Category Archives: Digital Media

What We’re Curious About at Homebrew…

Posted on by

Every day we meet amazing founders sharing their ideas for how the future will evolve. In fact, we see about 150 new companies each month. Where do these teams originate from? Roughly 65% are referred to us by other founders or people we know. 25% are introductions via investors – either angels or VCs. The remaining 10% are a combination of cold inbound/outbound sourcing, often based upon a specific area we’re investigating. So recently we asked ourselves a question “is there strategic value in keeping our list of interests to ourselves?” That didn’t seem like a very good idea if our goal is to connect with thoughtful founders or inspire conversation. And thus http://bit.ly/HomebrewWhatIfs

What Ifs will be an dynamic list of ideas, questions and technologies that we are curious about and specifically want to connect with entrepreneurs to discuss and learn. We’ll edit, add and remove items as appropriate and link to our longer blog posts when it makes sense.

If you’re a founder in one of these areas or someone with domain expertise, we hope you’ll reach out. Do we hope to find new investments this way? Sure, but we’re also happy to just learn and hopefully help.

Better isn’t good enough

Posted on by

I previously wrote about what I think is required for a successful mobile product.  With all of the activity in the social messaging/communications/networking category (Whisper, Confide, Secret and Wut being the latest buzzed about apps), I thought I’d dig into one of the key points I made, which I believe is even more true in this category.  It’s not good enough to be better, you have to be different ─ in a way that helps address an entirely different use or possibly a similar use case dramatically differently.

In the case of messaging, it’s not enough to innovate along an existing dimension.  You need to create an entirely new product dimension.  It’s clear when you look at the breakout messaging apps that they clearly did something different relative to the apps that came before them, and in most cases that helped those apps address different user needs.  Facebook popularized status updates within a private network.  Twitter made status updates public (changing who sees the update).  Instagram made status updates visual (changing the format of the update).  WhatsApp made status updates (via SMS) free.  Snapchat made status updates ephemeral (changing the permanence of updates).  And what of the apps that were hyped and have seemingly gone away?  What new dimensions did Path, Frontback and MessageMe introduce?

Of the “hot” new apps, it remains to be seen which will pass the test of time.  Whisper makes public status updates anonymous (changing who sent the update).  Confide has made text status updates private and ephemeral.  Secret has made the anonymous status update visible only to a semi-private group.  Wut has anonymous, private and ephemeral status updates(?).  Are any of these apps introducing new dimensions that address different use cases or needs?  Fortunately, or possibly unfortunately, social messaging companies doesn’t typically fit our Bottom Up Economy thesis.  So we don’t have to bet which of these products will become the next Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.  But if I had to bet, I’d pick the one that does the most different thing best.  Because better just isn’t good enough when launching a product.

Four truths about mobile products, user mindset and achieving scale

Posted on by

Like many others, I’m spending more and more time on my phone, and I’m not making more calls.  I’m getting information, buying stuff, collaborating with others and much more.  There are a handful of mobile apps that I use religiously to do these things.  Why do I use these specific apps as regularly as I do?  I suspect that the answer for me and for many others who have the same behavior (a few select apps used frequently) boils down to a few simple things.

Scale is the outgrowth of doing just one thing really well.  WhatsApp, Instagram and Shazam are great examples of products and companies that expertly address a single, well-defined need in a simple way that satisfies a large number of people.  They haven’t added tons of new features to address additional use cases or at least they didn’t begin to do that until they had already significant user scale.  A single-purpose app makes it easier for a user to remember why she should use that app at the moment that she has a specific need.

Users inherently have a tendency towards mental inertia.  Once a user begins thinking of an app as addressing a particular need, it’s really hard to get him to think about it or use it differently.  An app developer who adds lots of features to an app risks confusing users and detracting from the core use case that the app is meant to address.  Unlike the desktop web, where tabs, menus, filters, etc. can be used to add features, it’s likely that in the mobile world the only successful way to add features will be to build entirely separate apps (see Twitter’s Vine and Facebook’s Messenger), often under separate brands.  Can you think of a single app that you use that does many different things well?

Better isn’t good enough.  Once a user begins to think of an app as addressing a need well, it’s really hard to get him to switch to another app to address the same need, even if it does it “better” (see Facebook’s Poke vs. SnapChat).  It’s not enough to be better in mobile, you need to be first to get to scale or you need to be different to fight inertia (not to mention switching costs, network effects, etc.).  WhatsApp continues to thrive in the face of increasing competition because it was first to address a specific need well.  SnapChat and Instagram succeeded not only because they did only one thing extremely well, but also because they did something different from Facebook and Twitter.  They addressed entirely new use cases and didn’t settle for competing via marginal feature innovation (which seems often to be the case in the messaging category, as one example).

