AllThingsD » uniques

Exclusive: Meebo Raises $25M More

Liz Gannes — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:43:15 +0000

Meebo has nearly completed a $25 million round of funding led by Khosla Ventures, with Khosla partner Gideon Yu becoming a board observer. This is the Web-sharing toolmaker’s Series D round, and will be announced by Khosla in a speech at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco this afternoon. Existing backers such as Sequoia Capital and Draper Fisher Jurvetson are also participating in the round, which brings Meebo to total funding of more than $60 million.

Vinod Khosla said in a phone interview that he was particularly interested in Meebo’s plans to make Web sites social through its Meebo Bar, which will soon include ways for users to virtually “check-in” to Web sites. And secondly, he was impressed by the company’s success with brand advertisers.

“I think very few things are so broad that they reach most of the users on the Internet and this is one of those,” Khosla said. (Meebo currently reaches 180 million uniques, double what it had a year ago, so it’s not quite at “most” of the Internet, but it’s growing fast.)

Meebo CEO Seth Sternberg said 87 percent of the company’s advertisers in 2009 returned in 2010, on average doubling their budgets. He said the Meebo Bar has a 1 percent click-through rate.

That relatively high effectiveness is in part because the Meebo Bar is always visible on the pages of its 8,000-plus publisher partners. Sternberg said that by the time users click on the ad, they’ve often spent a good amount of time on the page, so it’s not just an errant click–they’re actually interested in the brand.

The average Meebo user spends 60 seconds with an ad, longer than the canonical television commercial.

Sternberg said Meebo preferred a smaller venture round to the jumbo later-stage deals companies like Yelp, Facebook and Groupon have taken, because he doesn’t want to significantly change the culture of his company. $25 million is the same amount Meebo raised the last time it took funding, in spring 2008.

Meebo Foursquarifies the Web with Check-ins

Liz Gannes — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:21:38 +0000

Meebo on Tuesday plans to announce an update to its popular Meebo Bar (which is used on this Web site, and many others, to make it easier for users to share content). The goal is to help users discover new Web sites (kind of like StumbleUpon) and become loyal to them by using a check-in system (kind of like a virtual Foursquare).

Starting tomorrow, users who want to participate can download a new browser extension called the Meebo MiniBar. Starting in December, Web sites can add check-ins through embeddable buttons and the Meebo Bar itself (which counts 8,000 publisher users, with a combined 180 million uniques). Brands such as Macy’s, Sprint and L’Oréal Professionnel have already committed to participate.

To check in on Meebo, a user will need to have a Meebo account. The idea is for people to be motivated to share in order to become VIPs on the sites they visit often (another extension of the Foursquare metaphor). Users can also subscribe to feeds of people who like similar Web sites so they can find new places to visit.

This is not a new idea–if you take the pitch and replace the term “checking in” with “social bookmarking” you’ll find a pile of (mostly discarded) companies. More specifically, back when OneRiot was called Me.dium it launched just such an extension in 2006, and the current start-up Badgeville makes a white-label loyalty platform for publishers. And Facebook, of course, has its “like” system of allowing users to subscribe to Web sites and brands.

Daily Beast's Tina Brown Brags About "Interesting Discussions" With Newsweek

Peter Kafka — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:13:26 +0000

How are things at the Daily Beast, the news + commentary site Tina Brown is running for Barry Diller?

Awesome! So says Tina Brown, in an “interview” her site is running with her today, to mark the Beast’s two-year anniversary: five million uniques, “ahead of projections” on advertising, etc. “A romping, vibrant, 2-year-old animal bursting with rude health.” (No mention of Howard Kurtz, though.)

In fact, it’s doing so great, Brown says, that Diller may end up pawning the thing off to Newsweek and new owner Sidney Harman.

Well, she doesn’t say that exactly. But she does acknowledge, out loud, for the first time, that the two sides are chatting:

We hear something is going on with Newsweek.

How clever of you to notice! Yes, there have been some interesting discussions going on, as we have with potential partners large and small all the time.

Cheeky!

Here’s a more fleshed-out version of that discussion, via the NYT:

Mr. Harman and Ms. Brown met as recently as last week and are keen on working together. But whether The Daily Beast, which is financed by the billionaire investor Barry Diller, and Mr. Harman can reach a deal that is agreeable to all parties is still unknown, this person said, speaking anonymously to reveal privileged information.

Ms. Brown has gone as far as submitting a memorandum to Mr. Harman outlining how she would run Newsweek, but Mr. Harman was also interviewing other people for the job, this person added.

A few things:

It’s astonishing, and also true, that Harman bought Newsweek from the Washington Post (WPO) without knowing who he would hire to run the operation.
This also means that no one is really running things there now.
Brown would be a pretty good choice, all things considered.
And picking up the Beast wouldn’t be a terrible idea for Harman, assuming Diller can do it at the right price: Newsweek’s Web operations are okay, but not nearly as good as they look on paper. That’s because the site is largely dependent on MSNBC.com for its traffic, and that’s not a healthy affair. Say what you will about Brown’s start-up, but it hasn’t had the crutch of a big distribution partner.

Veoh Finally Calls It Quits: Layoffs Yesterday, Bankruptcy Filing Soon

Peter Kafka — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:52:56 +0000

Veoh, one of several well-funded start-ups that have tried and failed to cash in on the Web video boom, is finally calling it quits. The company let go of the remainder of its workforce yesterday, and sources say it plans on filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in the near future.

Veoh, which started as YouTube-style site, has struggled for years to find a business model that works and has burned through $70 million in funding from name-brand investors like Goldman Sachs (GS), Time Warner (TWX), Intel’s (INTC) venture arm, Spark Capital and former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner.

CEO Dmitry Shapiro declined to comment. He is tweeting, though:

UPDATE: Shapiro is talking now. Here’s my conversation with him, and a blog post he penned himself.

This one has been a long time coming. Last year, the San Diego-based company laid off about a third of its staff, replaced its CEO with founder Shapiro and focused on developing a Web browser-based app. Shapiro has also been actively looking for a buyer, but a copyright lawsuit with Universal Music Group made the site a difficult sale.

