OTOinsights

The Revolution Begins

Jeremi just forwarded this article, which announces that YouTube is now planning on revenue sharing with customers.

“In terms of paying users revenue against the content that they are uploading, we definitely are going to be moving in that direction,” said YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland over the weekend. The mechanics of the revenue sharing system have not been disclosed.

At the moment it appears that the revenue sharing will be limited to revenues from YouTube's advertising business. But with the announcement of the launch of premium content via partnerships with companies like CBS and Sony BMG, the pool of revenue potentially to be shared is far greater than the comparatively small dollars YouTube is currently pulling in from banner ads.

With consumers -- whether amateur, film students, and even Hollywood pros -- now able to post any quick and simple (or long and complex) video online -- and actually pull down a profit from it, in realtime -- how long is it going to be before YouTube starts incorporating the best of the uploaded videos into their Premium Content area... and sharing the larger revenues accordingly?

And with anyone able to submit a video and potentially make serious money off it, how long is it going to be before the content quality becomes significantly improved to the point where Hollywood starts getting worried?

Years, probably, but with home video software even right now allowing anyone with a decent digital videocamera to edit together some pretty decent movies and special effects, in the very near future it may be becoming far more difficult for massive networks like NBC to justify why talented writers and directors need to head out to California, have their pet projects torn apart in committee, and then take home only a fraction of the dollars made off of their creativity.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year is "You"? Good call, but the real revolution of content distribution has barely even begun.

IBM Helping to Keep Your Digital Wallet and Identity Safe

Cool stuff looming on the Digital Security horizon.  IBM is about to open source a piece of Information Security software that could play a big role in reducing financial and identity theft scams online.  For the short attention span crew, this means that transmission of your Financial, Health, and other related records online may become much safer in the very near future.

The software, called Identity Mixer, has the potential to allow users to anonymously complete secure transactions without the need to reveal any personal information.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty details, one potential scenario could work like this:

1. User downloads a browser plug-in from their bank which creates a secure token (called an ICard) on the user's machine.  This ICard contains limited encrypted information pertaining to a user's identification.

2. User goes to online merchant to buy clothes.  At check-out, user sees that the merchant supports their bank's secure transaction system.  User opts to complete the transaction with this method.

3. Merchant's system checks user's ICard to see if there are sufficient funds to complete the transaction. No identifiable information is transmitted, simply a "Yes" or "No" to the amount of funds required. 

4. Merchant completes transaction directly with the bank, where the user has securely stored their preferred billing/shipping information.  Funds are withdrawn, and the sale is completed. 

Note that during this process the user has never entered any personal information.  Not too shabby.

I could also see this technology working nicely on a Desktop Application.  Thinking ahead, a user could install a checkout system on their desktop and merchants could supply inventory and pricing information directly to the users so that all transactions happen directly between the customer and their bank.  All that changes hands between the bank and merchant is money and whatever personal contact info the users has allowed the merchant to receive. 

Like most new technology standards, there is the uphill battle of getting companies to willingly adopt them.  By itself, Identify Mixer is not all that useful as it is simply the code that provides the link between users and their personal information, be it bank/credit card balances, medical records, social security number, etc...  What it needs in order to become successful is for some engineers to leverage Identity Mixer's code into their own software and promote the software to financial institutions and online merchants as a new online commerce standard (take note, this is how small software start-ups can become very wealthy). 

As an aside, Microsoft also moving ahead to push their own security solutions, but there are speculations that MS may just adopt IBM's standards as part of their framework.  Otherwise users may find themselves in another Betamax vs. VHS war for security standards.

Measuring the ROI of Weblogs

Steve Rubin of Edelman recently pointed out in one of his recent blog posts how Charlene Li has created a model for measuring the ROI of blogging based on the costs of achieving similar results from other channels such as the hiring of a buzz agent.

Interesting stuff, especially appreciate the sentiment in one of the comments that one item the "suits" so frequently miss is how the "'I' in ROI" is so minutely small relative to the potential return, however difficult to measure.

Get a FirstLife!

