« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

April 2008

April 30, 2008

Quick link: Movie versus video game

Interesting that there's a full article on CNN that a video game might substantially impact the opening day launch of a movie: 'GTA IV' could keep 'Iron Man' audience at home - CNN.com.

Would you have entertained this as a problem years ago?

The aggregate industry numbers prove it out - in 2007, the movie box office is $9.6B and games is $9.5B. It's neck and neck!

UPDATE: A couple readers have pointed out that the movie numbers obviously don't include DVDs, licensing, and lots of other revenue streams - it's still an amazing comparison, but doesn't fully capture movies versus games

April 29, 2008

Vertical ad networks: What are they, and why did Cox just buy Adify for $300MM?

Adify exits for $300MM exit
Some of you may have read about the acquisition of Adify by Cox for $300MM. It's been covered in PaidContent, Silicon Alley Insider, and scores of other places. You gotta love the online ad industry - if this had been a consumer internet exit, it'd create intense buzz throughout the blogosphere, but since it's a boring B2B infrastructure play, it likely bores most people.

Anyway, I wanted to jot down a couple notes about how the industry fits together below - by the end, hopefully you'll get what Adify's business as a "vertical ad network infrastructure" company is all about.

What is a vertical ad network, and why would you start one?
The vertical ad network business is like the startup recipe du jour of New York. I've been pinged many times over by folks who are looking to start one, companies pitching them. Basically, these networks are appealing if you fall into the falling description:

Ad sales dude: You can sell ad impressions better than you can generate pageviews

Compare this to the typical Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who suffers from the opposite problem:

Web 2.0 dude: You can generate pageviews, but have no idea how to monetize them

So if you're in ad sales, and you can monetize but can't generate pageviews, what do you do? Well, you have several choices:

  • You can work for an online publisher (like ESPN/NYT/etc)
  • You can work for a rep firm or ad network (like FM, Ad.com)
  • You can work as an outside sales rep for a publisher
  • etc.

Now the last one starts to get you into vertical ad network territory.

Starting a vertical ad network

Let's say that you start by representing the ad inventory of a sports site, and you do a good job pitching ad agencies that represent Nike, etc. To become more relevant, and to lift all boats, you want to get MORE ad impressions, so that you can provide more reach. So you go sign up another sports site, and another, until you have a huge aggregation of the biggest sports publishers out there. At that point, you probably have a big team to do things like run your ad server, optimize the campaigns, and you might be an exclusive provider of ads to some of the sites you've signed up. And thus, you're a vertical ad network.

The biggest issue is channel conflict, which you can easily avoid. The problem is that a site like ESPN would never want to join an ad network, because they sell their inventory at premium CPMs that few would be able to approach. As a result, the only way to make this work is to form a vertical ad network with long/mid-tail publishers that don't have direct sales teams.

So in summary:

Vertical ad networks = Ad sales guys + Lots of mid/long-tail publishers in a vertical area

Basically, like all ad things, it's a type of arbitrage based around access to relationships and skillset, which converts <$1CPM ad inventory into something many times that. Then furthermore, the dynamics that encourage this market:

  • Ad sales guys often suck at creating new pageviews, but can monetize them
  • Web guys often suck at selling impressions, but can make websites
  • Brand ad agencies reward REACH - so a bunch of small guys together is better than by themselves
  • A good ride for the economy in the last few years has increased brand spend online (which will continue)

What's a vertical ad network infrastructure company?
Now that you know what a vertical ad network is, then it's easy to define a vertical ad network infrastructure company. Basically, if you want to set up a vertical ad network, first you need some sales guys, but you also need a bunch of software that lets you do stuff like:

  • Managing what publishers are in your network
  • Billing and payments
  • Campaign management
  • Ad serving
  • Setting pricing and outlining inventory
  • Creating an automated marketplace
  • etc.

So if you're 3 salesguys out of a financial services publisher, for example, you don't have to build the above - instead, just sign up for a license, and you can start selling from there.

I think where this fits into Cox is that they are ultimately a huge Old Media company - cable, media properties, newspapers, etc. They are seeing their ad revenues erode over time as the eyeballs move online, and their audiences aren't sticking to their online properties either. But as an organization, they know how to sell to advertisers, and this acquisition makes them able to leverage their skillset across many different verticals and domains online.