The company was buoyed last fall when it effectively won that lawsuit: In a sweeping ruling, a federal judge ruled that Veoh was protected against the music label’s copyright claims by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

That decision gave Veoh executives the confidence to try to gather up yet another funding round. And as recently as January, the company thought it might be able to convince its existing investors to pony up yet again.

But that plan collapsed in the past few weeks, sources said. It’s striking that Veoh couldn’t find any buyer willing to pay up for either its technology or its audience, which was supposedly at 25 million uniques last spring.

Here’s a post-mortem from Spark’s Todd Dagres, a Veoh board member:

Dude Web Site Publisher Breaks Into Games (Heh heh. Heh heh.)

Peter Kafka — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:59:00 +0000

For the past several years, Keith Richman has run a Web publishing company that specializes in video and stuff for dudes. Which means he ought to be struggling and/or out of business by now–both sectors have had way too many competitors chasing not nearly enough ad dollars.

Not so, says Richman. He won’t divulge numbers, but says his Break Media has seen revenue climb 40 percent in the last year and is sort-of profitable (sort-of technical term: “Ebitda profitable”) to boot.

Break.com and its associated sites (CagePotato.com, HolyTaco, etc.) have plenty of competition from the likes of College Humor and Heavy et al–not to mention Google’s (GOOG) YouTube and Hulu–but they’re holding up quite nicely: ComScore (SCOR) pegs their audience at six million monthly uniques. Just as important: Minority owner Lionsgate Entertainment (LGF), which plunked down $21 million for a 40 percent stake in the company in 2007, doesn’t seem to be demanding a payout anytime soon.

Richman is now tackling another market that already has way too many competitors: Social games, dominated by the likes of Zynga, Electronics Arts (ERTS), and Playfish, etc.

No matter. Richman has hired a staff of 13 to kick off his games effort–you can get a taste of what he’s up to here–and says he’ll have a staff of 30 by March (most of them will be in China). Richman’s idea is simple: These games are hot now, but they’re only going to become bigger, so best to jump in while you still can.

Plus, you can iterate through this stuff pretty quickly–Richman’s team put together a supercrude and pretty popular “Tiger Woods Wife Outrun” game within three days of Woods’s car crash last fall–so the sooner you start, the more you can learn.

We talked about all of this in a brief chat last week in New York:

[ See post to watch video ]

ComScore's Gift to Web Publishers: (Almost) Free Traffic [UPDATED]

Peter Kafka — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:00:10 +0000

Hey Web publishers! Want to boost your traffic overnight? Talk to comScore, which is handing out millions of unique visitors.

The Web’s dominant traffic counter is in the midst of overhauling its traffic-counting system in response to years of complaints from publishers who insist that their traffic has been undercounted.

Turns out, the publishers were often right.

ComScore’s old data, for instance, say the Huffington Post attracted 9.95 million unique visitors in December. But its new numbers peg HuffPo’s December traffic at 20 million uniques.

The difference is that comScore’s (SCOR) old system tracked small panels of users and extrapolated their traffic patterns across the Web. But its new “hybrid” system uses panel data along with records generated by actual visits to the site, counted via tracking cookies. Publishers that cooperate with comScore (SCOR) agree to let the company “tag” every Web page on their sites.

“This is a much much better, much more methodologically rigorous way of doing this,” says Linda Abraham, comScore’s chief marketing officer.

ComScore has been rolling out the new system for months and says it can now use it to report on 25 percent of the 50 biggest sites on the Web. Another 50 percent of the top sites have agreed to work with the system, Abraham says.

ComScore lets publishers who are already clients participate in the program for free. But it will charge everyone else $10,000 a year, which the company says helps cover the cost of new servers and other equipment it needs to process the new deluge of data.

UPDATE: Some more detail on comScore’s fees, which generated a Web flare-up after this piece ran. Abraham notes that comScore’s set-up fee is $5,000, which she says covers implementation costs and gives publishers access to its data for six months; comScore charges publishers who want to keep receiving reports an additional $5,000 for each subsequent six-month period. However, Abraham notes, “If you choose not to purchase report access, you are free to do that, and we’ll continue to report you as hybrid, free of charge, as long as you continue to beacon correctly.” For more from Abraham, see her response to Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis’s criticism; here’s the company’s blog post on the subject.

The new system doesn’t necessarily generate a traffic boost. AOL’s (AOL) Living channel saw its numbers decline by two percent in the new system, for instance, and its radio site saw traffic drop by 20 percent. AOL’s overall traffic, though, is up nine percent by comScore’s count.

Hybrid measurement is particularly kind to small Web sites and those that generate a lot of traffic from users who visit while at work. Both categories have always been difficult for comScore to measure using panels.

TheStreet.com (TSCM), for instance, has watched its traffic shoot up 86 percent under the new system, to 3.3 million uniques. That’s still much less than the site itself reports–in its last quarterly filing, the financial network reported an audience of 8.1 million uniques.

The fact that comScore is tracking some Web sites using the new system and the rest of them with the old one will make things a bit sticky for some time. The company has stopped releasing its monthly Top 50 list until May, when it says it will have moved almost all participating sites into the hybrid system.

But some sites won’t end up working with comScore at all, which means that comScore will measure them with its old panel methodology. At some point, the company will be presenting apples-to-oranges numbers when it compares different sites.

Does any of this really matter? Yes and no.

Ad buyers do pay attention to comScore rankings when figuring out where to place their money, even as Web publishers have presented their own, higher numbers from their own server logs. For some sites, the new data will make their pitches more compelling.

On the other hand, this does nothing to solve the real problem facing most publishers: They can’t sell ads against all of their inventory, no matter who’s counting it. And a measurement system won’t ever be able to help with that one.

Tim Armstrong Makes One Last Pitch for AOL: "No More Hail Marys"

Peter Kafka — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:15:56 +0000

AOL is about to cut ties to Time Warner (TWX), and CEO Tim Armstrong has been making his case to current and potential investors. Here’s one last pitch, delivered to the crowd at the annual UBS (UBS AG) Media and Communications Conference in New York.