Great products unlock user acquisition.  How did Uber grow virally?  The challenges of mobile app discovery and distribution have been well documented. App store distribution, pay-per-install ads, incentivized referral programs, etc. all face obstacles in mobile.  If you don’t have a product that requires users to invite others to benefit from the app (i.e., Facebook), there is only one true answer to the distribution problem.  The best distribution strategy is to build a killer product that generates tremendous word-of-mouth.  Uber, HotelTonight and Mailbox are examples of mobile apps that delivered amazing user experiences that in turn led to viral growth via word-of-mouth.  More than ever before, being the first to deliver an elegant solution to a user problem can be the key to dominating distribution and hence an entire market.

Surprisingly, when I thought about the points above, it seemed that what is true in mobile has largely been true on the web as well.  While technology changes, human behavior is pretty ingrained.  The mind craves simplicity and consistency and resists complexity and change.  Mobile app developers who want to achieve scale will be well served by satisfying the mind.

Re-commerce: The reinvention of e-commerce

Posted on by

With the announcement of our investment in Groupon, it makes sense to provide some context for why we were compelled to make the investment at this time. Josh Kopelman has recently written about, the innovation that is taking place in the e-commerce market. At Battery, we’ve been following this same overall trend of innovation and referring to it as “re-commerce”, the reinvention of e-commerce. We believe that Groupon is a major player in this reinventing of the huge and growing e-commerce industry.

For the past 15 years, the Internet has been centered on community, content, collaboration and commerce. Community has been revolutionized by social networking. Content has been changed forever by user-generated content. Collaboration has been re-imagined by myriad online services. Until recently, the modern online shopping experience was nearly identical to shopping online many years ago. We believe that there are fundamental changes taking place in the e-commerce world, similar to what happened in offline retail over many years, with the advent of discount retailers, big box specialty retailers and warehouse clubs.

There are many innovations that we have seen over the course of the past few years, but there are five that have been particularly exciting for us at Battery (*Represent Battery investments) .

  • Private flash sales (Gilt, RueLala)
  • Collective buying / demand aggregation (Groupon*, LivingSocial)
  • Customization (J. Hilburn*, CafePress)
  • Crowdsourcing (Threadless, Modcloth)
  • Democratization (Fingerhut*, Etsy)

The new models of e-commerce that are emerging are not fads. They are tapping into all of the same trends that are impacting the broader web, including social, personalization and gaming. Most importantly, they are yielding e-commerce businesses that deliver better experiences for consumers and are more profitable than their predecessors. Many investors look at the valuations of public e-commerce companies and dismiss the entire sector. You can expect Battery to invest heavily in the sector as we view re-commerce as an opportunity to create enormous wealth by reinventing an industry that has been stagnant for too long.

Why OpenGraph helps Facebook become a $100 billion company

Posted on by

I had the good fortune of being able to attend Facebook’s F8 conference today. While I’ve been quite the Facebook (as a business) fanboy for some time, after today I’m absolutely convinced that with OpenGraph, Facebook has finally exposed the true power of its platform in a way that will help it create incredible value in the coming years. Today’s discussion at F8 didn’t directly touch upon the value of OpenGraph to Facebook, but I believe that the value of the data that Facebook will collect and organize via OpenGraph will allow it to build search and advertising businesses potentially more powerful and sizable than those of Google.

I’ve written before about the importance of data in advertising and the trend towards buying audience rather than impressions. Facebook’s OpenGraph will create the richest user profiles yet, enabling advertisers to target specific audiences based on their friends, Likes, and activity, anywhere that audience can be found on the web. This kind of data and targeting differs from Google’s search-based intent data in that it helps advertisers reach their target consumers earlier in the purchase funnel, enabling what Facebook has called demand generation. This data, combined with the potential of earned media via Facebook and its social plugins, could be the key to shifting billions of dollars in brand advertising spend to the web.

Potentially more important is what I consider to be an entirely new category of search, which I refer to as “subjective search”, that may finally be realized because of OpenGraph data. While Google will likely continue to dominate search for queries where there are objective results, my view is that Facebook will become the default search provider for queries that are subjective in nature. After all, with a graph of my preferences, those of my friends and those of the broader web population, won’t Facebook be in the best position to tell me what Italian restaurant to eat at in Palo Alto, what action movie to see on Friday night or where to go on vacation with my family?

