Do You Grow with Market Shifts – or Slowly Lose Relevancy?  The Advertising Story

Do You Grow with Market Shifts – or Slowly Lose Relevancy? The Advertising Story

In 2020, internet ads will represent over 50% of all advertising money spent. Think about that factoid. An ad medium that wasn’t even important to the ad industry a decade ago now accounts for half of the industry. It took three years after the Dot Com bubble burst for internet advertising to hit bottom, but then it took off and hasn’t stopped growing.

An example of rapid, disruptive change. A market shift of tremendous proportions that has forever changed the media industry, and how we all consume both entertainment and news. Did you prepare for this shift? And is it helping you sell more stuff and make more money?

This was easy to predict. Seven years ago (12/10/12), I wrote “The Day TV Died.” The trend was unmistakable – eyeballs were going to the internet. And as eyeballs went digital, so did ads. These new, low cost ads were “democratizing” brand creation and allowing smaller companies to go direct to consumers with products and solutions like never before in history. It was ushering in a “golden age” for small businesses that took advantage.

However, small businesses – and large businesses – largely failed to adjust to these trends effectively. By 3/21/13 I pointed out in “Small Business Leaders Missing Digital/Mobile Revolution” that small businesses were continuing to rely on the least economical forms of media outreach – direct mail and print! They were biased toward what they knew how to do, and old metrics for media, instead of seizing the opportunity. Likewise, by 12/11/14 in “TV is Dying Yet Marketers Overspend on TV” I was able to demonstrate that the only thing keeping TV alive were ad price increases so big they made up for declining audiences. The leaders of big companies were biased toward the TV they knew, instead of the better performing and lower cost new internet media capabilities.

Three years ago (1/6/17), I pointed out in “Four Trends That Will Forever Change Media… and You” it was obvious that digital social media advertising was making a huge impact on everyone. Fast shifting eyeballs were being tracked by new technology, so ads were being purchased by robots to catch those eyeballs – and this meant fake news would be rampant as media sites sought eyeballs by any means. And Netflix was well on its way to becoming the Amazon of media with its own programs and competitive lead.

So the point? It was predictable all the way back in 2012 that digital media would soon dominate. This would change advertising, distribution and content. Now digital advertising is bigger than all other advertising COMBINED. Those who acted early would get a huge benefit (think Facebook/Instagram Path to Media Domination) while those who didn’t react would feel a huge hurt (newspapers, radio, broadcast TV, brick and mortar retail, large consumer goods companies that rely on high priced TV.) But did you take action? Did you take advantage of these trends to make your business bigger, stronger, more profitable, more relevant? Or are you still reacting to the market, struggling to understand changes and how they will impact your business?

The world continues to be a fast changing place. Mobile phones and social media will not go away – no matter what Congress, the UN or the EU regulators do. Global competition will grow, regardless what politicians say. Those who understand how these big trends create opportunities will find themselves more successful. Those who focus on the past, try to execute better with their old “core,” and rely on historical biases will find themselves slowly made irrelevant by those who use new technologies and solutions to offer customers greater need satisfaction. Which will you be? A laggard? Or a leader? Will you build on trends to grow – or slump off into obsolescence? The choice is yours.

10 Great Lessons From Millennial Entrepreneurs

10 Great Lessons From Millennial Entrepreneurs

There has been a lot of press about Millennial entrepreneurs the last 2 years. Young folks – mostly boys – dropping out of high school to start their own businesses at ages as young as 15. One of these, Noah Miller, who started a sports web site at 15 and later a creative agency asked to join my network on Linked-in. Then he asked me to look into the topic of young entrepreneurs and see what lessons we could learn.

Johnny Bravo- Look at Me

1 – If you are really good at something at a young age, continue to work at it

Ben Pasternak liked gaming, and he liked apps. So at 15 he wrote a game-like app and put it on iTunes. 1.3million downloads later he was a young superstar. Since then he’s created two more apps (Flogg and Monkey.) His young hobby led to building strong programming skills, which when linked to identifying what appeals to Millenials turned into apps people really use.