Note to readers and/or Engadget editors: This liveblog is not an official transcript. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one. Cool? Cool.

Q: Why leave Google, which is awesome, for AOL, which is not?

A: The Internet is still at an early stage. AOL is a global brand, and that’s hard to build. We have a unique set of assets. AOL can be core and central to where the next $50, $100 billion are going. And we have unique talent to make a run at it.

Q: Please explain your strategy.

A: “Content, ads and communication.”

Q: Why is this turnaround different than other AOL turnarounds?

A: I can tell you whatever, but you need to see metrics move to believe me. But we have a good strategy. “You have to maniacal about the piping,” and in the past AOL wasn’t. We had terrible integration of acquisitions, systems. You want to be able to take $25, $40 million ad deals and run them through the piping and we haven’t been able to do that.

Q: Please explain AOL’s content strategy.

A: We launched our content platform last night. A single platform. It uses data, helps scale to content producers and will work with thousands of partners. It differs from Demand Media et al in that we already have scale for production and scale for advertising. We can snap those two platforms together. [Note: No mention of robots yet.]

Q: Is AOL interested in video or other self-produced stuff?

A: Sure. Video’s important to us. We’re also interested in what we would call “niche at scale.” As a collective whole, we have 70 or 80 properties and will go up to 100. We want to aggregate uniques that will be attractive to advertisers. We want to own the equivalent of the top 80 or 90 cable channels on the Internet. We’re also very interested in local, via Patch [which Armstrong invested in before AOL bought it].

Q: How do you market all this content?

A: By the way, everyone thinks our traffic comes from the access business. That’s not true. It’s a minority of our traffic. Also, when you produce your own content, you can distribute it and get traffic back. You also need to make this stuff shareable on the Web. We’re getting mass scale distribution from platforms like Twitter and, of course, search.

Q: There’s a big gap between your monetization and Yahoo’s (YHOO). How do you change that?

A: I can’t tell you! It’s how I got my job. Ho ho ho. Okay: AOL went to a network-based strategy a couple of years ago, which cut into the pricing yield, and that is now changing. We addressed this in the summer and fall. Also, AOL, shockingly, had under 1,000 customers on ad platforms when I showed up–700, actually. At Google (GOOG), we had millions. So we had a clear dialogue about what had happened. Also, the salesforce needed to be restructured, different tiers of the salesforce. And we also needed a self-service option you can use with a credit card. “Look, this is why they hired me….If we can’t make that business work, I think we have big issues.”

Q: What’s up with search?

A: We like Google and are still talking to them. We’re also talking to “other partners.” Last time, the deal was done “purely for money,” and that had benefits and some downside. This time, the pricing may be different, but it’s not the only thing that determines value.

Q: Please be more specific.

A: Okay. We’re really big on music. But if you go to AOL search for music, you get a subpar version of Google’s search for music. There are too many ads on the page. So why don’t we set up a onebox-like search box and send people to AOL music? For example, let’s think about trading search dollars for display dollars. We want to make money on ads in a much more natural and healthy way.

Q: What about investments in content?

A: Sure. We’re making nominal investments in content and a putting a lot of money in technology and infrastructure. In terms of M&A, we will sell off stuff that doesn’t make sense and do tuck-in buys.

Q: How does your local strategy differ from others?

A: We do real local, not quasi-local. We put editors in communities to actually get the stuff and monitor and update platforms. “It’s a risk, it’s a bet,” but early results are promising.

Q: Your ad business is much less profitable than that of your peers. What up?

A: Our hamburger stand says “really cheap burgers at really cheap prices,” but we’re actually serving sea bass, and we should be charging for that. We told customers, via Platform A, etc., that they could buy us really cheap. Also, cost structure: We’re taking out a third of the business. Access was making money, and things “kind of got loose” at the rest of company. But advertising can be nicely profitable with content and we can do that.

Q: Okay, but when do ad biz profits become self-sustaining?

A: Not in 2010, but sooner than five years. I own two percent of the company, and I want it to work. Morale is already better than when I got here.

Q: Are you removing all premium inventory from Ad.com?

A: Don’t believe what you read! Internet! Bad! An analyst said we might do it. What we’re going to do is “sell Superbowl product at Superbowl pricing.” [i.e., a nonanswer]

Q: What’s up with the access business and the traffic it generates?

A: We have 100 million users. Five million people get “paid services” from us. Half of those are dial-up users. But people think that 70, 80, 90 percent of traffic comes from access. That’s not the case.

Q: What’s up with mobile?

A: We want to increase consumer mobile traffic. We have lots of Apple Store downloads. We’ll do more consumer downloads/traffic. And we’ll build our mobile ad business after that, probably in 2011.

Q: What do Federal broadband access plans mean for your business?

A: All of us believe that there will be some “tail” of dial-up access for some time. But it’s not going away, and the decline is actually moderating [which makes sense--if you're still on dial-up now, what are you waiting for?]

Q: Please reiterate profitability plans for display/content/ads.

A: In reality, we’re “marginally” profitable now, but that’s not good enough.

Q: If you reprice ad business profitability, what does that mean for you?

A: I don’t want to set goals, but we’re not off by single digits. It’s significant.

Q: Talk about your communications business, please.

A: We have AIM, ICQ, email–all big opportunities. We need to clean up current products and services. Communications products “were recipient of problems” in the past. AOL tried to jam Bebo and AIM together, which didn’t work. We also slammed our stuff with way too many emails. I tried AOL email when I started and got 15 to 20 ads. Not a great user experience. It’s “project hygiene.” We also believe people want a unified platform across devices and we’re working on that.

Q: Talk about compensation.

A: I had the money options at Google, which got moved into AOL options at market value. Plus salary blah blah. I didn’t take a bonus this year “because I don’t think I should have gotten paid for laying off a third of our employees.” [All of this is discussed in the proxy, no?]

Q: Here’s a softball about your management team. How awesome is it?

