About Frédéric Filloux

http://

Posts by Frédéric Filloux:

How Linking to Knowledge Could Boost News Media

 

A key way to differentiate value-added news from commodity contents is to rework the notion of linking. Thanks to semantics and APIs, we could move from dumb links to knowledge linking.

Most media organizations are still stuck in version 1.0 of linking. When they produce content, they assign tags and links to mostly internal other contents. This is done out of fear that readers would escape for good if doors were opened too wide. Assigning tags is not exact science: I recently spotted a story about the new pregnancy in the British Royal family; it was tagged “Demography”, as if it was some piece about Germany’s weak fertility rate.

Today’s ways of laying out tags and and structuring topics are a mere first step; they are compulsory tools to keep the reader within the publication’s perimeter. The whole mechanism is improving, though. Some publications already use reader data profiling to dynamically assign related stories based on presumed affinities: Someone reading a story about General Electric might get a different set of related stories if she had been profiled as working in legal or finance rather than engineering.

But there is much more to come in that field. Two factors are are at work: API’s and semantic improvements. APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) act like the receptors of a cell that exchanges chemical signals with other cells. It’s the way to connect a wide variety of contents to the outside world. A story, a video, a graph can “talk” to and be read by other publications, databases and other “organisms”. But first, it has to pass through semantic filters. From a text, the most basic tools extract sets of words and expressions such as named entities, patronyms, places.

Another higher level involves extracting meanings like “X acquired Y for Z million dollars” or “X has been appointed to Finance Minister….”, etc. But what about a video? Some go with granular tagging systems; others, such as Ted Talks, come with multilingual transcripts that provide valuable raw material for semantic analysis. But the bulk of contents remain stuck in a dumb form: minimal and most often unstructured tagging. These require complex treatments to make them “readable” by the outside world. For instance, a untranscribed video seen as interesting (say a Charlie Rose interview), will have to undergo a speech-to-text analysis to become usable. This processes requires both human curation (finding out what content is worth processing) and sophisticated technology (transcribing a speech by someone speaking super-fast or with a strong accent.)

Once this issues are solved, a complete new world of knowledge emerges.  Enter “Semantic Culturonomics“. The term has been coined by two scholars working in France, Fabian Suchanek and Nicoleta Preda. Here is a short abstract of their paper (thanks to Christophe Tricot for the tip):

Newspapers are testimonials of history. The same is increasingly true of social media such as online forums, online communities, and blogs.
Semantic Culturomics [is] a paradigm that uses semantic knowledge bases in order to give meaning to textual corpora such as news and social media. This idea is not without challenges, because it requires the link between textual corpora and se-antic knowledge, as well as the ability to mine a hybrid data model for trends and logical rules. [...] Semantics turns the texts into rich and deep sources of knowledge, exposing nu- ances that today’s analyses are still blind to. This would be of great use not just for historians and linguists, but also for journalists, sociologists, public opinion analysts, and political scientists.

In other words, and viewed through my own glasses, these two scientists suggest to go from this:

335_semantic1

…To this:

335semantic2C

Now picture this: A hypothetical big-issue story about GE’s strategic climate change thinking, published in the Wall Street Journal, the FT, or in The Atlantic, suddenly opens to a vast web of knowledge. The text (along with graphics, videos, etc.) provided by the news media staff, is amplified by access to three books on global warming, two Ted Talks, several databases containing references to places and people mentioned in the story, an academic paper from Knowledge@Wharton, a MOOC from Coursera, a survey from a Scandinavian research institute, a National Geographic documentary, etc. Since (supposedly), all of the above is semanticized and speaks the same lingua franca as the original journalistic content, the process is largely automatized.

Great, but where is the value for the news organization, you might ask? First of all, a trusted publication (and a trusted byline) offering such super-curation to its readers is much more likely to attract a solvent audience: readers willing to pay for a service no one else offers. Second, money-making business-to-business intelligence services can be derived from modern tagging, structuring and linking. Such products would carry great value because they would be unique, based on trust, selection and relevance.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

BuzzFeed: An Open Letter to Ben Horowitz

 

Ben Horowitz, the erudite cofounder of the Andreessen Horowitz (A16z) firm is a respected heavyweight in the Silicon Valley’s venture capital milieu. But A16z’s $50m BuzzFeed funding looks surprisingly ill-advised, to say the least. 