George Matus started flying drones at age 12. He loved it so much he started modifying drones, and building his own. He published videos of his exploits on YouTube, and convinced drone makers to let him be a tester. After 6 years of working on Drones he now has his own Peter Thiel funded company making drones. So far no products on the market, but he is working at it.

Whether iOS apps or drones will be a long-term career is hard to say. But by building strong skills in new technologies with large markets and high growth rates these fellows created business opportunities. You don’t have to be a Millenial to do that.

2 – Take advantage of trends while they are hot

Collecting sneakers is a remarkably big market. Most older folks would call it a fad, thinking nobody will collect sneakers for long. But, it doesn’t really matter if a trend is going to be long-lived, or not, if you are willing to jump in and help push the trend along.

Fifteen year old Ben Kapelushnik liked sneakers. He wanted money to buy more. So he started buying multiple pairs of collectible sneakers and selling the “extra” pairs at a profit. To grow he networked with sneaker sellers to figure out how he could get in line early and buy many pair. Then he networked hard as he could to find associations with big time sneaker collectors, like rappers and other creative artists. Now he has a business buying and selling sneakers. How long will the fad last? Who knows – but Ben is making money by taking advantage of a hot trend.

Connor O’Neil saw the same phenomenon. He thought “why don’t I go source things people want?” So he created a web site where buyers can request he source sneakers, T-shirts and other items. He then searches the web, sourcing the items manually and with bots that will make instantaneous purchases of hard to find items.  He charges customers a fee to find what they want. By meeting customer needs for trendy items, he finds an opportunity for profit.

At 16 Casey Adams started networking on Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter and other social media.  After he built up a following of several thousand followers he began offering them t-shirts and wristbands.  Pretty soon he was generating $5k/month in revenue.  While many older folks still think social media, and Snapchat in particular, is a time-waster, Casey is making money on the obvious trend toward all things social.  He’s leveraging his social network to sell things – and teaching other people how to do the same.

Are Bitcoins long-term currency? Will crypto-currency replace things like Dollars and Euros? Most older generation folks don’t think so, and view this as another fad.  But Erik Finman saw the trend at age 12, and started buying Bitcoins.  A few trades later and he turned $1,000 into $100,000.  A few more trades and Finman had a stash worth over $1,000,000.  Are Bitcoins the next Tulip bulbs?  You can research the economists for opinions on that.  But as long as the trend is growing, Erik Finman is making money.

bitcoins
facebook ad and teen

Peter Szabo was only 12 when he used a Google search to identify ways to make money on the internet.  He discovered making Facebook ads for affiliates could pay off – in pennies at first, but as volume rose these became dollars.  Since so few older people knew how to manage a Facebook ad budget, by age 18 he created an on-line agency focused on maximizing value (and return) for Facebook advertising.  You don’t have to be a Millennial to recognize the growth of new platforms and help people use them to make money.

3 – There has never been a better time to be a self-promoter

Today anyone can claim to be “great” at anything using the web.  There are so few genuine ways to measure quality and results when it comes to anything on the web that if you say it enough, and find enough testimonials, you can be very convincing.

Noah Miller started a sports web site at age 15 using a group of writers he amassed via Twitter connections.  Sports Crave had some success with USAToday and Google before Noah closed it at age 17.  Based on his claims of great success he’s now promoting his new creative agency, Colour Medium, which has nothing more than a flash page.  But the web allows Noah to position himself at the forefront of creative.

Benji Taylor at age 18 has opened a new on-line creative agency named Next Exit focused on art for the music industry.  By forging relationships with known young musicians he has positioned his agency at the top of the creative spectrum for his target customers.  Given how fast musicians come and go in the limelight, who knows how long his testimonials will stand up.  But as long as people know the name of those who know his name he is leveraging those associations to crown himself the king of that industry.