Mr. Charlie Ballard was kind enough to bring this bit of humor to my attention yesterday afternoon.  GetaFirstLife.com is a site that pokes fun at the popular metaverse SecondLife.  However, instead of asking someone to join an online community, this spoof urges viewers to to focus on Real Life.  I particularly love the following snippits of copy:

• "Your World. Sorry About That"
• "Access Your Closet to Build Your First Life Look"
• "Find out where You Actually Live"
• "What's this Body Thing, and what do I do with the Dangly Bits?"
• "Fornicate Using your Actual Genitals"

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Upcoming One to One Interactive Events

MITX Digital Marketing Series Machinima: Making Movies in Virtual Reality

02.13.07

Event Type		MITX Event
Dates		February 13, 2007
Times		8:00am - 10:00am
Location		DLA Piper, 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor, Boston
Event Sponsor		One to One Interactive
Description		Panelists to Date: Jeffrey Bardzell, PhD, Human-Computer Interaction Design Program, Indiana University School of Informatics Time Magazine has recognized “You” as Person of the Year; AdWeek has identified “Us” as Agency of the Year.  This dynamic new media landscape blurs the line between the media-literate consumer and the media industry. One important new grass roots media space is “Machinima,” where creators use 3-D videogame or metaverse engines, such as The World of Warcraft, Second Life, and Halo, to create short digital films which spread through viral channels. As we move into 2007 these endeavors will continue to open new avenues for marketers and businesses to connect with their brand ambassadors. This panel will explore the emerging Machinima art form and discuss in detail its potential impact on both the marketing and entertainment industries. Fees Members: $35.00  Non-Members: $70.00 Registration deadline: 02.12.07 This event is  for all MITX members and non-members. Click here to register

 

Global Marketing Summit 2007 Marketing as a Science - An Exploration of how Neuroscience is Evolving Marketing Research

02.26.07

Event Type		World Trade Group Event
Dates		February 26 2007
Times		4:50pm - 5:50pm
Location		Grande Dunes Marriott, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Speakers		Jeremi Karnell, President, One to One Interactive Dr. Carl Marci, Chief Science Officer, Innerscope Research

Aligning Design With Strategic Intent

Wanting to see if we each took from it similar conclusions, Jeremi swung by last week with a copy of this Deloitte Research article with the nicely alliterative title Navigating the Marketing Measurement Maze: Aligning measurement design with strategic intent.

The paper makes the case that often marketing measurement is siloed within specific departments of a company, where ideally marketing measurement should be focused on a company's overall strategic goals, and measurement planning should adjust dynamically to include metrics to support these goals.

To support this proposal, the report suggests that marketing metrics should be anchored from the highest levels to the firm's strategic intent, allowing management of outline activities grounded in performance of these strategic goals:

"Instead of just revenue growth per marketing dollar, metrics include the number and quality of insights and dollars spent on marketing research."

This all makes sense, except that any kind of quantification of insight and dollars spent on research would then suggest a need to quantify the results of that insight. New research findings which result in neither action nor quantification of returns on said findings are about as useful as coming up with a new way way to say the word "twelve". Unless it's actually useful to someone, aren't you just saying "twelve"?

With the ability today to connect results across multiple campaign channels, and tests available for almost any kind of marketing -- particularly in interactive digital media -- surely there are better examples of ways in which the described insights could be researched, built upon, and launched into new streams of revenue?

One useful point authors Mahidhar and Cutten did describe is the oft-neglected need to include external market factors into measurement design. They give the example of a company's product being underpriced by its competitors just subsequent to launch, bringing down projected returns. The low initial returns would at first glance seem to indicate a flaw in the launch, but instead just reflects a more dynamic market, meaning extra-corporate metrics like relative pricing should be included accordingly.

That issue aside, it continues to amaze how so much published "research" consists of three-to-five-page whitepapers which manage to discuss a great deal related to "C-suites" and "aligning business objectives" while actually saying extremely little. Here's a quote from the paper's conclusion:

"An effective marketing performance measurement system must include... holistic measurements, including... the process dimension. Metrics that span the value delivery process address the influence of other functions and channel partners on marketing outcomes."

What does this even mean?