A: Totally awesome. We’ll add more over time. On the engineering side, I was surprised that we weren’t chasing good engineers when we got here. “We have spent a lot of time and energy on the subject matter.” Culturally, our “internal mojo turned around,” and now the engineering community gets that we “have a big-hair problem” but that we have tons of use so things they do here have a big impact.

Q: Brand strategy: How do you extract brands people don’t know about while promoting the main site and vice versa?

A: We think about this like Disney (DIS), I think. By the way, there are two brands. The financial media brand is battered–worst merger in history, etc. But consumers like the AOL brand. Tomorrow, we’re giving AOL users a a 50 percent promotion via Target (TGT) on “very good toys.” So in the Disney way, there’s the brand people like, and we have other brands people like, just as Disney has ESPN. So we’ll have non-AOL brands launching, and we’ll refurbish the AOL brand itself.

Q: Whither MapQuest?

A: MapQuest is still Top 20 search term. It has a large market share. The technology has not been focused on in a number of years. We’re changing that. Partners are inquiring about MapQuest, and I think what we’ll do is an operational partnership with them. We feel like its a “very, very valuable property.”

Q: What are best metrics to evaluate AOL’s turnaround/growth?

A: Unique visitors [which is what everyone says now]. We need a turnaround in domestic display, which you should see in 2010. And then we need to generate cash, because that’s what healthy companies do. In terms of that cash: No more “hail Marys” where we take cash from access and make big bets on things that we don’t know about [i.e., Bebo]. We will want to fund the Web services business with cash from the Web services business.

Comcast Pitches NBC Deal to Investors: Check Out Our "Wow Chart"!

Peter Kafka — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:35:57 +0000

Comcast investors have been upset with the company ever since its plans to acquire control of NBC Universal from GE appeared in September. Now’s the time for the company to start wooing them back (at least publicly).

On the call: Comcast (CMCSA) CEO Brian Roberts, COO Steve Burke, CFO Michael Angelakis

CEO Brian Roberts: The deal will make us “strategically complete.” [Translation: We promise not buy anything else!]

Obligatory praise for Jeff Zucker for “completely transforming NBC into one of the premier cable operators in the business,” which is the same way Zucker likes to describe himself.

This deal is so incredibly easy for us to finance that we’re increasing our dividend by 40 percent. [Also, we're doing this with both hands tied behind our back!]

CFO Michael Angelakis: If you get confused, there’s an appendix at the end of our presentation.

Did you know that Fandango is a “female-oriented” site? Me either.

Comcast has a “clear path to control” the joint venture by buying out GE’s (GE) interest, but future payouts are capped at $5.75 billion.

Debt ratings agencies have signed off on this, so don’t worry. They never get this wrong.

Roberts: Can’t stress this enough: We’re not buying a faltering film company and a flailing broadcaster; we’re buying a bunch of profitable cable channels. Cable channels. Cable channels.

Also, we’re buying at the bottom of the cycle, so some of the duds that we’re buying may end up having upside.

[Roberts is right about this, by the way: Networks really do rise and fall over time, almost independently of what management does. Remember ABC's peril in the pre-“Lost" era?]

Oh yeah. There are some theme parks, too.

Okay. Back to the deal: Cable channels, cable channels, cable channels. They are great. We love them. Affiliate fees are growing 12 percent a year, ad sales are up seven percent a year. Check out the awesome slide on page 19. “I think this is a wow slide” (see below).

Some more praise for Zucker.

COO Steve Burke: Cable channels. Cable channels. Cable channels. We love the ones we own, but they’re “subscale” compared to what we’re buying from GE.

We’re going to cross-promote the heck out of these and figure out how to make G, Style and Versus more valuable, like NBCU does with Bravo, etc.

[We're about 40 minutes into the call, and this is the first discussion about the Web.] The JV will be a Top 10 company with 82 million uniques.

At least for now, Comcast is still talking about “On Demand Online,” not XTREME ONLINE RAWKS or whatever the company is supposedly going to call it.

Q&A:

Can you give us more color on new businesses you may create once you combine? Also, what are you going to sell off?

Burke: There are “literally dozens of innovative ideas that come out of this combination.” Like interactive advertising. Targeting, etc. (via cable, not Web). We can launch new channels, new video-on-demand packages, more windows. A lot of opportunities.

Roberts: We don’t plan on selling anything. But “we have a long time between signing and closing” to learn about the assets we’re buying.

A lot of people have tried vertical integrations like this and they haven’t worked. What’s going on here? Also, how are you going to work with businesses like Hulu, which threaten your business?

Roberts: Some of these have worked. Think of [Liberty Media Chairman] John Malone’s deals. Or Time Warner (TWX) buying Turner. Or even News Corp. (NWS) and DirecTV. Anyway, that’s the past. Let’s look to the future. More important is that we believe this deal works with zero synergy benefits. [That's for you, Jeff Bewkes.]

[Um, anyone else get bumped off the call? Nope, just me. Apologies, will go get the Hulu the rest of Roberts's answer later, but I'm guess it was something along the lines of "we love Hulu and have no intent to crush it like a bug, and besides, we're one of three networks that will own it."]

Please explain how you’ll negotiate for, say, the Olympics and other assets when you don’t actually own NBC yet.

Roberts: [GE CEO] Jeff [Immelt] and Jeff [Zucker] will have to run their business until the deal closes.

What about regulatory hassles?

Roberts: No worries. This is a “pro-consumer transaction.” And check out all the things we said to that effect earlier this morning.

Burke: Both local advertising and national advertising are recovering. An analyst notes that GE has never told us much about NBCU because it hasn’t had to. So we’re going to get a much better look at how the business works going forward.

Why are you sticking your regional sports deals into this joint venture? Also, why not just hand the money you’re spending on this deal back to investors, via share buybacks?

Burke (I think): When you think of sports, its hard not to think of NBC Sports and Dick Ebersol [ahem]. Also, we think there’s some synergy with some of NBC’s local broadcast stations.

Angelakis (I think): We’ve already bought back $14 billion worth of stock in six years, and we’ll keep buying back stock. Also, check out our dividend. But we need a balance. This deal gives us financial returns and long-term strategic returns.