 

Eighteen year old Josh King Madrid, known as Jet, has built a business on seemingly nothing more than a lifestyle.  It is wholly unclear if Jet has ever actually created a profitable business selling anything physical or digital.  But what he has done is convince lots of Millenials that he knows the lifestyle they want to lead, and he can tell them how to lead it.  So now, largely without any clear source of how he obtained any knowledge about succeeding at business, he is proselytizing how young people can be independent, self-actualized and living the “Jet Set” lifestyle at his events.  Jet is one of the best descriptions of how self-promotion can succeed in today’s social-media world, leading people to believe they should listen to you primarily because of the image you portray.

Overall Lessons from these 10 under 20 entrepreneurs

There is precious little to support the grandiose success claims of most Millennial entrepreneurs.  They claim huge revenues and wealth, but in most cases it is impossible to prove their claims, and most support comes down to number of followers, or testimonials of some celebrity.  But, that does not mean we can’t learn from what they did to achieve their current fame:

  1. Use social media exhaustively.  Over-communicate.  Use Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. over and over and over to communicate your value and your message.  These platforms are dirt cheap, so hard work there can make up for few dollars.
  2. Take big risks, especially if you have little to lose.  Most folks are hamstrung by the commitments of family, mortgage, car payments, etc.  If you remove these bindings you can take big risks, like rolling over thousands of dollars worth of crypto-currency.  And if something fails, never call it a failure.  Just a learning experience you’ve moved beyond.
  3. Don’t try to improve something that already exists.  Do something new.  Develop a new app, a new drone, a site focused on selling collectible sneakers.  It is cheaper, and more likely to succeed, if you are an early entrant in something new and growing.
  4. Hype is good.  Pre-announce everything.  And announce that your next thing (whether a drone, a web site, an exchange site or something else) is going to be HUGE.  It will be the VERY BEST EVER.  Do not be deterred by feeling the need to prove any of your claims, just make big claims with tremendous bravado.
  5. Take credit for anything that goes right.  None of these people ever say they were lucky.  Whatever went right was always do to their inherent insight, skill or genius.
  6. Stay out of specifics.  Talk in platitudes.  Especially statements that appeal to other Millenials.
  • “Live your own life if you want to succeed.”
  • “Believe in yourself 1,000%.  That’s what truly matters.”
  • “Don’t trust employers or education. Trust only yourself.”
  • “Self-education is better than schools.  You can learn more on YouTube than any classroom. Teachers are nay-sayers.”
  • “Do what you are passionate about.”
  • “Millennials are special.  Millennials are smarter and better than older people.”
  1. Select good parents.  I was struck by the fact that almost all these young people had parents and/or grandparents that were physicians, PhDs, successful real estate developers, successful business people.   There is no doubt they benefited at their young age from families that had resources and skills that are not available to the vast majority of folks.

Is ongoing success pre-ordained?

I remember the student counsel President of my school, Mr. Popularity, who dropped out of college to open a string of pizza shops.  He received ample praise and publicity for his young entrepreneurial success.  But after a few setbacks the pizza shops failed, he took work as a salesman for a liquor distributor, became an alcoholic and lost his family.  I was glad he found success early, and saddened that he wasn’t the wunderkind many people foisted upon him.

Life is not a one round fight.  It will be interesting to see who among these, if any, go on to do great things in business, politics or another arena.  While they are full of chutzpah today, life has a way of throwing many derailing curves into everyone’s path.  But…

…that does not mean their early success can’t teach us some important lessons that can be applied, regardless of our age.

Facebook – The One Stock to Own in 2014

Facebook – The One Stock to Own in 2014

Most investors really aren’t. They are traders.  They sell too fast, and make too many transactions.  That’s why most small “investors” don’t do as well as the market averages.  In fact, most don’t even do as well as if they simply put money into certificates of deposit or treasury bills.

I subscribe to the idea you should be able to invest in a company, and then simply forget about it.  Whether you invest $10 or $100,000, you should feel confident when you buy a stock that you won’t touch it for 3, 5 or even 10 years.  Let the traders deal with volatility, just wait and let the company do its thing and go up in value.  Then sometime down the road sell it for a multiple of what you paid.

That means investing in big trends.  Find a trend that is long-lasting, perhaps permanent, and invest in the leader.  Then let the trend do all the work for you.