How do vertical ad networks fit into Web 2.0 and UGC?
It's important to note that vertical ad networks have a huge role to play in the eco-system of Web 2.0, because they are one of the only ways UGC content is being monetized well. Essentially, as consumers move to social sites, the skillset to package, sell, and manage the ad inventory for brand advertisers has been "outsourced" to these vertical ad networks - the guys that start the websites just aren't typically strong in this area. As a result, this process allows brand advertisers to talk to intermediaries that understand their concerns and help them make the jump into buying UGC inventory.

Just look at the list of clients that Adify has, many of whom are based on UGC ad inventory.

Summary
In short, this entire space of vertical ad networks is created by the inefficiency in brand ad sales, which is likely to just continue. Let's hope that it becomes a sustainable way for smaller publishers to monetize their inventory, rather than just dumping their ads into remnant ad networks.

As a quick plug - there are not many folks in this space other than Adify, but I share an office with AdRoll, another company that's doing vertical ad network infrastructure. I'd encourage you to check them out, since my guess is that this area is about to heat up a lot more.

April 28, 2008

Facebook app CPM numbers from Inside Facebook

CPM rates on Facebook apps
Great data from Justin Smith on Facebook app CPMs: What CPM is your app making? Data from Facebook Developers. Thanks to Justin for putting together these great numbers.

Here are the numbers:

  • tspree15 is making $0.60 CPM with Social Media
  • cbovis is making $1.50 CPM with VideoEgg, but they can’t cover all his inventory (the rest runs on RockYou)
  • sweetsteve is making $0.27 CPM with Cubics, down from $0.43 earlier this month
  • ejono is seeing a $0.40 CPM with Cubics
  • cory is making a $4.78 eCPM with Social Media (???)
  • mzeitler
    is making a $0.50 CPM each with AdSense, FB Exchange, Social Media, and
    RockYou (and by combining 2 units on a page is making $1.00 CPM)
  • saintseiya is making $0.125 CPM with Lookery ($0.25 with 2 ads above the fold)
  • markdoub is seeing $0.10 CPM with Cubics, down from $0.43
  • ersingencturk is seeing $0.04 CPM with AdSense

Overall, the numbers are generally <$1, and you also see that there are some issues with "fill rates" - that is, how likely it is that an ad gets displayed when there's a space. For brand advertising, it can be quite low.

How does this foot to internet-wide CPMs?
These numbers are in-line with my previous post on 5 factors that determine your advertising CPMs, where I wrote:

  • Social sites (forums/chat/etc) without direct ad sales teams: <$0.25 CPM
  • Largely international sites: <$0.50 CPM
  • Medium-sized sites that use banner ad networks: <$1 CPM
  • Reference sites in a specific category: >$5 CPM or sometimes
    much higher, depending on category - we ran into home improvement
    reference sites that did $20 CPMs

Given that these are all social sites with mostly US traffic but no direct sales teams, an average of 10-50 cents is pretty accurate.

Combine this with Jeremy Liew's insights on getting to $25MM/yr on Facebook app ad impressions, and you see that it takes a good 900+ million installs. Ouch. Jeremy's slides below...

When will Slide release their hounds on the social gaming sector?

I have huge admiration for the Slide guys how they are dominating the new industry of social apps, using deep skills in viral acquisition, metrics, and consumer psychology. So when their CEO makes a dramatic statement about the internet economy, it's worth paying attention.

There was a recent quote in Valleywag about the impending recession and how Slide views it: Slide's Max Levchin: It's time to shift away from advertising.

Worried about an upcoming recession, PayPal cofounder Max Levchin told News.com that his company, Slide, is "trying to shift away from advertising partially" and go "direct to consumers" for its revenues. "It cuts out one more party from the equation," Levchin said.

Wow - "direct to consumers" - I wonder how long it'll take before they announce a direct product in the social gaming space. After the recent funding events for Zynga, SGN, Friends for Sale, and others, it would be the next logical step.

I've written extensively on the topic of virtual goods for Web 2.0 web properties: Forget advertising - are virtual goods the killer revenue model for Web 2.0, What every Web 2.0 entrepreneur should know about virtual goods, and 5 things that make your social network monetize like crap.

