AOL returns to the green, green grass of home

Time Warner confirmed today that it will spin off AOL as a stand-alone public company at the end of the year. So endeth one of the more notable chapters in the history of the Internet, so far.

What can be said about this AOL/Time Warner experiment? Well, it didn’t work. Could it have worked? Perhaps, but it was sabotaged by arrogance and mistrust on both sides from the beginning. Ambitious combinations such as AOL and Time Warner don’t always fail because the strategic concepts are ill-conceived; they fail because of jealous rivalries and pedestrian concerns at the grassroots – essentially, turf wars. In that regard, I am very interested to see the scything motion that Tim Armstrong has been using since assuming control of AOL. It may imply that he recognizes the first order of business is to cut-out the entrenched positions that have been holding-up the successful integration of AOL acquisitions and, hence, its business. It could also mean that he’s layering in Google’s entrenched positions, which will make for a very complex business environment at AOL, indeed.

But, could AOL and Time Warner have ever worked as a combo if human entanglements did not exist? Recall that at the time the merger took place AOL was still largely a gated content community. In that respect, AOL looked more like Time Warner than it does today. All its life, in fact, AOL - along with most other early Internet players – had probably dreamed of growing-up to be just like Time Warner, though digital. AOL saw in Time Warner all of its ambitions as a child. Time Warner, in return, saw in AOL its legacy and someone to care for it in old age. As media faithful, AOL and Time Warner shared a similar creed when they joined in 2000 and 2001.

If faith in the established media order of the time were to have been rewarded then, yes, perhaps AOL Time Warner might have succeeded in overcoming the usual obstacles of smashing businesses together and, today, represent the standard that currently belongs to Google.  But faith in old media models – gated communities – has not been rewarded, at least to the extent that those models should prevail over others.

AOL, ironically, had nothing to teach Time Warner at the time they merged. It wanted too much to be Time Warner (and no one inside that organization was going to let it). It’s different, today, and AOL probably has very much it could teach Time Warner; but the listening stopped long ago.

It is a good thing for both sides that this experiment has, thus, come to an end, and it may be a good thing for the media world generally to have AOL back grazing on the digital side of the fence, a somewhat older and wiser, senior member of the herd.  The grass is green enough on our side of the fence and, ultimately, as the song goes, there is no place like the green, green grass of home.

More online video logic.

More on the online video proposition, to go along with the earlier post in this space, from Avi Savar of Big Fuel today in ADOTAS. Says Avi,

“Donʼt make it an ad. If a video feels like an ad, viewers wonʼt share it unless itʼs truly amazing. However, if you give them content they want and find valuable, they are always willing to listen to your brand message. The key is integration of the brand message and how natural it feels to the content.”

And,

“And for how long the video needs to be, no more than 2-3 minutes depending on content. Or make it short: 15-30 seconds is ideal; break down long stories into bite-sized clips.”

May I add that I love the Big Fuel Communications URL, which is, Contenttocommerce.com.

Thinking about online video? Think short.

Recalling a post in this space last February, “Is Hulu like TV?”, Online Media Daily reported on new research that consumers do not use the Internet like television. Based on pretty good sample sizes, independent analyst, Bruce Leichtman, found that only 8% of respondents said they use the Internet to watch re-purposed TV shows. Most people watch video in smaller, short form segments online, whether news or sports or user-generated content. Ultimately, only 3% of adults said they would consider disconnecting their TV in favor of the Internet to watch their programs.

In juxtaposition to Mr. Leichtman’s research, the New York Times had a piece over the weekend on the astonishing online video trajectory of Susan Boyle, the homely “Britain’s Got Talent” performer that delivered a blow for the forces of goodness and light when she debuted on the show several weeks ago and became an extra-ordinary pop sensation. According to The Time’s report, her April video singing “I dreamed a dream” has been viewed 220 million times. Only three videos have ever received more clicks, says Visible Measures, a company quoted in the story.

These two stories should be viewed side-by-side. One says, look, I like TV for what it gives me: the chance to sit with my feet up and a bag of potato chips enjoying a program with my partner/children/roommate. During the commercials we talk about what everyone did that day. The other says, look, I like the Internet because without it I’d never have known about this Susan Boyle woman, and it made me glad to know that really good things still happen in life (without having to sift through days and weeks of programming). We can define the media experience of each in a variety of ways: one is passive and one is active; one is about shared experiences and one is about shared discoveries. Both cater to our social instincts. One is truly global.