Imagine you bought AT&T in the 1950s as communication was about to proliferate and phones went into every business and home.  Or IBM in the 1960s as computer technology overtook slide rules, manual databases and bookkeeping.  Microsoft in the 1980s as personal computers became commonplace.  Oracle in the 1990s as applications were built on relational databases.  Google, Amazon and Apple in the last decade as people first moved to the internet in droves, and as mobile computing became the next “big thing.”

In each case investors put their money in a big trend, and invested in a leader far ahead of competitors with a strong management team and product pipeline.  Then they could forget about it for a few years.  All of these went up and down, but over time the vicissitudes were obliterated by long-term gains.

Today the biggest trend is social media.  While many people still decry its use, there is no doubt that social media platforms are becoming commonplace in how we communicate, look for information, share information and get a lot of things done.  People inherently like to be social; like to communicate.  They trust referrals and comments from other people a lot more than they trust an ad – and often more than they trust conventional media.  Social media is the proverbial fast flowing river, and getting in that boat is going to take you to a higher value destination.

And the big leader in this trend is Facebook.  Although investors were plenty upset when Facebook tumbled after its IPO in 2012, if you had simply bought then, and kept buying a bit each quarter, you’d already be well up on your investment.  Almost any purchase made in the first 12 months after the IPO would now have a value 2 to 3 times the acquisition price – so a 100% to 200% return.

But, things are just getting started for Facebook, and it would be wrong to think Facebook has peaked.

Few people realize that Facebook became a $5B revenue company in 2012 – growing revenue 20X in 4 years.  And revenue has been growing at 150% per year since reaching $1B.  That’s the benefit of being on the “big trend.”  Revenues can grow really, really, really fast.

And the market growth is far from slowing.  In 2013 the number of U.S. adults using Facebook grew to 71% from 67% in 2012.  And that is 3.5 times as often as they used Linked-In or Twitter (22% and 18%.)  And Facebook is not U.S. user dependent.  Europe, Asia and Rest-of-World have even more users than the USAROW is 33% bigger than the USA, and Facebook is far from achieving saturation in these much higher population markets.

Advertisers desiring to influence these users increased their budgets 40% in 2013.  And that is sure to grow as users and their interactions climb. According to Shareaholic, over 10% of all internet referrals come from Facebook, up from 7% share of market the previous year.  This is 10 times the referral level of Twitter (1%) and 100 times the levels of Linked in and Google+ (less than .1% each.)  Thus, if an advertiser wants to users to go to its products Facebook is clearly the place to be.

Facebook acquires more of these ad dollars than all of its competition combined (57% share of market,) and is 4 times bigger than competitors Twitter and YouTube (a Google business.)  The list of Grade A advertisers is long, including companies such as Samsung ($100million,) Proctor & Gamble ($60million,) Microsoft ($35million,) Amazon, Nestle, Unilever, American Express, Visa, Mastercard and Coke – just to name a few.

And Facebook has a lot of room to grow the spending by these companies.  Google, the internet’s largest ad revenue generator, achieves $80 of ad revenue per user.  Facebook only brings in $13/user – less than Yahoo ($18/user.)  So the opportunity for advertisers to reach users more often alone is a 6x revenue potential – even if the number of users wasn’t growing.

But on top of Facebook’s “core” growth there are new revenue sources.  Since buying revenue-free Instagram, Facebook has turned it into what Evercore analysts estimate will be a $340M revenue in 2014. And as its user growth continues revenue is sure to be even larger in future years.

Even a larger opportunity for growth is the 2013 launched Facebook Ad Exchange (FBX) which is a powerful tool for remarketing unused digital ad space and targeting user behavior – even in mid-purchase. According to BusinessInsider.com FBX already sells to advertisers millions of ads every second – and delivers up billions of impressions daily.  All of which is happening in real-time, allowing for exponential growth as Facebook and advertisers learn how to help people use social media to make better purchase decisions.  FBX is currently only a small fraction of Facebook revenue.