Roberts (I think): The timing is good. Size is appropriate–we can handle it. “You gotta like the business….We think it’s a reasonable risk. That’s what we’ve always done at Comcast.”

As for regulatory risk, if Washington wants us to make a really really serious change that blows up the rationale for doing this, we have the ability to back out. But we don’t think that’s going to happen. “Is there a break-up fee?” the questioner asks. Answer: No.

What does this mean for TV Everywhere/On Demand Online? (and Hulu)?

Burke: NBC has been careful not to put too much cable content on the Internet. We think that’s a smart strategy, “not that they asked us.” We think that going forward, you’re going to continue to have free broadcast stuff on Hulu, and cable stuff on TV Everywhere.

Roberts: Windows in general, our focus has been on expanding offerings, putting them on multiple platforms. All of those things are more likely to occur in a way that benefits distributors, content owners and consumers. “What about Hulu premium?” the questioner asks. Answer: “That’s certainly not in the cards.”

Here’s Comcast’s pitch in chart form:

ComcastNewPDF_12.3.09 –

Hearst's UGO Gets New Blood, Still Needs CEO

Peter Kafka — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:30:08 +0000

Hearst’s dude-centric UGO site, which has been without a permanent CEO since June, is still looking for a new boss. But in the meantime, it has some new blood: The company has brought in Hearst veteran Christopher Johnson to run programming and product strategy and has hired Julie Shumaker to run 1UP, the gaming site it bought earlier this year.

Shumaker comes to Hearst from DoubleFusion, the “in-game” advertising company, where she ran sales for its core games group, and was at Electronic Arts (ERTS) prior to that. Johnson spent the last three years building Hearst’s magazine sites (Cosmopolitan.com, etc.), then took off this summer to run something called Modelina.com; he has also put in time at IAC (IACI) and Time Warner’s (TWX) AOL.

UGO is one of many players trying to capture a piece of the market for young men between 18 and 34 who like girls, funny things and videogames, and the company, which claims 13 million monthly uniques, is often mentioned as an M&A candidate.

But Hearst says it is still looking to hire a new CEO for the spot that opened up once co-founder J Moses left in June. Hearst Interactive president Ken Bronfin is still running the unit on an interim basis.

NBC Grabs a High-Profile Blogger to Boost Its Local Site: Eater Co-Founder Ben Leventhal

Peter Kafka — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:00:38 +0000

If you follow the New York blog and/or blog/foodie scene, this one’s for you. The rest of you folks can probably move on.

Okay? Okay. Ben Leventhal, co-founder of the influential Eater blog, is headed to GE’s (GE) NBC Universal, where he’ll oversee “lifestyle content” for NBC’s growing local Web unit. More details here from Leventhal himself.

Eater is noteworthy because it’s a great read if you’re the kind of person who’s interested in an exit interview with former New York Times food critic Frank Bruni, conducted over a meal at Mario Batali’s Babbo. And also because it’s part of a larger network of blogs that Leventhal helped build up along with Lockhart Steele, one of the early architects of Nick Denton’s Gawker Media empire.

Steele says his sites, which encompass two other brands beyond Eater (real estate at Curbed, retail at Racked) and local sites in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, pull in a million uniques a month. Two years ago, he raised $1.5 million from a group of investors, including Denton, Spark Capital’s Mo Koyfman, real estate publisher Brad Inman and NetSuite (N) CEO Zach Nelson.

NBC, meanwhile, has been busily staffing up its network of local sites, which it overhauled earlier this year. The idea is to replace the lame extensions of its local stations’ lame newscasts with sites designed for people who actually use the Web–and to help the company break into the local Internet ad market that everyone wants a piece of but that no one has cracked yet.

Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore: Let's Put the Digital "Genie Back in the Bottle" [UPDATED]

Peter Kafka — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:37:46 +0000

Poor John Squires. The Time Inc. SVP seems like an affable fellow. So what has he done to deserve this impossible task–figuring out a digital strategy for Time Warner’s (TWX) publishing unit? Or, to put it in Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore’s words, figuring out “how to put the genie back in the bottle”?

While Squires solves that riddle, he’ll leave his day job as head of the “news business unit” (Time, Fortune, Money, etc.). In his place will be… Moore, who is already running the company’s style group.

I chatted briefly via email with Squires, who is good-natured about the assignment. But I have to take issue with him (and everyone else who uses this example) re iTunes. Apple (AAPL) didn’t prove that people are willing to pay for content online–we’d already seen that (at The Wall Street Journal, among other examples). Apple proved that people are willing to pay for portions–that would be songs–of products that were previously only sold in bundles–that would be CDs.

You can debate whether this was terrible for the music industry or simply the least-bad option. But I don’t think it makes sense to compare the experience of the music industry with news and other Web content that people aren’t used to paying for in any form.

Here’s my Q&A with Squires:

MediaMemo: I’m struck by Ann’s “genie” reference–are we meant to take that in a tongue-in-cheek way, or do you folks really think you can put the free-content genie back in the bottle? Or am I misinterpreting that?

John Squires: We’re not unrealistic about the challenge, but iTunes showed people will pay for something attractively packaged and fairly priced that they once got for free….We also wanted to get your attention. So I guess we’re genies.

MM: Do you imagine that Time Inc. will be taking content that’s currently available for free online and putting it behind a pay wall? Or are you more focused on creating new products you can charge for?

JS: This is part of what we’ll be testing. Certainly some online content will remain free because we’re eager to keep our large online audiences (over 26 million Nielsen uniques) and successful advertising model. Some other online content may be subscription-based. And the content we create for mobile readers will be a completely new experience, with different design and functions that we think consumers will want to pay for.

MM: Haven’t heard Time Inc.’s voice in the “Google isn’t playing fair” chorus. How much, if any, energy are you spending on getting the search engine to help you/take less from you, etc.?

JS: We’re not part of that chorus at the moment.

MM: Is this a permanent assignment or will you go back to News at some point?

JS: We’ll see what comes out of this assignment.

