Buy Facebook, P&G’s CEO told you to

Buy Facebook.  I don't care what the IPO price is.

Since Facebook informed us it was going public, and it's estimated IPO valuation was reported, debate has raged over whether the company could possibly be worth $75-$100B.  Almost nobody writes that Facebook is undervalued, but many question whether it is overvalued. 

If you are a trader, moving in and out of positions monthly and using options to leverage short-term price swings then this article is not for you.  But, if you are an investor, someone who holds most stock purchases for a year or longer, then Facebook's IPO may be undervalued.  The longer you can hold it, the more you'll likely make.  Buy it in your IRA if possible, then let it build you a nice nest egg.

About 85% of Facebook's nearly $4B revenues, which almost doubled in 2011, are from advertising.  So understanding advertising is critical to knowing why you want to buy, and hold, Facebook

Facebook has 28% of the on-line display ad market, but only 5% of all on-line advertising.  On-line advertising itself is generally predicted to grow at 16%/year.  But there is a tremendous case to be made that the market will grow a whole lot faster, and Facebook's share will become a whole lot larger.

At the end of January Proctor & Gamble's stock took a hit as earnings missed expectations, and the CEO projected a tough year going forward.  He announced 1,600 layoffs, many in marketing, as he admitted the ad budget was going to be "moderated" – code for cut.  While advertising had grown at 24%/year sales were only growing at 6%.  He then admitted that the "efficiency" of on-line advertising was demonstrating the ability to be much higher than traditional advertising.  In other words, he is planning to cut traditional marketing and advertising, such as coupon printing and ads in newspapers and television, and spend more on-line.

P&G spends about $10B/year on advertising.  2.5x the Facebook revenue.  Now, imagine if P&G moves 10% – or 25% – of its advertising from television (which is now a $250B market) on-line.  That is $1-$2.5B per year, from just one company!  Such a "marginal" move, by just one company, adds 1-3% to the total on-line market.  Now, magnify that across Unilever, Danon, Kimberly-Clark, Colgate, Avon, Coke, Pepsi …… the 200 or 300 largest advertisers and it becomes a REALLY BIG number.

The trend is clear.  People spend less time watching TV and reading newspapers.  We all interact with information and entertainment more and more on computers and mobile devices.  Ad declines have already killed newspapers, and television is on the precipice of following its print brethren.  The market shift toward advertising on-line will continue, and the trend is bound to accelerate. 

Last year P&G launched an on-line marketing program for Old Spice.  The CEO singled out the 1.8 billion free impressions that received on-line.  When the CEO of one of the world's largest advertisers takes note, and says he's going to move that way, you can bet everyone is going to head that direction.  Especially as they recognize the poor "efficiency" of traditional media spending.

And don't forget the thousands of small businesses that have much smaller budgets.  Most of them rarely, or never, could afford traditional media.  On-line is not only more effective, but far cheaper.  Especially as mobile devices makes local marketing even more targeted and effective.  So as big companies shift to on-line we can expect small to medium sized businesses to shift as well, and new advertisers are being created which will expand the market even further.  This trend could lead to a much faster organic market growth rate beyond 16% – perhaps 25% or even more!

Which brings us back to Facebook, which will be the primary beneficiary of this market shift. 

Facebook is rapidly catching up with Google in the referral business.  850 million users is important, because it shows the ability Facebook has to bring people on-line, keep them on-line and then refer them somewhere.  The kind of thing that made Google famous, big and valuable with search a decade ago.  In fact, people spend much more time on Facebook than they do Google.  When advertisers want to reach their audience they go where the people are (and are being referred) and that is Facebook.  Nobody else is even close. 

The good thing about having a big user base, and one that shares information, is the ability to gather data.  Just like Google kept all those billions of searches to analyze and share data, increasingly Facebook is able to do the same.  Facebook will be able to tell advertisers how people interact, how they move between pages, what keeps them on a page and what leads to buying behavior.  Facebook uses this data to help users be more effective, just like Google does to help us do great searches.  But in the future Facebook can package and sell this data to advertisers, helping  them be more effective, and they can use it for selling, and placing, ads.

Facebook usage is dominant in social media, but becoming more dominant in all internet use.  Like how Windows became the dominant platform for PC users, Facebook is well on its way to being the platform for how we use the web.  Email will be less necessary as we communicate across Facebook with those we really want to know.  Information on topics of interest will stream to us through Facebook because we select them, or our friends refer them.  Solving problems will use referrals more, and searching less.  The platform will help us be much more efficient at using the internet, and that reinforces more usage and more users.  All the while attracting more advertisers.

The big losers will be traditional media.  We may watch sports live, but increasingly we'll be unwilling to watch streaming TV as the networks trained boomers.  Companies like NBC will suffer just as newspaper giants such as Tribune Corp., New York Times and Dow Jones.  Ad agencies will have a very tough time, as ad budgets drop their placement fees will decline concomittantly.  Lavish spending on big budget ads will also decline. 

Anyone in on-line advertising is likely to be a winner initially.  Linked-in, Twitter, Pinterest and Google will all benefit from the market shift.  But the biggest winner of all will be Facebook.

What if the on-line ad market grows 25%/year (think not possible? look at how fast the smartphone and tablet markets have grown while PC sales have stagnated last 2 years as that market shifted.  And don't forget that incremental amount could easily happen just by the top 50 CPG companies moving 10% of their budget!)?   That adds $20-$25B incrementally.  If Facebook's share shifts from 5% to 10% that would add $2-2.5B to Facebook first year; more than 50%! 