Stock investing can seem like finding a needle in a haystack.  Especially to small investors who have little time to do research.  Instead of looking for needles, make investing easier.  Eschew complicated mathematical approaches, deep portfolio theory and reams of analyst reports and spreadsheets.  Invest in big trends that are growing, and the leaders building insurmountable market positions.

In 2014, that means buy Facebook.   Then see where your returns are in 2017.

2 Losers Don’t make a Winner – Ignore Yahoo and AOL


Summary:

  • Creating value requires growth, not cost reductions
  • Yahoo and AOL have no growth, and no new market development plans
  • Yahoo and AOL lack the resources to battle existing competitors Google and Apple
  • Don’t invest in Yahoo or AOL individually, or if they merge
  • Companies that generate high valuation, like Apple, do so by pioneering new markets with new products where they generate growth in revenue, profits and cash flow

Rumors have been swirling about Yahoo! and AOL merging – and Monday’s refresh led to about a 2% gain in the former, and 4% gain in the latter. But unless you’re a day trader, why would you care? Merging two failing companies does not create a more successful progeny.

AOL had a great past.  But since the days of dial-up, the value proposition has been hard to discern.  What innovations has AOL brought to market the last 2 years?  What new technologies is AOL championing?  What White Space projects are being trumpeted that will lead to new capabilities for web users if they purchase AOL products? 

And the same is true for Yahoo!  Although an early pioneer in on-line advertising, and to this day the location of many computer user’s browser home page, what has Yahoo! brought to market the last 2 years?  In the search market, on-line content management, browser technology and internet ad placement the game has fully gone to competitor Google.  Although the new CEO, Ms. Bartz, was brought in to much fanfare, there’s been nothing really new brought forward.  And we don’t hear about any new projects in the company designed to pioneer some new market.

And from this merger, where would the cash be created to fight against the likes of Google and Apple?  Unless one of these companies has a silver bullet, the competitors’ war chests assures “game over” for these two.

Sure, merging the two would likely lead to some capability to cut administrative costs.  But is that how you create value for an internet company?  What creates value is developing new markets – like AOL did when it brought millions of people to the internet for the first time.  And like Yahoo! did with its pioneering products delivering news, and placing ads for companies.  But since both companies have lost the willingness, capability and resources to develop new markets and products they’ve been unable to grow revenues and cash flow.  The road to prosperity most assuredly does not lie in “synergistic cost reductions” across administration, selling and product development for these two market laggards.

The reason Apple is skyrocketing in value is because it has pioneered new markets.  And produced enough cash to buy both these companies – if there was any value in them.  SeekingAlpha.com lays out the case for almost 100million iPad sales, and a lot more iPhones, in “What Could Justify a $500 Apple Stock Price.”  But beyond selling more of what it’s pioneered, Apple has not stopped pioneering new markets.  Another SeekingAlpha article points out the likelihood of Apple making video chat something people will really want to use, now that it can be done on mobile devices like iPads and iPhones, in “Apple’s Future Revenue Driver: FaceTime.”  It’s because Apple has the one-two punch of growing the markets it has pioneered while simultaneously developing new markets that makes it worth so much.

If you’ve been thinking a merged Yahoo/AOL is a value play – well think again.  Both companies are well into the swamp of declining returns.  So focused on fighting off the alligators and mosquitos trying to eat them that they long ago forgot their mission was to create new markets with new products that could carry them out of the low-growth swamp.  Sell both, if you haven’t already, and don’t look back.  Whether you take a loss or gain, at least you’ll leave with some money.  The longer you stay with these companies the less they’ll be worth, because neither has a sail of any kind to catch any growth wind.

Apple at $500 might sound crazy – but it’s a better bet than hoping to make any money in the individual, or merged, old-guard companies.  They don’t have the cash, nor the cash flow, to drive new solutions.  And that’s how value is created. 