And here’s the companywide memo from Moore:

To:       Time Inc. Employees

From: Ann Moore

Re: How to Put the Genie Back Into the Bottle; Special Assignment for John Squires

It won’t be a revelation to any of you that the publishing business is changing rapidly. While print magazines are not going away, and while we have built vibrant websites with over 26 million unique visitors and 750 million pages views each month, it’s increasingly clear that finding the right digital business model is crucial for the future of our business. We need to develop a strategy for the portable digital world and to refine our views on paid content.

Given the magnitude of the opportunity, I have asked John Squires to take on a new role and devote his full time efforts this summer to developing the best business plan for the future. John’s qualifications for this assignment are ideal. He has a strong background in consumer marketing and digital content and has stature in the publishing industry, as well as with digital software and hardware companies. It is likely we will be seeking partners and allies in our quest to ‘put the genie back into the bottle’.

As many of you know, we are currently pursuing four related initiatives:

1.    Evolving our current website businesses by identifying and developing consumer revenue streams.

2.    Accelerating the creation of applications for smartphone platforms.

3.    Developing new products and business models for portable digital readers.

4.    Exploring partnerships with other publishers to develop the optimal retail store for our digital products.

John will need the support of many, including Consumer Marketing, Legal, Strategy and Business Development, and the Time Inc. titles. Please pitch in with all your resources available when he calls.

During this assignment, similar to the role I’m playing at the Style and Entertainment Group, I will assume responsibility for the News Business Unit.

A.M.

D7 Interview: Jon Miller and Owen Van Natta Say MySpace Needs to Innovate

Peter Kafka — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:49:44 +0000

A couple of years ago, MySpace was the hottest thing on the Web. But that was a couple of years ago. Now the social network has gone cold: It is losing audience to Facebook and other sites and may well lose a very lucrative search deal from Google (GOOG). Fixing MySpace is the chief priority of Jon Miller, the former AOL boss who was brought on as News Corp.’s (NWS) chief digital officer in March. About a month after that, Miller brought on former Facebook executive Owen Van Natta and a new management team to run MySpace, displacing the site’s founders. Time for Van Natta to tell us just how he intends to save what was once one of the most important sites on the Web. And time for Miller to explain the digital future for the rest of News Corp.–which happens to own the All Things Digital Web site and conference.

Video Highlights

[ See post to watch video ]

Live Blog

Walt whips out his poll data again. Points out that Facebook and MySpace are neck-and-neck in overall use. But 61 percent of people say they are using MySpace less often than they used to. “Less usage would be bad,” notes Owen. Back to the poll: Why did people use MySpace less? Nearly one third–30 percent–replied: “I got bored.” Owen thanks Walt for the free market research.
Kara: What happened at MySpace? How did it come to this? Owen: “If you don’t continue to innovate and give people what they want next…people are going to shift interests elsewhere. They’re going to continue to evolve their usage of the Web. The thing about MySpace is, there’s a lot that’s unique about MySpace. We need to seize on that.”
Walt: Gimme some examples of how MySpace is different/unique. Owen: It’s more open, people share more information more freely, a bigger canvas, the ability to create pages that I don’t like the look of but people do.
Kara: Jon Miller, tell me about the parking story at AOL. Jon: Did I tell you about this? Ok. A month after I go to AOL, following the merger with Time Warner, I went to visit people. Visited a division of Time Warner and senior staff. Hostile vibe. I tried to defuse it with parable about what happens when your car gets towed in New York, and how the people who work in the car lot didn’t actually tow your car, so please don’t yell at them.
Kara: You were at Velocity, investing with Ross Levinsohn [who helped News Corp. with the original MySpace deal]. Why did you leave? Jon: I thought there was a big opportunity. Owen: “Jon told me it was so he could get comped at D.”
Walt: Can you make this work with just advertising? Jon: It’s the central question of our time in the media right now. Free vs. paid. Obviously consumers want everything to be free. Kara: “You’re a Communist.” Jon: Obviously that doesn’t work. “It’s pretty clear that there has to be some recognition of value.” And we’re starting to see that take shape. And there has to be recognition that different things have different value. If it’s all free or all ad-supported, it won’t work. Ask Jeff Zucker about that–he loves the cable business. The real question is how much, and who’s going to pay, and is it going to be bundled?
The gang draws parallels between the cable business (content plus access) and the old AOL (content plus access). Could that work somewhere else?
Jon: The $10 wholesale price for a CD isn’t coming back. Maybe it’s $6. Maybe it’s $8. Those changes put big pressure on that business. We’re not just going to come out of the recession and see everyone spend the same money they used to spend.

Kara: Back to MySpace. What happened? You both were up for Jon’s job, correct? [Pause]. Jon: “I just interviewed by myself.”
Owen: MySpace is a really big site. Of course I’d want that job. I like building things. I built houses in high school in Palo Alto. At MySpace, there’s such opportunity to build.
Kara: You were at Facebook, left Facebook, went surfing, then Playlist, then this. Is there a connection?
Owen: I’ve always liked social networking. Was at a start-up that got bought by Amazon (AMZN). Facebook vs. MySpace: Fundamentally different. MySpace focused on a platform that allows people to be super-creative. Music is a big thing on MySpace. 550,000 people are friends with Green Day. Consuming their albums. We sponsored a secret show. Jon went and scared the band.
Walt: My kids are musicians and have pages on MySpace. I asked them, and they say they never go there, except to promote the band. They’re both on Facebook and they both Twitter. Is MySpace too closely linked to music, too narrowly branded? Or is that a big advantage?
Music’s a huge advantage. We have joint ventures with the major labels. But video is a big advantage, too. My job is to bring teams together to figure out what people are doing, and give them the right tools, and if they’re not using it, figure out why or stop doing it.
Jon: People only change their behavior for a few reasons. One is music. I also think what’s interesting about the Web is you can nail something for a single group, and it can broaden out. For MySpace that was music, and for Facebook that was college.
Walt: People think all these social networks are for kids. But do you want to aim at a single age group?
Owen: We have 130 million uniques. But we need to core down and heavy up where you have traction. And we need to focus on younger demographic.
Is Facebook a competitor? Jon: Yes. But so is everything else. So is Twitter. Walt: Seems like these things naturally evolve from one site to another. How can you recapture that excitement from a few years ago? Owen: We already have 130 million people coming to the site every day. If we can excite them with new products, that can happen.