But, they are different and will probably stay different because consumers will keep them for different uses. The frustrating part, of course, is that the advertising industry can’t decide how to take advantage of the Internet video piece – which is the 220 million views piece in the Susan Boyle example.

There are legitimate content rights issues in connection with opportunities such as Susan Boyle’s appearance on “Britain’s Got Talent.” We can’t help with that problem from here. But pretending that how the money gets divided does not remain an issue, what should the Internet industry do to position its particular brand of video opportunity?

Think short. Then, think big. The Internet is about segments and slices of content reached through countless entry points. YouTube and Hulu are successful aggregators of video content segments, but to create a viable ad model online video needs distribution. Distributing television style programming won’t scale and won’t cater to the uses and desires of the Internet audience. But delivering short form videos will: “How to” videos, such as home repair and recipes, movie trailers, TV excerpts, music videos, stupid pet tricks, etc.

It follows that with distribution will come context: video content will seek its own levels. With context will come the advertising rationale and – we hope – user acceptance of the associated ad models, such as pre-roll. The key is to make video prevalent online and sensible with regards to how people use the Internet, which is frequently in parts and segments.

Ad Networks are not for the faint of heart

First, this disclaimer: Doug Wintz has worked closely with Burst’s adConductor business in the process of sourcing  and securing ad management solutions for his ad network customers. Doug is a customer and we think Doug is very smart for all the reasons that are on display in his iMedia piece today about starting your own ad network.  

This post is not about selling Doug more stuff, however. It is, actually, about the earlier post in this space about the hubris of the Internet, “Taking ourselves too seriously,” wherein the realities of the marketplace and the limits of technology to overcome them are discussed. Doug Wintz’s experience and his column today tell more of that story. So, you want to start your own ad network. Per Doug, what you need to know is that success is people-driven. It is about having the tools, but also the willingness to meet the needs of web publishers in your network. It is about customer service.

Customer service is the part that has foiled many online. It implies interaction, which implies middle-men, which some would rather have outlawed online in favor of strictly automated relationships. Have your computer call my computer. But that is not marketplace reality. In many respects – and perhaps ironically, but only because the industry has insisted on seeing it differently – the Internet is more people and relationship-driven than offline media, which is largely impersonal and impenetrable (have you written to an editor lately?). Web publishers are mostly people and not businesses, and their sense of self is correspondingly more acute. They want advocates and problem-solvers and response-givers. They want partners. For that reason entering the ad network business is not for the faint of heart, as Doug Wintz says.

Taking ourselves too seriously

In iMedia Connection today Daniel Flamberg shares some interesting thoughts on Google’s aborted dMarc radio experiment that may speak wisely to us all in the Internet business, which, for as long as I’ve been around it, has never been short on hubris and cocksureness. Daniel offers these observations re Google’s excellent radio adventure (below). Try substituting the the word “Internet” for Google to see how it compares. Best line: “Their belief in technology as the universal cure blinded them to the marketplace realities.”

1. Google is a large hungry bureaucracy. With shifting priorities and plenty of cash to burn on not-so-hot executions, they can afford to try and fail where others can’t. They skimped on the due diligence in vetting dMarc’s owners as partners. They didn’t talk to many radio guys at the outset and they didn’t take the time to listen. But in the end flushing $100 million is just a rounding error for Google which allows them to retreat without feeling the pain and probably without absorbing the lessons.

2. Google believes its own press. The bias toward doing it their way, their hubris about how things should be engineered and their complete unwillingness to listen to willing allies, adopt to market norms and nuances or sell the way buyers buy set them up for failure. The radio ad market was a de facto auction long before they showed up, but they refused to see it. This kind of “we know better” attitude is not unique in Silicon Valley or among high tech giants. But it suggests that in some cases they can’t get out of their own mindset or out of their own way.

3. Technology Uber Alles. They built and bought the component parts but they could [sic] get them to work together nor could they measure and report on sell-thru or the impact of the ads. Their belief in technology as the universal cure blinded them to the marketplace realities and deafened them to course corrections that could have produced an alternative outcome. 

Privacy is better left to the private sector

Capitalist tool, Forbes magazine, has two pieces on the virtues of leaving the issue of privacy to the private sector. Lee Gomes sets it up by writing about the “Hidden Costs of Privacy”and editor William Baldwin follows-through by commenting that the free markets will ultimately provide a more secure and efficient privacy solution (“Privacy for Sale”). Baldwin has a great line:

“There’s another cost to legislated privacy solutions, even when they work. They impede, so to speak, the body’s natural defenses. They slow down the innovation that the marketplace could bring to bear on the problem.”