I’m not sure that anyone could have honestly envisioned that we would see another Google-type business in our lifetimes. But by wielding the power of OpenGraph, Facebook could build yet another incredible business based on search and ads. My frequent comment that Facebook will be worth $100 billion sometime this decade has regularly been met with laughter and ridicule. I wonder if that statement will still get the same response after today.

4 sources of long term differentiation and competitive advantage

Posted on by

Despite the slowdown in venture investing during most of last year, it seems like venture activity picked up significantly in Q4. The data is consistent with my own experience during the quarter, where I saw a huge increase in companies seeking financing, the return of multiple competitors for every investment opportunity and incredibly compressed fundraising processes. I fear that we’re returning to an investing and startup environment much like the one prior to October 2008. One impact of this behavior is that we’ll likely see, as before, the funding of many companies in the same market or with similar offerings (many people point to location-based social networking companies such as Foursquare, Gowalla, Booyah, etc. as a good example). That’s led me to try to outline what I think are the only ways for web technology companies to truly have long term differentiation. Clearly, with time and money, talented people render most software and user experiences alone indefensible. So how do Internet and digital media companies create sustainable competitive advantage? 

Network effects: Businesses with network effects have products or services that increase in value as more customers use them. When a network effects business achieves scale, it can have incredibly lasting differentiation because recreating that network poses significant challenges to competitors. Microsoft Office, eBay and Yelp are good examples of these types of products and services. Some network effects businesses can have both positive and negative network effects. For example, as many social media businesses grow in use, the volume of content to filter and absorb can become overwhelming.

Switching costs: Products or services that make it difficult or expensive to use an alternative product or service have switching costs. Creating this kind of lock-in is a true barrier for competition. DoubleClick’s DFA product is a great example of a product that had tremendous value because it was embedded in the agency online media buying process and was used by many people within agencies.

Scale: For a product or service, differentiation can be derived from scale in customer usage, capital expenditure or data. As an example, Google enjoys incredible differentiation and competitive advantage from all three sources. Hundreds of millions of people conduct billions of searches on Google each day, leading websites that want to integrate search to turn to the de facto standard in the industry. Google has spent untold sums of money on hundreds of thousands of machines in datacenters around the world to deliver the fastest, freshest and most relevant search results to its users. The hundreds of millions of clicks generated each day on search results provide Google with a vast quantity of data and insights that help improve search quality. Any new search competitor not only has to deliver a superior consumer search experience, but it also has to spend enormous amounts of money recreating the underlying infrastructure and data that makes Google such a powerful competitive force.

Culture/People: Given that web technology itself is largely indefensible, the greatest source of differentiation and competitive advantage is often execution, and that is predicated on people and the culture in which they operate. Whether it’s the culture of innovation at Google, the culture of customer happiness at Zappos or the culture of freedom and responsibility at Netflix, I’m certain that the management teams from those companies would point to the employees and the DNA of the organizations as the primary reasons for their success. I find that when the culture of a company is well-defined, it is usually a direct reflection of the founder(s) and their conscious decision to establish a well-defined company culture from the start. I only know of a few instances where the culture of an organization was either instilled in the organization at a later point in the company’s development or successfully recast by new leadership.

When choosing what investments to make, I try to keep these sources of differentiation top of mind. It’s easy to get caught up in the appeal of a sexy new consumer application or a seemingly novel approach to a business problem. But lasting, significant equity value is often only created when one or more of these differentiating factors are at play. Are there other sources of differentiation that you would add to the list?

YouTube and FreeWheel grease the wheels for online video advertising

Posted on by

I try not to write about portfolio company news or announcements but some recent press about FreeWheel Media is worth trumpeting given the potential significance it has for the entire online video advertising ecosystem. YouTube has historically made it incredibly difficult for content owners to sell advertising against their content distributed through YouTube. Unlike traditional online advertising which is automatically delivered and optimized via third party ad servers, video content owners working with YouTube needed to hardcode the advertising or have YouTube’s ad operations team traffick the campaigns on their behalf. The integration of FreeWheel’s platform with YouTube changes these old rules of engagement for all of YouTube’s content partners. Now, using a single platform, those partners can easily and automatically scale their video monetization efforts across distribution partners, including YouTube. Some of the specific benefits of the YouTube and FreeWheel integration are:

– Greater ad format options, including pre-rolls and companion banners

– More ad targeting options, including contextual and behavioral

– Automated ad optimization across campaigns and third party ad networks

– Consistency of campaign and metrics across YouTube and other distribution points

The net result is that the online video advertising market can begin to operate more like the traditional display advertising market. Advertisers can expect consistency in delivery and metrics. Content owners can offer consistency in formats and targeting. And distribution partners can expect lower operating costs and greater sell-through. Everyone wins. And that is why all of the players in the online video ecosystem should be paying attention to this news and coming announcements from other FreeWheel partners and customers, like Blip.tv. The YouTube-FreeWheel announcement represents a major tipping point for the online video advertising market and the ability of companies to turn online video in a viable business.