To summarize these posts, the movement towards looking at virtual goods to monetize social sites comes from a combination of factors:

  • Brand advertising on social networks is quite hard, and quite slow
  • With the larger economy experiencing a downtown, brand advertising will take a big hit, making new ad unit types harder
  • There's widespread consumer familiarity with games and game mechanics
  • Large-scale existence of virtual good economies exist (particularly in Asia)
  • There continues to be a casual-ification of games, making them more social, less time-intensive, and more like social networks

It'll be very interesting to see how this works out.

April 25, 2008

10% discount off of the Social Gaming Summit

My buddy Charles Hudson is putting on a conference on social games, and I wanted to share the details. I you use the discount code ANDREWCHEN, you'll get 10% off.

See you there!

Details below...

Conference description
The Social Gaming Summit is a one day conference focused on the intersection of casual gaming, immersive worlds, and social networking. Games are becoming one of the most popular activities within social networks and game developers continue to spend increasing amounts of energy figuring out how to leverage and apply the growth in social networking to the games they are developing. The conference will bring together leaders in the social networking and gaming spaces to share insights into the convergence of these worlds.

What: Social Gaming Summit (http://www.socialgamingsummit.com)
Where: UCSF Mission Bay Conference Center, San Francisco, CA
When: Friday, June 13th 2008
Register Here: http://socialgamingsummit.eventbrite.com/

Confirmed speakers already include the following list of folks:

  • Dave Williams, Shockwave and AddictingGames
  • Craig Sherman, Gaia Online
  • Jim Greer, Kongregate
  • Siqi Chen, Serious Business (Friends for Sale)
  • Erik Bethke, Go Pets
  • Daniel James, Three Rings
  • Amy Jo Kim, ShuffleBrain
  • Nicole Lazarro, XEODesign
  • Matt Mihaly, Sparkplay Media
  • Shervin Pishevar, Social Gaming Network
  • Mark Pincus, Zynga
  • Jeremy Liew, Lightspeed Venture Partners
  • Mike Sego, (fluff)Friends
  • Kyra Reppen, Neopets

The Social Gaming Summit will focus on a number of important themes in this emerging market:

  • Monetization and Business Models for Social Games
  • Casual MMOs and Immersive Worlds
  • Asynchronous Games on Social Networks
  • Building Communities and Social Interaction In and Around Games
  • What Makes Games Fun?

April 22, 2008

Viral marketing, activation, and retention metrics - commentary on Dave McClure's Web 2.0 presentation

I wanted to share Dave McClure's talk at Web 2.0 - it's evolved over the last year, and shows some learnings from the Facebook world:

Some quick comments
In general, I agree with Dave's view of the world, and he does a good job breaking down each specific component:

  • Acquisition
  • Activation
  • Retention
  • Referral
  • Revenue

A couple notes on each section:

1) Acquisition
Dave's slides list a multitude of acquisition options, from SEO to blogs and PR, to e-mail, etc. And while I was at MDV, I often saw pitches that incorporated a huge laundry list of acquisition strategies, which generally made me think the entrepreneur pitching didn't have a strategy at all. In general, the main thing to focus on is that you have a scalable acquisition strategy. That is, you have a single strategy that has the potential to get you up to 1,000 users or 10,000,000 users or more.

The reason is that fundamentally, the science of acquisition requires that you specialize in a particular area, and invest resources such as:

  • Building out analytics
  • Conducting A/B or multivariate testing experiments
  • Being creative and trying out different variations as strategies
  • Keeping up with other folks who are using similar acquisition strategies

The point is, if you pick one of the really scalable techniques, for example Facebook/OpenSocial, or SEO, or e-mail virality, it requires an immense amount of time and effort to kick ass at it. Anyway, I don't think Dave's slides say otherwise, but I wanted to emphasize that acquisition is an entire area in itself, and is worth focusing on.

2) Activation
The activation slides are solid, and I've written about a similar topic except focused just on virality. To sum up my post and how it relates, the point is that if you have low efficiency, that actually hinders your growth substantially once you hit network saturation.

