murdoch described the takeover as a "great opportunity" and believed that Myspace was "one of the web's hottest properties"

    I call this burning equity fast like AOL did with Bebo, see my comment above.

    What is your opinion? Do media companies understand the social web?


    PS. AOL bought Bebo in 2008 for $850m.
    2010-06-17 California-based merchant bank Criterion Capital Partners bought Bebo for under $10m.
    This post was modified on 01 Jul 2011 at 12:11 pm.
    • 01 Jul 2011, 12:07 pm