Let's break it down. Marketing performance measurement system. A process by which marketing's effectiveness can be measured. Got it. The process needs to holistically include metrics which cover ground outside of the specific campaign objectives. Still there. But metrics that span the value delivery process address the influence of other functions and channel partners on marketing outcomes?

If the authors had provided even one example of a metric which spans the value delivery process the above might make perfect sense. If the influence of other functions or channel partners had been illustrated via their their influence on more commonly used performance metrics then it might have a point.

But to write about strategy in a vaccuum with no clear calls to action? About as useful as creating a campaign measurement plan with no clear target objectives.

Listen to what you're preaching, guys.

Don't Underestimate Microsoft

An article published in today's MercuryNews.com  titled "Hooked On Google" by Elise Ackerman explores whether or not Microsoft still has a fighting chance in todays changing technology/media landscape.  When compared to the enormous success  the likes of Google has experienced over the last couple years, the picture indeed looks grim.  Ackerman points out in his article:

"Microsoft's page views, an approximation of how long visitors spend at its sites, was down 12 percent in December to 18 billion, according to the research firm. Google's page views were up 90 percent to 13 billion.

Microsoft has steadily lost ground in search, despite developing its own search engine in 2004. As of November, Microsoft's share of Internet searches has fallen to 8 percent. Two years ago, when MSN search was released in beta, Microsoft share's of U.S. searches stood at 14 percent, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.

Microsoft's Internet slide is reflected in its online sales. During the quarter ended Sept. 30, sales for the online business unit were $539 million, down 5 percent in a year. Google, in cruel comparison, reported revenue of $2.69 billion, an increase of 70 percent."

In fairness, Ackerman does offer that despite the above situation Microsoft has had a rather active 2006 by introducing a "slew of online offerings":

"In addition to the widely praised Virtual Earth, an exact 3-D representation of major cities, there were three new search services, a new portal, online video, classified ads, mobile e-mail and social networking. And perhaps most importantly, there was new adCenter software released in May that was supposed to help Microsoft make more money from its online offerings."

However, I think this misses a more important point why Microsoft should not be underestimated. 

Reason 1: They are the only major operating platform that cuts across desktop PCs (Microsoft OS), Mobile Phones/PDAs (Microsoft Mobile), TV (Microsoft iPTV) which both Verizon and Comcast are deploying across their massive Fiber and Coaxial nets, and Game Consoles (Xbox & Xbox 360).

Reason 2: Due to the reach across their installed platform base detailed above, Microsoft is in an enormously unique position to be one of the first companies to have a viable cross channel digital media offering.  From behavioral targeted web, e-mail and search  properties, to instant message, in-game  (via their purchase of Massive Inc. last May), mobile  and interactive TV advertising the folks in Redmond seem to be slowly transforming themselves from a software company to a media company.  Even though it does not exist now, it does not take one to imagine Microsoft's plans for using adCenter as the hub of their emerging cross channel media universe.

Reason 3. One word: PASSPORT.  Microsoft Passport accounts are central repositories for a person's online data and can include personal information such as birthdays and credit card numbers. They can also act as a single key to access many online accounts.

Microsoft uses Passport authentication for its Hotmail e-mail service, MSN Messenger instant messaging service, XBox Live Service, and Mobile Services. Several online retailers, such as eBay, Canon, Expedia and Starbucks, also use Passport authentication. Microsoft estimates there are 200 million active Passport accounts. 

It does not take a rocket scientist to guess that Microsoft will use this Central Customer Information (CIF) file to help deliver more personalized content/advertising to its opt-in customers as its able to understand their behaviors and activities across digital media platforms.

Its important to note...that I am hardly a fan of Microsoft.  Indeed, I have switched my work computer to the Powerbook just a couple of months ago.  I am a huge fan of the iPod (with exception to their Nazi DRM platform) and also plan to be one of the first to buy an iPhone when it is released.  I also do not proclaim to have a crystal ball that give me any special insight that the points made above will make a lick of difference.  All I am doing is agreeing with Gartner analyst,  Allen Weiner, when he states at the bottom of Ackerman's article: Don't Underestimate Microsoft.

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

 

Trendwatching.com | Top 5 Consumer Trends for 2007