 

Another troubling indicator – Why Microsoft is looking like GM

A typical headline from last week read "Microsoft, Yahoo to Begin Joint Assault on Google".  After a year of negotiating, the behemoth Microsoft finally came up with an accord to get some Yahoo technology in order to be more effective with its search engine product.  "Microsoft to Tap 400 Yahoo Workers in Partnership" is the Marketwatch headline today trumpeting the plan to bring Yahoo engineers to Microsoft.

Will it make a difference?  If we look at the trend, it looks doubtful (slide courtesy Silicon Alley Insider):
Search share

Of course, lots of folks think this isn't a very good idea.  (Cartoon Courtesy DenverPost.com):

MSFT.YHOO merger comic

As John Dvorak pointed out in his column: "Microsoft and Yahoo Bring Google Good News."  After all, the Google's competitors just went from 2 to 1 – a 50% reduction.  What's more, the remaining player is not known for expertise in internet technology – merely its money hoard.  Moreover, when it used its money hoard in the past it has rarely (never?) resulted in a success.  No wonder BusinessWeek headlined "Microsoft and Yahoo:  Too Little, Too Late, Too Hyped."

What's more intriguing to me is what this deal says about Microsoft.  The company has already missed the market shift in search and ad placement.  Search is "yesterday's news".  Microsoft is still trying to fight the last war, not the next one.  As it has done far too often, Microsoft remained Locked-in to its old Success Formula — all about the desktop and personal computing.  It has not been part of the market shift to new applications and new ways of personal automation.  That has been going to RIM, Apple, Oracle and other players.  Microsoft has sat on its market share in the old market, piled up cash, but not taken the actions to be a winner in the next market – the next battle for growth.  Now it's joint venture with Yahoo will strip out engineers, attempt to convert them to Microsoft ways of thinking, and put them into battle with not only the largest player in search and on-line ad placement – but the only one making money.  And the one introducing new technologies and products on a regular basis.

Someone asked me last week "Who's the next GM?"  I think they meant "who's the next big bankruptcy."  But the better question here is "Who's the giant company that everyone thinks is competitively insurmountable, but at great risk of falling from market leadership into the Whirlpool – and eventual bankruptcy?"  To that I say keep your eyes on Microsoft.

The comparisons between Microsoft and GM are striking:

  • Early market leaders
  • Developed near monopolies
  • Challenged by the trust busters
  • Created very high growth rates and huge cash hoards
  • Considered a great place to work, with great longevity
  • Bought up competitors
  • Bought up technologies, and often never took them to market
  • Became arrogant to customers
  • Implemented a strong Success Formula that everyone was expected to follow
  • Strong leaders that kept the companies "focused"
  • Dominated their local geography as employers
  • Tended to talk a lot about their past, and how what they've previously accomplished
  • Tended to ignore competitors
  • Avoided Disruptions – late to market with every product.  Tried using marketing and money to succeed rather than being first with great products and solutions
  • Never allowed White Space to develop anything new

This joint venture is not White Space.  Microsoft may want to be in Search and ad sales, but the company is still relying on its old business to "carry it through."  They have ignored Google and other competitors, and are trying to use the old Success Formula to compete with a much nimbler and more market-attuned competitor.  They have ignored Disruptive innovations, and not developed any new solutions themselves.  They have refused to allow White Space to develop new solutions for shifting market needs – instead trying to push the market to buy their solutions based on old ways of doing business.  Don't forget that MSN and it's search engine have been in the market since the beginning – it's not like they just woke up to discover the market existed.  Rather, they just started hinting that maybe, after 15 years of failing, they aren't doing the right things.

If you still own Microsoft stock, I predict a really bumpy ride.  They won't go bankrupt soon.  But GM spent 30 years going sideways for investors before finally going bankrupt.  That looks like the future at Microsoft.  If you're a vendor, expect poor returns to create a procurement environment intending to suck all profits out of your business.  If you're a customer, expect "me too" products that are late, expensive and at best "lowest common denominator" in appearance and performance.  If you're an employee, expect increased turnover, lot of infighting, increased internal politics, promotions based on reinforcing the status quo rather than results, and few opportunities for personal growth.

Employees, vendors and investors of Microsoft should read the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."  Everyone who has to deal with shifting markets needs to.