For example, in the Facebook universe (60 million users), even if you are growing exponentially, let's compare an activation efficiency of 5% rather than 20%:

  • 1 in 20: total universe of 3 million active users
  • 1 in 5: total universe of 12 million active users

So even if you're viral, once you hit network saturation, your traffic will begin to plateau and wane. On a related note, my friend Ed Baker noted that given most Facebook apps haven't been able to sustain >12MM installs, it tells you that most apps are not able to achieve activation rates much higher than 20%, even after they've been acquiring users for months and months.

Because of this, it's a smart idea to try achieve both virality and high activation efficiency - this will make sure you have the highest potential for a large base of users. This might mean reducing your spamminess level so that you don't hit network saturation as quickly, and targeting your invites. Similarly, you'll want to do all the optimization suggested in Dave's slides in order to reduce friction throughout the activation funnel, so that people aren't leaving from confusion.

3) Retention
Two words: Cohort analysis. :-)

Retention is actually one of those places where I think you can't let metrics drive the conversation - it's useful for validation, but the core product experience starts with understanding users. The reason is that unlike the acquisition process, it's easy to be "on the wrong mountain" so to speak, and metrics will help you climb this wrong mountain, but not figure out the right one to be on. The problem is that choosing the right problem to solve for the customer has a lot to do with higher-level issues, like emotional needs, cultural perceptions, and nuanced social interactions.

In my humble opinion, the right community to look at here are design folks like IDEO. By clearly defining the target customer, understanding all the soft-values that go into motivating this group, and crafting an experience that's compelling, I think this approach gets you onto the right mountain. For this reason, this community is all about hiring anthropolgists, cognitive psychologists, and other social scientists, and then throwing them in a room with engineers, business folks, etc. A comprehensive discussion of these techniques can be found in the IDEO book Designing Interactions.

Another really interesting community here is game designers, as well. After outsourcing their distribution for the last couple decades to a couple publishers, the community has grown to focus on the gameplay experience - making them experts in retention. Some of the most interests concepts revolve around how you build up a game using "core mechanics," and how RPGs structure their point systems to create compelling reward structures. My friend Dan Cook's Lost Garden has a wonderful repository of essays on this topic.

4) Referral
It's very smart for Dave to separate out referral traffic from acqusition traffic, though many people treat them as the same thing. Here's the difference:

  • Acquisition traffic is often one-time traffic
  • Referral traffic can be continuously generated traffic

The reason, of course, is that referral traffic puts you on the SAME SIDE as your users - you're aligned, because the better your user experience, the better you retain your users. And the better your user retention, the more people they refer.

The question just becomes, how well can you retain users, and how fast do their refer their friends? If you can get these variables to align, then off you go, you have a scalable traffic acquisition strategy.

5) Revenue
It's very hard. And for advertising-supported businesses, don't focus on it until you're at many 10s of millions of pageviews per month, because it's hard to generate substantitve revenues until you get to scale.

Conclusion
Hopefully my commentary added some value to the discussion - thanks to Dave for putting his slides up online.

Moving to SF and joining the tech community - Lessons from my first year

Thinking of moving to the startup mecca?
I've now been in SF for a little over a year now, and have had many friends from Seattle and elsewhere contact me thinking of relocating as well. I've gotten pretty integrated into the SF tech community here, so assuming that you're ready to go, I had a couple tips I figured I'd write down.

Here they are:

You don't need a killer idea, and you don't need a job offer
First off, a lot of folks at places like Microsoft think about moving to SF, but are waiting for the perfect job or the perfect idea to pop up. Problem is, from your perch at a Fortune 500 company, you just don't have access to the best people, companies, and ideas to make a decision about the "perfect" startup.

My recommendation is just to set a timeline for yourself, and just do it! - even if that means crashing on a couple couches for the initial weeks just to get yourself integrated. Given that there's an amazing number of tech people here, if you're halfway competent you'll get exposed to a ton of new opportunities that you hadn't even heard of.

In my case, in the process of moving down I ended up taking an EIR gig - but rather than spending the time working on a company, I spent it networking and getting to know the tech community here in the Bay Area.