From: frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com
To: Ben Horowitz, Andreessen Horowitz, Menlo Park, California
Re: A16z investment in BuzzFeed
———————————————————
Dear Ben:

May I ask you something? How long did you spend on BuzzFeed before deciding to invest $50m? I’m not talking of Jonah Peretti’s PowerPoint deck or spreadsheets, which, I’m sure, must be quite compelling. But did you sample the real thing, the BuzzFeed site?

And how many times a day do you log in? Please, don’t tell me it’s part of your mandatory media diet, I’ll have to struggle not to express polite disbelief.

Frankly, your investment leaves me bewildered.

Judging by your blog and your remarkable book (I energetically proselytize both), you embody a mixture of vista, courage, combining focus on details with broad systemic vision, all supported by deep hands-on experience.

In addition, you are of the generous type and I was even happier to buy two copies of your book (including a paper version for a friend) knowing all proceeds will go to Women in the Struggle — a noble cause.

In short Ben, I have a great deal of respect for you. You are the type of person our modern economy needs.

Except that I don’t share your vision of the news business. In fact, I’m standing at the polar opposite of it.

Let me be clear: I do not question the goals and means of the VC business you’re in. In fact, I think this extraordinary ecosystem of financing innovation has long been a vital booster to the economy. Whenever I get the opportunity, I preach this in France, only to find out that my plea is beyond the cognitive grasp of the French governing elite (our VC perimeter is 33 times smaller than yours for a GDP only 6 times smaller.) The whole system sounds fine to me:  investors gives you money — $4.15bn for Andreessen Horowitz at my last count –  your mission is to multiply, you create scores of high qualified jobs. Great.

But is BuzzFeed really such a good multiplier?

Obviously, you know more than I do about BuzzFeed’s long term’s prospects: Impressive growth, heavy reliance to technology. From a pure business perspective tough, I would be very careful to put other people’s money in a traffic-machine that depends for 75% on social referrals because not all clicks are born equal. BF’s are myriad, but they are worth a tiny fraction of, say, a click on The New York Times.

I spent some time trying to overcome my reluctance to BuzzFeed’s editorial content. I wanted to to convince myself that I might be wrong, that BuzzFeed could in fact embody some version of journalism’s future. But if that’s the case, I will quickly resettle in a remote place of New Mexico or Provence.

BuzzFeed is to journalism what Geraldo is to Walter Cronkite. It sucks. It is built on meanest of readers’ instincts. These endless stream of crass listicles are an insult to the human intelligence and goodness you personify. Even Business Insider, a champion practitioner of cheap click-bait schemes, looks like The New York Review of Books compared to BuzzFeed. And don’t tell me that, by hiring a couple of “seasoned editors and writers” as the PR spin puts it, BuzzFeed will become a noble and notable contributor of information. We never saw a down/mass market product morphing into a premium media. You can delete as many posts as you wish, it won’t alter BF’s peculiar DNA.

Fact is, quality content does exist in BuzzFeed (an example here), but in the same way as a trash can contains leftovers of good food: you must go deep to find it.  It won’t change the fact that what people enjoy the most on BuzzFeed is unparalleled ability to package, organize and disseminate mediocrity broken down in this promising nomenclature:

334-buzzfeed

Ben, don’t tell me you’re proud of A16z investment in BuzzFeed. By funding it, you are contributing to the intellectual decrepitude of readers, the youngest ones especially — already severely damaged by Facebook and Snapchat sub-cultures. Did it ever cross your mind that these people are going to vote some day?