Owen refuses to disclose super-secret disruption plan? Not saying, even though Kara threatens to touch Owen’s knee, Bartz-style.
Jon sings the praises of innovation and liberating employees to let them be more entrepreneurial so they can iterate. There are some recurring buzzwords here.
Walt wants to know if there are ways to monetize MySpace that haven’t been tried. Jon: In advertising, it means a lot of things. Premium, performance, search, etc. We’ll have things like targeting, and micropayments, and we’ll be able to introduce subscriptions for some products.
Kara: What’s up with the Google (GOOG) deal? Owen: It’s important, but it’s not the majority of our revenue. Also, it’s half over. So we need to be heads-down focused on our own site. With these long-term deals, you need to figure out how to make them work. This is no different. The most important thing is how is Google going to feel at the end of this partnership?
Jon: When it comes time to negotiate, one thing to think about is whether we could do an overall deal with Google that wraps in more News Corp. properties.
Q&A: Sorry, missed the first question. The second question is yet another one from Mark Glaser, who is popping off at every one of these. He wants to know why MySpace is so loud and garish.

Owen: I don’t like a lot of the loud stuff either, so we need to work on personalization.
Kara: What about Facebook’s fascist approach, where it works the same for everyone?
Owen: We are going to look different and feel different than everyone else, and that’s good.
Jon: The tendency when you fall behind in product areas is to think that you have to catch up by checking boxes. I think that’s wrong. You should leapfrog and focus on emerging behaviors, and go for the big moves. Question: Lessons from AOL? Jon: Yes. Everything I did I should have done faster and sooner.
Ethan Smith from The Wall Street Journal wants to know about music and MySpace. I don’t quite follow it. Oh, it’s about labels complaining about that they’re not making enough money from MySpace. Edgar Bronfman Jr. is the most vocal here. Owen: I’ve talked to Edgar and it’s a complex partnership, and we’re figuring things out together, just like Google.
Quentin Hardy from Forbes wants to know about organizational behavior theory. Jon: Keep market-facing. That’s the No. 1 thing. It must also be metrics-driven. You have to know how your stuff is being consumed, by whom and how they’re doing it. Once you start doing that, you’ve got a shot. You also have to make sure you’re looking at the right metrics. Page views, for instance, may be the wrong metric, if generating page views upsets your customers.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as we were able. It was not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

Portfolio Lives! Sort Of: Web Site Adopted by Condé Nast's Corporate Cousin.

Peter Kafka — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:46:03 +0000

Never say never: Condé Nast, which is closing down its Portfolio business magazine, has decided not to turn off the lights at Portfolio.com. Instead, it is shifting control of the Web site–essentially, the Portfolio.com address and a couple years of archived content–over to American City Business Journals, its corporate cousin in the Advance Publications family.

Plans for the move were first reported yesterday by the New York Observer.

The swap is really a testament to the power of Google (GOOG) and the long-tail theory: Even though Condé had been running Portfolio.com with a skeleton crew since the beginning of the year, the site was still generating four to five million page views a month, primarily because of search queries, says Condé Nast Group President David Carey. So that alone made Portfolio.com worth saving.

It will now serve as the central hub for ACBJ, a collection of 40 local business publications (including one I used to work for many moons ago). But it won’t just be an aggregator, insists ACBJ President Tim Bradbury. He intends to rebuild the site’s staff–he’s keeping two of the last Portfolio.com employees and intends to launch with a full-time editorial staff of five, plus freelancers–and pump out new content.

Bradbury says he’d “like to get the old band back together,” but I’m not sure exactly what that means. In the last few months of Portfolio.com’s life, the site was essentially a blogging platform for the excellent duo of Felix Salmon, who covered finance, and Jeff Bercovici, who covered media. But Salmon jumped ship for Reuters prior to the shutdown, so he’s presumably locked up. No word on Bercovici’s plans. But even if Bradbury can’t get those two back on board, I’m guessing there’s no shortage of applicants for full-time and contract slots.

Here’s the release:

New York, NY, May 20, 2009 – Portfolio.com will become part of the American City Business Journal’s bizjournals.com effective in July, it was announced today by Tim Bradbury, President, American City Business Journals, New Media, (ACBJ) and David Carey, Group President, Condé Nast. ACBJ and Condé Nast are units of Advance Publications.

Bizjournals.com will oversee both the editorial and business sides of the site. The Portfolio.com editorial team and sales staff will be based in New York. In addition to newly created content, the site will share content with other Condé Nast sites including Wired.com, GolfDigest.com, and WWD.com, as it did previously. The site will also be the home of the archives of all the popular content published by Portfolio’s print and digital properties over the last two years.

“We are excited about continuing Portfolio.com and including the site in the bizjournals network because we were impressed by Portfolio’s strong web presence, its clean and crisp design, and its voice in the business journalism marketplace,” Tim Bradbury, President, American City Business Journals, New Media said. “We believe our readers will benefit as the re-launched Portfolio.com will have a stronger focus on industry news and a greater mission to offer information relevant to today’s business professionals.”

On top of its existing strengths, Portfolio.com will be able to leverage the collaborative skills and insights of the more than 600 ACBJ business journalists around the country. The site now will have access to local market intelligence and work collaboratively with ACBJ newsrooms across the country, presenting the most important local insights through a national lens and making it unique among national business media.

“We knew that Portfolio.com was a highly valuable asset, with an established digital brand, strong direct navigation by users, and a solid long tail of traffic from content published over the past two years,” David Carey, Group President, Condé Nast said. “We saw ACBJ as a perfect match due to its great editorial resources in the business arena, and view this as a win for both Portfolio.com’s readers and the company.”