Start going to conferences and events
A good place to start is by meeting people - there's no central directory of events, but they are often posted on places like:

  • BASES (a Stanford startup group)
  • Upcoming
  • Facebook (just look at the events people are going to)
  • Meetup

If you are serious about it, you can go to 2-3 events per week easily, and meet a ton of people there. In addition, you should follow guys like Dave McClure, Noah Kagan, Christian Perry, Charles Hudson, and others, since they are often in the middle of the conference circuit.

For me, I've helped with a couple conferences here and there - it's a great way to get people together, and to participate in the startup community. That's why you often see me plugging specific conferences in my blog.

Be systematic about meeting people, and keep tabs on them
Of course, once you're at the tech events, use the time well. I wrote, almost a year ago, a blog post on the topic called 10 tips for meeting people at industry events. Similarly, make sure you use Linkedin or Facebook to connect with people and keep track of what they're doing, and also do cross-intros for people who are doing something interesting.

One interesting issue is, what do you talk to folks at these events about? Well, just come up with some angle you are thinking of - for a long time, mine was simply that I was from Seattle and worked in online advertising, and was looking at the games sector. If you can have a short conversation on something simple like that, it's a good way to explore mutual interests. For many new startup folks, perhaps you have a small project you're working on, or you're looking into the Facebook economy, or whatever it is.

For me, I started out with ~250 or so connections on LinkedIn when I was in Seattle, and within 6 months, I had reached a multiple of that. Now I have my newsfeed on RSS, and I can quickly see what people have been up to lately.

Meet the Mafias
Like all great cities, the Bay Area is run by a small number of "Mafias." The most famous, of course, is the PayPal mafia, but there's also ex-Googlers, HotOrNot folks, Digg, YCombinator, and many others. Here's a good article from TechCrunch listing specific names for people to get in touch with.

Many of these guys, given their success, end up starting investing vehicles - pay attention to these, since they are fascinating communities to understand. For PayPal there's Founder's Fund, Youniversity Ventures, and many angel investors. For Google, there's Felicis Ventures and many angel investors as well.

Because some of these communities are very tight, they are hard to get to know until you have something interesting going, and something to offer in return. My general take on it is that ideally, you want to hang out with people who are a lot smarter than you ;-) Because of this, if you are hanging out with junior entrepreneurs all day (for example, the YCombinator folks) then you might not learn as much as if you spent time with people who have done a lot more than you.

I had the lucky opportunity to spend some time with PayPal-affiliated folks, as well as a few months hanging out at the Hi5 offices. All those guys are smarter than me, so I learned a lot ;-)

Keep a blog
I'll make this one short, since for some it's obvious: Blogs are a great way to stay relevant in the lives of a large group of people. There's folks who I have met once or twice who occasionally read my blog, and it's great, because it's a low-work, highly-leveraged way for me to be part of the tech community's conversation.

Need help?
And of course, if you read this and are thinking of moving to SF, shoot me a note at voodoo [at] gmail. I'm always particularly interested in meeting entrepreneurial engineers. Happy to help give more detail on any of the above.

April 21, 2008

iGoogle start pages: Vertical integration of the first, second, and Nth click

Start pages control traffic
There's been some recent coverage of Google developing out their start page, iGoogle, and I thought it was very interesting - in particular, it fits with Google's push to own the second click as well as the first. It's a strategic thing for the company to do, since it lets them build on top of their "platform" - the search engine result page (SERP).

Daily usage websites
Think about the things that people do often, on a daily basis:

  • Communicate (e-mail/Facebook/MySpace/etc)
  • Entertainment (iTunes/YouTube/games/etc)
  • News (blogs/CNN/etc)
  • Reference (Google/Wikipedia/etc)

If you own the top property in one of these categories, it mean that every day, you have tens of millions of people visiting your site, which gives you a lot of leverage. This daily visit represents the so-called "first click" for each user on the internet. And from your site, depending on the context, these users then find subsequent destinations that they want to reach - this is the "second click."

Capturing user intent from the first-click/second-click transition

Of course, the transition from first click to second click is different for each channel:

  • Communication - receiving a link from a friend
  • Entertainment - seeing a "hot" video getting surfaced
  • News - browsing the latest headlines
  • Reference - looking for something specific and getting it as a result

Note that of the above, only reference is "pull" - the rest are "push." As a result, clicking on a link from a friend has less to do with your INTENT and more to do with your relationship with your friend. As a result, this type of interaction is harder to monetize. Compare this to a situation where you are specifying a specific thing you are looking for - these cases qualify the user to an extent where it becomes very easy to capture commercial intent.