Two years ago, one of your competitors, the Founders Fund (I believed it held values similar to yours) published an essay titled What Happened to the Future?. Their article outlines the conflict between “funding transformational technologies (like search or mobility)” and supporting “companies that solved incremental problems or even fake problems”. Do you realize that, by funding a company such as BuzzFeed, you fall on the wrong side of the fence?

Look, I’ve no problem to see BuzzFeed or The HuffingtonPost thrive. They’re run by super-smart people (such as this one) who developed audience-building techniques that legacy media should pay more attention to.

What bothers me the most is to see smart money such as A16z’s being diverted to such a shallow product.

Ben: You want to invest in the information business? Consider what the Sandler Family did with ProPublica: they provided the seed money for a fantastic public interest journalism project (which, in passing, snatched two Pulitzers). Technology-driven ProPublica is now financially autonomous. Or consider emulating Pierre Omidyar who supports First Look Media, which promotes the kind of journalism a democracy badly needs.

Of course, these two ventures won’t produce VC-caliber ROI, but you already have plenty of items in A16z portfolio to keep your investors salivating. So, why wallow in BuzzFeed?

And if you want to put your excess of cash into something even more meaningful, hop on a Netjets plane and go to Africa. I recently bumped into an investment banker from Lazard who gave me the full picture of the economic potential of African countries, in every possible field — including leapfrogging technologies that build on the explosion of the mobile internet. For that matter, I’m personally exploring opportunities and the development of mobile apps for health and education in poor countries (a non-profit project). I started modestly by lending an Android phone and other items to an eye surgeon who runs (pro-bono) surgery campaigns in Sub-Saharian Africa. After her last campaign in Burkina-Faso last spring, we debriefed and the conclusions are staggering in terms of demand and opportunities. And I know the same thing is happening with mobile education. I decided to put €10,000 of my own money, just to see some of the ideas I’m nurturing could fly. If I were you Ben, I’d put a million dollars to explore this. And if I were running A16z, I would invest millions in long-term projects such as the automated large-cargo drones system described at the end of Alexis Madrigal’s recent story in The Atlantic that could change a whole continent economy. Or in mobile phone-based projects in Africa funded by PlaNetFinance Group or others. Tech investment in developing countries is indeed a Next Big Thing — much bigger than listicles. Risks and upsides are both huge. Right up your alley.

Best regards,

—Frederic Filloux

Legacy Media: The Lost Decade In Six Charts

 

Ten years. That’s how far away in the past the Google IPO lies. Ten years of explosive growth for the digital world, ten gruesome years for legacy media. Here is the lost decade, revisited in charts and numbers. 

The asymmetry is staggering. By every measure, the digital sphere grew explosively thanks to a combination of known factors: a massive influx of capital; the radical culture shift fostered by a “blank slate” approach; obsessive agility in search of new preys; flattened hierarchies; shrugged-off acceptance of failure; refocusing on the customer;  a keen sense of competition; heavy reliance to technology…

By showing neither appetite nor will to check theses boxes, the newspaper and magazine industry missed almost every possible train. In due fairness, some were impossible to catch. But legacy media stubbornly refused to overhaul their culture, they remained stuck in feudal hierarchies, invested way too late in  tech. And, perhaps their cardinal sin, they kept treating failure as an abomination instead of an essential component of the innovation process.

Consequences have been terrible. Today, an entire industry stands on the verge of extinction.

Le’s start with stock performance:

333_stocks

At last Friday’s closing, Google was worth $390bn, the New York Times Company $1.85bn, Gannett $7.62bn (82 dailies and 480 non-dailies, TV stations, digital media properties, etc.) and McClatchy $392m (multiples dailies, digital services…)

In 2003, Google was minuscule compared to the newspaper industry:

333_revenue2003

 

333_revenue2013

Between 2003 and 2013, Google revenue grew by 60x. In the meantime, according to Newspapers Association of America data, the total revenue of the US newspaper industry shrank by 34%. While sales (newsstand and subscriptions) remain steady at $11bn in current dollars, print advertising revenue plunged by 61%.

For the newspaper industry, the share digital advertising, despite growing by 180%,  remained way too small: it only grew from 2.6% to 14.5% and was therefore unable to offset the loss in print ads.