3 reasons that data will save online advertising

Posted on by

It’s been nearly 15 years since Rick Boyce and HotWired famously popularized the use of banner advertising campaigns as a model for generating revenue online. Since then, there have been many, significant innovations in online advertising, including new ad formats, new pricing models, new targeting technologies and new metrics for effectiveness. Yet the value of online display advertising is being questioned now more than ever before, particularly in the current economic environment. Numerous organizations are projecting that online display advertising spend will be flat or slightly down in 2009. Growth is expected to recover in 2010, but at much lower rates than earlier in the decade and than search advertising. But the explosion of data and its increasingly effective use hold great promise for online display advertising. There are many types of data for online advertising, including keywords, contextual, behavioral, semantic, demographic, psychographic and social. The relative value of each of these forms of data is still an unknown, but I believe that the value (and cost) of data will soon exceed the value of inventory, which is already deteriorating. Here are three reasons that the use of data will save online ads and help restore their growth.

– Data makes media buying easier: Data from comScore, the IAB and others suggests that while the top 50 online publishers only account for 25%-35% of user attention, as measured by page views or time spent, they represent about 90% of online advertising spend. Why is that? As I’ve written before, the job of an online media buyer is seemingly impossible. Audience fragmentation, the proliferation of ad networks and the emergence of ad exchanges have created incredible amounts of complexity in the marketplace. Learning about all of these sources of inventory, let alone buying from them, is an unenviable task. On the other hand, buying from large, known publishers is simple. This is the default behavior for many online media buyers because it doesn’t entail extra effort or risk. Further, the buying of traditional media, rightly or wrongly, is done largely based on gross rating points, viewership, circulation, listenership, etc. Media buyers purchase audiences at scale. In the online world, media fragmentation has made it a necessity to buy from multiple places to achieve desired scale. Data allows traditional buying behavior (again, independent of whether it’s good or bad) to be replicated online. Data enables media buyers to purchase a specific, consistent audience at scale across many different publishers. Data makes the jobs of media buyers easier, allowing more dollars to be spent online.

– Data increases the value of remnant inventory: Somewhere between 30%-40% of online ad inventory at most major publishers goes unsold by their direct sales organizations. That number is closer to 80-90% for most social media sites, the fastest growing segment of inventory and the one with the most ad effectiveness challenges. Remnant inventory is the direct result of highly ineffective ads that are not relevant to the consumer. There was a time when NYTimes.com could sell its inventory because of the association with its brand. That time is long gone as metrics have told advertisers that they are not earning a return on their dollars. Getting value from advertising on social media, where consumers are largely not engaged in commercial activity, is even more difficult. And inventory, both premium and remnant is increasingly being commoditized by the ad exchanges. Effective use of data for targeting (with more engaging creatives) the right audience yields better ad performance and generates real value from remnant inventory. In the end, today’s gap between demand and supply diminishes as data-defined audiences, rather than impressions, are being purchased.

– Data is available to all: The traditional ad agency model is widely recognized as broken. The economics of the agency business dictate that they find more efficient and effective ways to engage consumers on behalf their advertising clients. Along these lines, agencies have come to realize that one of their greatest assets is their consumer and ad performance data. Data, in combination with more innovative creative, can target the right audience at the right time with the right conversation, interactivity and engagement. Publishers also see that it’s becoming more difficult to aggregate sizable audiences and to sell their ad real estate. Differentiation in the face of commoditization comes from their data. And ad networks know that they are in danger of being disintermediated unless they bring unique value to the both advertisers and publishers in the form of greater access to data or better targeting through data. Fortunately, all of these players have their own data assets and increasingly have access to data from traditional offline data vendors, such as Acxiom and TARGUSinfo, as well as from emerging online data exchanges, such as BlueKai (where I am an investor) and eXelate. The competitive dynamics in the online ad industry dictate that the various players leverage data to provide greater value to their constituents.