Condé Nast Portfolio magazine and its website Portfolio.com, launched in April 2007 and the magazine closed in April 2009. The site provided insight into the day’s top business stories, with analysis from bloggers and columnists. During those two years Portfolio.com grew to 2.8 million monthly uniques and won industry praise with awards such as the MIN: Best of Web 2008, MIN: Hottest Launch of the Year 2007, WebAward: Outstanding Achievement in Website Development 2007, and Webby nominees in Best Business blog and Financial Services categories.

Ask CEO Might Want to Look Up Definition of "Innovation" in the Dictionary.com

John Paczkowski — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:57:37 +0000

In case you were wondering, Ask.com (IACI) is committed to becoming a viable competitor in a market overwhelmingly dominated by Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

It has not, as CEO Jim Safka vehemently points out in an interview with Forbes today, ceded the search battle to anyone. “It’s horses–t,” he told Forbes.com. “It’s categorically not true. We’re more committed to our algorithm and engineers than ever. While Yahoo and Microsoft are paralyzed by trying to figure out what’s happening to their companies, we’re trying to figure out what’s next in search. You’re going to see more innovation coming out of Ask then ever before.”

The first evidence of that “innovation”? Ask’s acquisition of that paragon of innovation Lexico Publishing Group LLC, the owner of Dictionary.com, Thesaurus.com and Reference.com. With Lexico’s properties in its pocket, Ask expects to expand its audience to more than 145 million unique monthly users–an increase that the company claims would make it the ninth-largest Web property globally. Whether the company means among all users or just married women primarily living in the South and the Midwest remains to be seen …

Ask CEO Might Want to Look Up Definition of "Innovation" in the Dictionary.com

John Paczkowski — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:57:37 +0000

In case you were wondering, Ask.com (IACI) is committed to becoming a viable competitor in a market overwhelmingly dominated by Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

CNetBS

John Paczkowski — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:05:22 +0000

The leadership of CNET Networks Inc. (“CNET” or the “Company”) has presided over massive value destruction, with CNET’s shares declining (21)%, (52)% and (25)% in the one, two and three year periods ended March 28, 2008, respectively, compared to (1)%, 6% and 39% returns, respectively, for its stated benchmark peer index. CNET has also consistently underperformed numerous peers in profitability and growth, ranking last among these peers in key metrics, as set forth herein. This underperformance comes despite CNET’s premiere assets, including the tenth largest collection of Internet sites in the world and strong brands and content.”

–Jana Partners, CNET: Value-Unlocking Change for All Shareholders

“The Stars’ Address is CBS.” And now it is CNET Networks’ (CNET) as well. CBS this morning said it agreed to buy the Internet news and entertainment laggard for $1.8 billion in cash. The deal values CNET at about $11.50 per share–a 44.6% premium to yesterday’s closing price of $7.95. That’s $.50 more than the $11 Jana Partners, the investment management firm plotting a proxy fight for control of the company’s board, had hoped to squeeze out of CNET, so presumably even dissident investors are glad to see CBS (CBS) stepping in here.

The deal, expected to close in the third quarter, will vault CBS into the top 10 Internet companies in the United States, with a combined 54 million unique visitors monthly, and about 200 million visitors worldwide. CBS CEO Les Moonves says he expects interactive revenues to hit $1 billion by 2010. “I think the ability of this company to grow together with us just made sense for right now,” Moonves told paidContent. “We’ve stated our goals are to expand in three areas: content, Internet and outdoor. This accomplished two of the three.”

MSFT to YHOO: It's Always Tease, Tease, Tease

John Paczkowski — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:00:32 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

MSFT to YHOO: It's Always Tease, Tease, Tease

John Paczkowski — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:00:32 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Let's Face It, AOL's Not Exactly the Cartier of Web Brands

John Paczkowski — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:14:52 +0000

AOL’s ad revenue may be “falling off a cliff,” according to CNBC’s David Faber, but its traffic’s not half bad. AOL (TWX) said today that page views to its Web sites hit an all-time high in March, according to comScore (SCOR) Media Metrix. Page views grew 28% during the month, and are up 35% year-over-year. Unique visitors rose 11% year-over-year to 56.5 million.

AOL attributes the double-digit growth to a year-long redesign and rebranding effort, which ironically included a de-emphasizing of the AOL brand. “If I call a hip-hop site AOL Hip Hop,” said Bill Wilson, executive vice president of AOL Vertical Programming, “that just won’t resonate with consumers.”

Let's Face It, AOL's Not Exactly the Cartier of Web Brands

John Paczkowski — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:14:52 +0000

It's a Holiday in Zuckerburbia; It's Tough, Kid, But It's Life …

John Paczkowski — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:00:31 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

It's a Holiday in Zuckerburbia; It's Tough, Kid, But It's Life …

John Paczkowski — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:00:31 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Join the 'I Can't Wait to Get the Hell out of the Zuckerburbs' Network?

John Paczkowski — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:46:04 +0000

Well what do you know: the media buzz around Facebook doesn’t quite correlate with the site’s usage metrics. According to September comScore data, Zuckerburbia suffered a noticeable decline in unique visitors and page views both. Uniques are down 9.3%, page views 3.8%–this during a back-to-school month in which we should have seen both numbers spike.

What’s going on here? Who knows. But it might be time for the company to stop reading its press and start thinking seriously about taking some of the cash being flashed its way.

“Facebook has an enormous opportunity, and if the company doesn’t blow it, it could be worth every bit of $15 billion,” writes Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget. “Part of not blowing it, however, means playing the odds, and when investors are literally begging you to take their cash (as they appear to be), the odds almost always favor taking some of it. Why? Because the economy might weaken tomorrow, taking Internet advertising spending down with it. Because a competitor might develop an interesting solution that [CEO Mark] Zuckerberg might want to buy. Because the stock market might crash, converting Facebook’s $15 billion valuation into $5 billion (or less). Because Zuckerberg might do something stupid (sorry–this has to be considered a possibility). Because in all of these cases and more, it would be nice to have $500 million in the bank.”

Join the 'I Can't Wait to Get the Hell out of the Zuckerburbs' Network?

John Paczkowski — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:46:04 +0000

What’s going on here? Who knows. But it might be time for the company to stop reading its press and start thinking seriously about taking some of the cash being flashed its way.