333_digit.vs_print

The split in valuation and revenue, inevitably reflected on investors perception in terms of funding :

333_funding_valuation

In the chart above, Flipboard’s huge funding (and an undisclosed but tiny ad revenue), was used mostly to grab market share and eliminate competition. Flipboard did both, swallowing Zite (a far better product, in my view) for a reported $60m, i.e. $9 per user (the seller, CNN, achieved a good upside, while, regrettably, it had been unable to build upon Zite). The Huffington Post was acquired by AOL for $315m in 2011, an amount seen as ridiculous at the time, but consistent with today’s valuation of similar properties. In the newspaper segment, The Washington Post was acquired last year by Jeff Bezos for $250m; Le Monde was acquired by a triumvirate of investors led by telecom magnate Xavier Niel for $110m on 2010; and the Boston Globe was sold by The NYT for $70m when the Times purchased it for… $1.1bn in 1993.

For the newspaper industry, the only consolation is the reader’s residual value when compared to high audience but low yield digital pure players:

333_readrs_value

In the chart above, Vox Media’s reader value differs widely: Google Analytics grants it 80 million unique visitors per month; Quantcast says 65 million; and ComScore sees 30 million – such discrepancies are frequent, a part of the internet’s charm. As for Le Monde, thanks to the restoration of its P&L (even if its finances seem a little too good to be true), it’s fair to say its reader’s value could be much more than €7, a number based on the 2010 price tag and a combined audience of 14.9m viewers. These numbers include duplicated audiences of 8.8m in print, 7.9m for the fixed web and 3.2m on mobile (source Audipresse One Global, July 2014).

333_print_adyld

The reader value gap between between digital players and legacy platforms also raises the question of investment attractiveness. Why does VC money only flocks to new, but low yield digital media?

This is a matter of discussion for next week.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The Future of Mobile Apps for News

 

The modern smartphone is 7 years old and yet, when it comes to designing mobile applications, we are still barely scratching the surface. Today we’ll see how harnessing technology already embedded in a phone can unleash great potential. 

A mobile news app has simple goals: Capture and retain reader attention, and repeat the process, several times a day. Pretty straightforward. But not that simple in the real world. For a news provider, the smartphone screen is the the most challenging environment ever seen. There, chances are that a legacy media or a pure-player will find itself in direct competition, not only with the usual players in its field, but also with Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and scores of gaming applications. Distraction is just one icon away; any weakness in functional or graphic design can be lethal.

331_Iphone-wireframes-elements

Hence the questions for publishers: What type of news should they put on their mobile apps, what formats, what about images and video, sharing, curation, connections to other apps? Should they be selective or stuff as much as they can in their app? Or should they build easily digestible news blocks à la Circa? Or put more emphasis on a nice, small package of news items, as Yahoo News Digest brilliantly does? Or — the last trend –design an app for fast reading, like The New York Times NYT Now? (I must say, NYT Now, is my favorite news application — and I tested many; it delivers exactly what its promises: a constantly updated news stream, sending back to NYT’s stories, and well curated picks from the web. At the same time, Les Echos, the business media I work for, released LesEchosLive, an app also built around a single vertical “rail” of news with compact stories that expand and collapse as needed — readers seems to like it a lot…)

But… Good as they are, these forays into mobile news consumption are not enough. The  mobile tsunami has just begun to unfurl. Soon, it might flood a solid half, then two thirds of all news pageviews — and we can expect further acceleration after the release of the next batch of iPhones: their larger screens will provide more attractive reading.

If mobile is to become the dominant vector for news, retaining readers will be much more challenging than it is on a PC or tablet (though the latter tends to engage readers 10x or sometimes 20x more). A news app needs to be steered with precision. Today’s digital marketing tools allow publishers to select multiple parameters monitoring the use of a application: They can measure how long the app is used, when, for how long, why and where people tend to drop it, what kind of news they like, if they hit a paywall and give up, and why they do so, etc. Similarly, when an app remains unopened for too long, smart tools can pinpoint the user and remind her of the product’s benefits. These tools are as good as the people who (a) set the parameters, (b) monitor them on a daily basis, and (c) take appropriate action such as launching a broadside of super-targeted emails. But these are incremental measures, they don’t breed exponential growth in viewership (and revenue).