While data doesn’t solve all of the problems in the online advertising market, it’s clear that data is going to have a huge impact on the future of the industry. The companies that develop the platforms, tools and services to make it easier to aggregate, analyze and utilize data will be the next category of winners in the online ad market. More importantly, they will help grow the online advertising market for all of us. Even as the value of inventory decreases, the increasing use and value of data and the resulting greater sell-through of inventory will yield a larger online advertising market.

Bigger (advertising) is not better

Posted on by

Recently, two dozen members of the Online Publishers Association, a trade organization comprised of some of the most well-known and well-respected publishers on the web, announced their solution for attracting more brand advertising dollars….bigger ads. While I’m over simplifying the group’s initiative, it shocked me to see that the best that some of the leading online media brands could come up with was combining a few (already commonly used) interactive elements with a larger number of pixels. If this is the state of the art in online advertising, it’s no wonder that brand advertisers have been reluctant to invest more.

I previously wrote about how the model for so much of online advertising is broken. And I think it remains true that the industry’s approach to creative has not evolved to engage consumers on their own terms and in their own language. The fact is that the value of media (the real estate) in the online advertising equation is diminishing greatly. Volume growth in the online media exchanges is commoditizing media. Recognition by agencies that their long-term sustainability is tied to their data assets is increasing the importance and availability of high quality targeting data across the industry. While media and data are getting increasing attention, it seems that the third leg of the online advertising stool, ad creative, is still being ignored by most agencies and marketers. Without question, attempting something new with creative entails risk. But you rarely get skewered for attempting to engage your audience. In fact, in most cases, you only incite the wrath of consumers when you ignore, insult or bore them. Take the well-publicized Skittles example or the myriad other brands that have embraced the fact that online media allows them to engage and listen to consumers in an entirely new and valuable way. Consumers have spoken and they want to participate in or direct the conversation, not be broadcast to by brands.

Smart companies such as AppsSavvy, Context Optional and Dimestore Media are taking the lead in reinventing ad creative to deliver unique experiences to consumers and greater value to advertisers. I’m hopeful that we’ll see more of this innovation from the larger agencies as well as from startups. As an industry, we need widespread acknowledgement of the need for new creative models to avoid stunting the growth of brand advertising online.

If you build it, they might not come

Posted on by

A while back I wrote a piece for The Battery Charger, my firm’s quarterly newsletter, about our investment focus within the Internet and Digital Media sectors. As I noted in that article, we invest in both consumer-facing media properties and enabling technologies. In my meetings of late, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend amongst companies that belong to the first category. While almost all of the presenting media companies have slick demos and whiz-bang product features, very few of them have gone to the trouble of outlining their strategy for possibly the most important and difficult piece of building any successful media business: acquiring consumers.

 

As a VC, one of the fundamental questions I ask when meeting entrepreneurs is about the unit economics of their business. How much does it cost to acquire a consumer and what is the lifetime value of that consumer once you acquire him or her? Most thoughtful entrepreneurs have considered this issue and can offer an answer. However, when I ask what strategies they are using to acquire users at the cited costs, I’m surprised by how often the response I get is a simple statement about some combination of SEO, SEM and viral marketing. Without fail, the entrepreneurs cite examples of other products that have been built on largely word-of-mouth alone.

 

I would argue that the next level of detail is critical to a well-thought out strategy for user acquisition. What are the specific tools and techniques that will be used to improve and optimize your SEO and SEM results (e.g., avoid dynamic URLs, use descriptive page titles, etc.)? What other steps will you take to create awareness for your product or service (e.g., blogging, content syndication, email marketing, etc.)? Which aspects of your product encourage sharing and linking or generate network effects? Good investors or advisors will not only ask these questions but offer some tips and tactics or relevant contacts of their own. They’ll also look to understand the overall quality of the traffic that is being generated, seeking that coveted shift in traffic from paid sources and organic search to direct navigation. My rule of thumb is that 30% direct navigation indicates the beginnings of brand loyalty and that 50% is evidence of strong traffic quality.

 

Admittedly, tackling the problem of user acquisition is extremely challenging and complex. But that doesn’t mean that it should be ignored or given short shrift. There are many resources that can help identify best practices for various consumer acquisition strategies and tactics. For example, Google itself publishes some good SEO guidelines and other helpful hints can be found on SEOmoz.org and SEObook.com. However you identify the strategies or whatever the approaches you choose, the crucial thing to remember is that a good product typically isn’t good enough, especially if you’re competing against incumbent players. Investors are certainly aware of that fact and entrepreneurs should demonstrate that they are as well.