When one considers what the private sector did to fix (eradicate?) the problem of pop-ups and spy-ware, Baldwin’s comments make abundant sense.

Defending data from regulation

As reported in Media Post today, there was good news for a sensible approach to the issue of online privacy courtesy of the Technology Policy Institute, which released a study that says nothing much can be gained for consumers or companies by increasing the amount of  privacy regulation online. As quoted in Media Post the study, ”In Defense of Data”, said:

“Regulation should be undertaken only if a market is not functioning properly and if the benefits of new measures outweigh their costs…Our analysis suggests that proposals to restrict the amount of information available would not yield net benefits for consumers.”

Right. And besides all that, the argument has been made before in this space that the conversation about online privacy seems totally detached from the presence of far more intrusive forms of data-driven marketing offline. Really, how many online ads are intruding on dinner hour at home at night? In comparison to some offline tactics, behavior targeting online is thoroughly benign. Thus, apart from the benefits that may exist, the dangers of anonymous data online should be measured againsts the dangers of more extreme data uses offline – and there don’t appear to be many. Offline data use is frequently a nuisance to consumers, but not typically a danger. Online data use is neither.

The medium is not the motivator

After many years I caught-up with Steve Greenberger yesterday, a distinguished media maven with many years of ad agency experience, particularly planning print.  We could have talked for hours about this and that. Speaking in particular about the performance pressure that continues to get placed on digital media Steve said, “We have to remember that the medium is not the motivator. The medium is the facilitator. Advertising is the motivator.”  

Wise words.

An Appellation Control for Engagement online

A piece by Tameka Kee in Paid Content yesterday about “engagement” brings back memories of when the industry use to talk about “stickiness.” Stickiness is what led Yahoo! to essentially hand-over its brand position as the leading search engine in favor of life as a content destination (eventually, “Portal”).

I fear the same slippery (sticky?) slope with regards to the issue of engagement, which is that there will be a sudden rash of contrivances designed to lure and hold audiences that then get sold to advertisers as the genuine article. I fear a sudden surge of engagement peddlers on every corner pushing pamphlets in my direction as I walk by.

Media engagement is found at the intersection of quality and relevance and should be allowed to happen with as little extra fiddling as possible. It does not necessarily add-up to time spent, described at one point in the Paid Content article as the “go-to metric.” Time spent in one place may be substantially less than time spent in another, but the audience engagement in both places may be the same. Take most of the blogs of the world today, for instance, including Paid Content, which are designed to offer news and content in short hits that make reasonable demands on a reader’s time. Frequency, if it is not the same as time spent, is equally important as a measure of engagement. Is Paid Content part of your daily routine? Or just an every now and then media event? Engagement is also about loyalty.

Engagement is one of the most important of media virtues, and exists in abundance online. Let’s avoid the fillers and additives this time, however, and make sure that what gets delivered to advertisers is the real engagement item.

New media for a new time.

Burst Media’s web site has a new look. Spend a minute with it and our primary business proposition should be clear: we work for quality web publishers that extend deep into the Long Tail. Not just large web sites, but also small web sites, with robust content and well-defined audiences. Thousands of them. Earnest, dedicated publishers that may begin as hobbyists and eventually quit their day job. Small business people with real business requirements, such as reliability, service and results.  Experts and enthusiasts, not simply observers and reporters. Mothers, doctors, builders, gamers, movie buffs, travelers, little-leaguers, dieters, humanitarians, vegetarians, programmers, teachers, fellow sufferers, and those who hope for wealth and glory.

Our  job is to represent the value of this army of writers and producers to advertisers in a way that makes the opportunity as compelling as any other media opportunity those advertisers could choose in order to achieve their results. We don’t pretend there is a solution for every advertising circumstance, but we insist there is a solution for every advertiser.

Ultimately, we want advertisers to see what’s “new”, in New Media, which is access to a staggering abundance of content that is guaranteed to be of relevant value to everyone on earth at the moment they require. Burst Media and it’s army of publishers will be there, at those moments and in those places, to offer advertisers the chance that has avoided them since people began to leave the farms and villages where they grew-up for the big city: timely, relevant, personal connections that create the new word of mouth in a global village era. It is new media for a new time.

Enjoy it.