Why not envision a few more steps forward and take advantage of technologies now embedded in every smartphone? A mobile phone is filled with features that, well directed, can significantly improve user experience and provide reams of usage data.

Imagine a news feed natively produced in different formats: long, short, capsules of text, with stills and videos in different sizes and lengths. Every five minutes or so, the feed is updated.

After a while, your smartphone has recorded your usage patterns in great detail. It knows when you read the news and, more importantly, under what conditions. Consider Google Now, the search engine’s intelligent personal assistant: It knows when you are at work or at home and, at the appropriate moment, it will estimate your transit time and suggest an itinerary based on your commute patterns; or take Google Location History, a spectacular — and a bit creepy — service for smartphones (also tablets and laptops) that visualizes your whereabouts. Both Google services generate datasets that can be used to tailor your news consumption. Not only does your phone detect when you are on the move, but it can anticipate your motions.

Based on these data sets, it becomes possible to predict your most probable level of attention at certain moments of the day and to take in account network conditions. Therefore, a predictive algorithm can decide what type of news format you’ll be up for at 7:30am when you’re commuting (quickly jumping from one cell tower to another with erratic bandwidth) and switch for faster reads than at 8:00pm, when you’re supposed to be home, or staying in a quiet place equipped with a decent wifi, and receptive to richer formats.

By anticipating your moves, your phone can quickly download heavy media such as video while networks conditions are fine and saving meager bandwidth for essential updates. In addition, the accelerometer and internal gyroscope can tell a lot about reading conditions: standing-up in a crowded subway or waiting for your meeting to start.

By poring over such data, analytics specialists can understand what is read, watch and heard, at what time of the day and in which environment. Do users favor snippets when commuting? What’s the maximum word-length for a story to be read in the subway without being dropped, and what length is more likely to induce future reading? What’s the optimal duration for a video? What kind of news package fits the needs and attention for someone on the move? What sort of move by the way? Motion and vibration for a car are completely different than the ones from the Bay Area transit system or London’s Tube. Accelerometers and motion sensors can tell that for sure — and help to decide if it’s better to serve the smartphone owner with a clever podcast while she is likely to be stuck in her car for the next 50 minutes on Highway 101 heading to San Jose (as revealed by her trajectories and GPS patterns of the last few months) or favor text and preloaded videos for BART commuters between Oakland and San Francisco.

This approach, based on a large spectrum of patterns analytics, can enormously increase readers’ appetite for news. This is yet another reason for media companies to lean more and more on the technology side. Until now, with very few exceptions, legacy media have been slow to move into that direction. As someone who loves good journalism and smart news formats, the last thing I want to see is newcomers providing cheap editorial succeed at capturing people’s attention only because they’ll have been first to harness these technologies. We’ve had that experience on the web, let’s not make the same mistake twice.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

News on mobile: better be a Danish publisher than a Japanese one

 

This is the second part of our Mobile facts to Keep in Mind (see last week Monday Note – or here on Quartz). Today, a few more basic trends and a closer look at healthy markets for digital news. 

Last week, we spoke about the preeminence of mobile applications. Not all readers agree, of course, but I found more data to support the finding; among many sources, the remarkable Reuters Institute Digital News Report (PDF here) is worth reading:

47% of smartphone users say they use mainly apps for news

According to the report, this figure has risen by 6 percentage points in just one year. By contrast, 38% of the news consumption is made via a browser — which is losing ground: -4% in just a year.

The trend is likely to accelerate when taking in account demography: On smartphones, the most active groups are the 18-24s and the 35-44s; on tablets the most active group is the 45-54 segment.