Of course, Google already owns the first click for reference queries, and as a result, it only becomes logical for them to move both horizontally and vertically on the web. A horizontal move would be to capture the start page in news, communication, entertainment, etc. A vertical move would be for them to not just allow a search for "jobs 94025" but to actually give a form that a user can interact with to provide a secondary search on a specific job title. Each layer they can own allows them to further qualify the users, which makes it easier for them to cut out middlemen.

iGoogle+social = horizontal move?
Thus, you could argue that by incorporating more social activities, iGoogle is a horizontal move for Google. If iGoogle is successful in either creating their own social data or simply aggregating social network data (like FriendFeed does), then they remove a reason to check your MySpace or Facebook. Why do that when you can just go to iGoogle and see if you have any waiting messages? And while you're there, you should do a search too ;-)

April 18, 2008

Viral loop coverage in Fast Company

Recent article on viral loops just came out from Fast Company: Ning's Infinite Ambition.

I chatted with the writer, Adam Penenberg, when he was writing the article - we talked extensively about the history of viral marketing, starting from:

  • chain letters
  • style and fashion fads
  • Tupperware

... and then how those techniques have now evolved on the web. The main differentiation, of course, being that you can really productize your distirbution strategy and incorporate it inside your user experience.

I've written much more about viral loops in a blog from last year.

April 17, 2008

Viral coefficient: What it does and does NOT measure

It's easy to overemphasize viral user acquisition
I've recently been receiving a deluge of e-mail related to viral marketing - in particular, people sometimes represent it as a "magic bullet" to solving their startup's problems. In fact, I'd argue that it's merely one of many steps required to create a long-lasting, value-generating web property.

After all, the last thing you want to be is a fad, a one-hit wonder, or many of the other terms that are out there for rapidly spreading idea that quickly burnout.

Viral coefficient is only one metric of many
If anything, my overall point is to emphasize a hypothesis-driven, data-centric view of both the internal and external factors of your business. You need to build a sufficiently fine-grained model to expose the different levers available to you to optimize, verify, and repeat. If you care about pageviews, for example, but are only measuring the virality of your product, then you are missing out on all the other contributing variables in your business.

To summarize - metrics like the viral coefficient give you understanding of:

  • For every user coming into your site, how many friends do they bring?

However, they don't give you an understanding of:

  • How long will it take for you to saturate the entire network of users?
  • Do your customers love your product? Does it stimulate other positive emotions?
  • Is your product sticky? Does it generate a lot of pageviews?
  • Where does your traffic monetize well? And what methods of monetization work best?
  • When and how does your product fit into the lives of your customers?
  • Is your market big enough? Can your startup grow to be a billion+ business?
  • etc.

The point is, if you're trying to create an equation for revenue, where the virality is one part of the business - don't be lazy. Build models and conduct experiments left and right on your product, so that you are always iterating.

Summarizing my undergrad degree in one statement
For some, this might seem like a disaster - an overflow of data. That's absolutely a danger, and this is exactly when you have to start making smart choices to understand what variables are important to measure and which ones aren't. Folks like engineers, statisticians, physicists, and other applied sciences will relate to this thought.

My undergrad degree was in a variation of Applied Math, and when describing to my friends what I learned, I often say I didn't learn much beyond one phrase:

All mathematical models of the world are flaws, yet useful in their own way

Any mathy types that want to swap notes on viral marketing and user retention, feel free to shoot me an -mail ;-) I'm always curious to see how other people are modeling their traffic.

ABOUT THIS BLOG

  • Futuristic Play

    My name is Andrew Chen and I'm an entrepreneur living in San Francisco, CA. This blog covers my thoughts on metrics, viral marketing, user experience, game design, and online advertising.

    I don't write often, so sometimes the easiest thing to do is to subscribe to my blog (which you can do below).

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact me

My Photo

AdRoll

  • AdRoll

ESSAYS ON VIRAL MARKETING, ONLINE ADS, AND GAMES

Stuff I'm doing around the web

Google Analytics