Blow those numbers up just a bit more.  Say double on-line advertising and give Facebook 20% share as people drop email and traditional search for Facebook – plus mobile device use continues escalating.  Facebook revenues could double up, or more, for several years as trends obsolete newspapers, magazines, televisions, radios, PCs and traditional thoughts about advertising.

If you missed out on AT&T in the 1950s, IBM in the 1960s, Microsoft in 1980, or Apple in 2000, don't miss this one.  Forget about all those spreadsheets and short-term analyst forecasts and buy the trend.  Buy Facebook.

Journalism 2020 Revisited – Amazon, Apple, NewsCorp, Newspapers, Books


Things are tough for the printed word these days.  Not for writing, or demand for information.  That is doing great – with more volume than ever!  But the issue is “printed” material.  Clearly, the format is changing.  But are business leaders changing with it?

The Los Angeles Times reported “Amazon.com Says It’s Selling 80% More Downloaded Books Than Hardcovers.”  This is a big switch.  Clearly Kindles are making a big difference as people are buying a lot less paper, and reading a lot more bits.  Do you remember when your colleagues all said “I want a book, I don’t want to read looking at a screen?”  Do you remember when businesspeople actually printed their emails?  Clearly a sentiment gone by the wayside. 

Accuracy in Media reported “U.S. Newspaper Circulation Dropped 30% Since ’07.” And it’s a global phenomenon, with the U.K. down 25%, Greece 20%, Italy 18% and Canada 17%. Fully 2/3 of major countries are seeing newspaper demand decline.  No wonder Tribune Corporation, publisher of The Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun, as well as others, is having such a hard time emerging from bankruptcy.  Every month this looks more like the buggy whip business.  Can you really expect the company to survive?

Amidst this backdrop, magazines have a dire future.  I can remember when browsing magazines was the norm, and trade magazines arrived in my inbox daily.  Often 60 or 100 page affairs.  No longer.  Magazines have disappeared like rain in the Sahara.  Their savior is supposedly to go digital, but according to TwistedImage.com magazine leaders are at a loss how to proceed.  In “The Media Disruption Within” Mitch Joel describes how a panel of magazine publishers are approaching the industry change mostly with despair that the internet is here – and no concerted effort to define a new model.  Lock-in was prevalent as they kept hoping for a return to the good old days for print publishers, which we know is never going to happen.

So today the New York Post reported “Mag Publishers, Apple in Subscription App Scrap.”  Most of us can acquire newspapers for an iPad issue by issue – but subscriptions aren’t possible.  The magazine fears it will be the big loser – and rightfully so.  If Apple controls the subscription and delivery, why couldn’t it repackage?  Where would Apple stop, and what value would the magazine actually deliver?  Since iTunes changed music buying, how many people buy albums?  It would require the editors and publishers be really sharp to know their market – something most gave up a long time ago when they turned to focusing on narrow content for their “core product” and trying to maintain their “core competency.”  Neither of which are very “core” any more. 

We all want news that’s exactly what we want, and we’ll simply go to Google to get it.  Who published it isn’t nearly as important to readers any more.  Nor is the packaging.  Pretty soon Amazon via Kindle, Apple via iPad, and we can expect a Google tablet to do the same, can start packaging up the chapters of various books for readers giving them just what they want.  And with that they can link off to source articles from newspapers and magazine archives – or to current events.  The role of publisher will get a lot less clear, as writers and editors can go directly to the electronic distributor with content.

Into this fray is an interesting new approach reported by CNBC.com, “Rupert Murdoch’s New Digital Game Changer?”  The claim is that News Corp. is preparing an all-new interactive product designed just for on-line and mobile users.  It wouldn’t be a re-treaded newspaper.  Text, photo and video designed just for the medium.  Now that would be the right way to go about preparing for 2020.  Unfortunately, the way News Corp. handled MySpace.com doesn’t give us a lot of comfort this will be a truly White Space project.  But if it is, it might just be the start of toward the product which will be journalism in 2020.

If you’re in publishing you have no choice but to get White Space going.  The intermediaries – from the tech companies to new-age publishers like HuffingtonPost.com – are moving forward.  The business as it used to be is gone.  But the demand for news – for content – is bigger than ever.  It will require a new business model.  A new Success Formula. And this is clearly a case of change or die.  The world will never again be as it previously was.

Even if you don’t think of yourself as a publisher – you probably are.  Do you put out customer literature – like user or repair manuals?  Do you put out sales literature? Do you communicate with investors or industry analysts?  If so, how do you “publish” your material?  Paper?  Packaged pdf?  In today’s world, an advantage can be created by moving quickly to what’s new. 

Today there are a plethora of luxury automobiles on the market.  These beautifully high tech luxury machines have manuals that can run 500+ pages!   It is impossible to figure out how anything works by trying the manual!  Why don’t manufacturers of $60,000+ cars have a Kindle (or iPad) built into the console?  Those cost less than a set of brake pads today, they can be updated automatically, and are interactive. 

Are you thinking about how you could use a $100 device to make life easier for your customers and supply chain partners?  Or are you printing?  If you’re printing, what’s your budget?  How much would you save if your salespeople, customers, etc. were given a Kindle?  Or iPad?  Can you afford not to be thinking differently about your future?