Platform usage varies in accordance to local market share, but when it come to paying for news, Apple leads the game:

iOS users are x1.5 likely to pay for news in the US
and x2 likely to pay in the UK than Android or other users

Here is the bad part, though. Again based on the Reuters report, the use of smartphones does narrow the range of news sources. More than ever, the battle for the first screen is crucial.

Across the ten countries surveyed,
37% of users rely on a single news source
vs. 30% for PC users

In the UK, the trend is even stronger with 55% of mobile users relying a single news source. This goes along with good news for those who still defend original news production: mobile news consumption is quite focused on legacy media. The BBC app crushes the competition with 67% of respondents saying they used the app the previous week, vs. 25% for Sky, MSN and Yahoo are trailing with respectively 2% and 7%.

If you want to survey a healthy digital news market, go to Denmark

MN_328_vikings_logo

A Viking logo (from the TV Series) as viewed by the Brand New blog;
note the ancient reference to technology…

Not only does Denmark rank among the best countries to live and develop a business in, but when it comes to digital news, it leads the pack in several of ways:

Despite the digital tsunami, Denmark retains many strong media brands. As a result, legacy media are the prime way for accessing digital news. And since Danish media did well embracing new platforms, they enjoyed similarly success on social, funneling readers to their properties.
The opposite holds for France and Germany where the transition is much slower; in those countries digital users rely much more on search to reach news brands. Two side effects ensue: News readers are more accidental and therefore generate a much lower ARPU; and the greater reliance on Google is problematic (hence the call to arms in France and Germany against the search engine giant.)

– Because of the strength of its traditional media brands, the Denmark news market has left very little oxygen to pure players: They weigh only 10% of weekly digital news, vs. 39% in the US and 46% in Japan were legacy media have been severely hit.

– Danes are the heaviest users of both smartphones and tablets to access news.

– They use mobile apps more than anywhere else: 19%, vs. 15% for US and 12% for Germany.

– They are mostly Apple users : 58% say they use an iOS device to access news in the last week (vs. 28% in Germany), hence a better ARPU for mobile publishers.

–  Danish news consumers generously overlap their devices way more than in any country. 79% use a PC, 61% a smartphone and 39% a tablet. Only 24% use only a PC for news. In Japan by contrast, 58% admit using only a PC for their news diet; up there, the use of smartphone and tablet to access information is respectively one half and one third of Denmark.

– In Danish public transportation, smartphones has overtaken print as the main news vector by 69% vs. 21% of the usage.

We all know where to seek inspiration for our digital news strategies.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Mobile Facts To Keep In Mind – Part 1

 

By the end of 2014, many news media will collect around 50% of their page views via mobile devices. Here are trends to remember before devising a mobile strategy. (First of a two-part series.)

In the news business, mobile investments are on the rise. That’s the pragmatic response to a major trend: Users shift from web to mobile. Already, all major media outlets are bracing for a momentous threshold: 50% of their viewership coming from mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Unfortunately, the revenue stream is not likely to follow anytime soon: making users pay for mobile content has proven much more difficult than hoped for. As for advertising, the code has yet to be cracked for (a) finding formats that won’t trigger massive user rejection, and (b) monetizing in ways comparable to the web (i.e. within the context of a controlled deflation). Let’s dive into a few facts:

Apps vs. WebApps or Mobile sites. A couple of years ago, I was among those who defended web apps (i.e. encapsulated HTML5 coding, not tied to a specific OS platform) vs. native apps (for iOS, Android, Windows Phone). The idea was to give publishers more freedom and to avoid the 30% app store levy. Also, every publisher had in mind the success enjoyed by the FT.com when it managed to put all its eggs in its web app and so retain complete control over the relationship with its customers.

big_phone
Credit: Vintage Mobile / Popular Mechanics

All of the above remains true but, from the users’ perspective, facts speak loudly: According to Flurry Analytics, apps now account for 86% of the time spent by mobile users vs. 14% for mobile sites (including web apps.) A year ago, the balance was 80% for apps and 20% for mobile web.

Trend #1: Native apps lead the game
at the expense of web apps and mobile sites 

One remark, though: the result must take in account the weight of games and Facebook apps that account for 50% of the time spent on mobile. News-related usage leans more to mobile as there is not (yet) demand for complex rendering as in a gaming app. But as far news applications are concerned, we haven’t seen major breakthroughs in mobile web or web apps over the last months and it seems development is stalling.

News vs. the rest of the app world. On a daily total of 2hrs 50mn spent by mobile users (source: eMarketer), 2% to 5% of that time is spent on news. Once you turn to growth, the small percentage number starts to look better: The news segment is growing faster (+64% Y/Y) than messaging and social (+28%) or gaming and entertainment (+9% each); the fastest usage segment being the productivity apps (+119%) and that’s due to the transfer of professional uses from the desktop to the mobile.

Trend #2: On mobile, news is growing faster
than game or social 

…And it will grow stronger as publishers will deploy their best efforts to adjust contents and features to small screens and on-the-go usage and as mobile competitors multiply.

iOS vs. Android: the monetization issue. Should publishers go for volume or focus on the ARPU (revenue per user)? If that’s the reasoning, the picture is pretty clear: an iOS customer brings on average five times more money than an Android user. And the gap is not about to close. However, Android OS has about one billion users vs. 470m users for iOS, but most of Android users are in low income countries, where phones can cost as little as $80, and prices are falling fast. By contrast, an iPhone will cost around $600 (without a carrier contract) and the not-so-successful “cheap” iPhone 5C shows that iPhone is likely to remain a premium product.

Trend #3: There is more money to make on iOS
than Android and that’s not likely to change

Beside, we must take in account two sub-trends: iOS will gain in sophistication with the arrival of iOS 8 (see Jean-Louis’ recent column about iOS 8 being the real version 2.0 of iOS) and a new breed of applications based on the new Swift  programming language. Put differently: Advanced functionalities in Swift/iOS 8-based apps will raise the level of user expectations; publishers will be forced to respond accordingly: as apps reside side by side on the same mobile screen, news apps will be required to display the same level of sophistication than, say, a gaming app — that’s also why I’m less bullish on web apps. Behind the iOS/Android gap lies another question: Should publishers have the same app (content, features, revenue model across) all platforms – or must they tailor their product to platform “moneygraphics”?  That’s an open question.

I’ll stop here for today. Next week, I’ll explore trends and options for business models, marketing tactics, why it could be interesting to link a news app to the smartphone accelerometer and why news media should tap into game developers for certain types of qualifications.

–frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Google might not be a monopoly, after all

 

Despite its dominance, Google doesn’t fit the definition of a monopoly. Still, the Search giant’s growing disconnect from society could lead to serious missteps and, over time, to a weakened position. 

In last week’s column, I opined about the Open Internet Project’s anti-trust lawsuit against Google. Reactions showed divided views of the search engine’s position. Granted, Google is an extremely aggressive company, obsessed with growth, scalability, optimization — and also with its own vulnerability.

But is it really a monopoly in the traditional and historical sense? Probably not. Here is why, in four points:

1. The consent to dependency. It is always dangerous to be too dependent from a supplier one doesn’t control. This is the case in the (illegal) drug business. Price and supply will fluctuate at the whim of unpredictable people.This is what happens to those who build highly Google-dependent businesses such as e-commerce sites and content-farms that provide large quantities of cheap fodder in order to milk ad revenue from Google search-friendly tactics.

326_jaws
In the end, everything is a matter of trust (“Jaws”, courtesy of Louis Goldman)

Many news media brands have sealed their own fate by structuring their output so that 30% to 40% of their traffic is at the mercy of Google algorithms. I’m fascinated by the breadth and depth of the consensual ecosystem that is now built around the Google traffic pipeline: consulting firms helping media rank better in Google Search and Google News; software that rephrases headlines to make it more likely they’ll hit the top ranks; A/B testing on-the-fly that shows what the search engine might like best, etc.

For the media industry, what should have remained a marginal audience extension has turned into a vital stream of page views and revenue. I personally think this is dangerous in two ways. One, we replace the notion of relevance, reader interest, with a purely quantitative/algorithmic construct (listicles vs depth, BuzzFeed vs. ProPublica for instance). Such mechanistic practices further fuel the value deflation of original content. Two, the eagerness to please the algorithms distracts newsrooms, journalists, editors, from their job to find, develop, build intelligent news packages that will lift brand perception and elevate the reader’s mind (BuzzFeed and plenty of others are the quintessence of cheapening alienation.)

2. Choice and Competition. In 1904, Standard Oil Inc. controlled 91% of American oil production and refining, and 85% of sales. This practically inescapable monopoly was able to dictate prices and supply structure. As for Google, it indeed controls 90% of the search market in some regions (Europe especially, where fragmented markets, poor access to capital and other cultural factors prevented the emergence of tech giants.) Google combines its services (search, mail, maps, Android) to produce one of the most potent data gathering systems ever created. Note the emphasis: Google (a) didn’t invent the high tech data X-ray business, nor (b) is it the largest entity to collect gargantuan amounts of data. Read this Quartz article The nine companies that know more about you than Google or Facebook  and see how corporations such as Acxiom, Corelogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf, and Recorded Future collect data on a gigantic scale, including court and public records information, or your gambling habit. Did they make you sign a consent form?

You want to escape Google? Use Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo or Exalead for your web search, or go here to find a list of 40 alternatives. You don’t want your site to be indexed by Google? Insert a robot exclusion line in your html pages, and the hated crawler won’t see your content. You’re sick of Adwords in your pages or in Gmail? Use AdBlock plug-in, it’s even available for the Google Chrome browser. The same applies for storing your data, getting a digital map or web mail services. You’re “creeped out” by Google’s ability to reconstruct every move around your block or from one city to another by injecting data from your Android phone into Maps? You’re right! Google Maps Location History is frightening; to kill it, you can turn off your device’s geolocation, or use Windows Phone or an iPhone (be simply aware that they do exactly the same thing, but they don’t advertise it). Unlike public utilities, you can escape Google. Simply, its services are more convenient, perform well and… are better integrated, which gets us to our third point:

3. Transparent strategy. To Google’s credit, for the most part, its strategy is pretty transparent. What some see as a monopoly in the making is a deliberate — and open — strategy of systematic (and systemic) integration. Here is the chart I made few months ago:

326 graph_goolge

We could include several recent additions such as trip habits from Uber (don’t like it? Try Lyft, or better, a good old Parisian taxi – they don’t even take credit cards); or temperature setting patterns soon coming from Nest thermostats (if you chose to trust Tony Fadell’s promises)… Even Google X, the company’s moonshot factory (story in Fast Company) offers glimpses of Google’s future reach with the development of autonomous cars, projects to bring the internet to remote countries using balloons (see Project Loon) or other airborne platforms.

4. Innovation. Monopolies are known to kill innovation. That was the case with oil companies, cartels of car makers that discouraged alternate transportation systems, or even Microsoft which made our life miserable thanks to a pipeline of operating systems without real competition. By contrast, Google is obsessed with innovative projects seen as an absolute necessity for its survival. Some are good, other are bad, or remain in beta for years.

However, Google is already sowing the seeds of its own erosion. This company is terribly disconnected from the real world. This shows everywhere, from the minutest details of its employees daily life pampered in a overabundance of comfort and amenities that keep them inside a cosy bubble, to its own vital statistics (published by the company itself). Google is mostly white (61%), male (70%), recruits in major universities (in that order: Stanford, UC Berkeley, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UCLA), with very little “blood” from fields other than scientific or technical. For a company that says it wants to connect its business to a myriad of sectors, such cultural blinders are a serious issue. Combined to the certainty of its own excellence, the result is a distorted view of the world in which the distinction between right and wrong can easily blur. A business practice internally considered virtuous because it supports the perpetuation of the company’s evangelistic vision of a better world can be seen as predatory in the “real” world. Hence a growing rift between the tech giant and its partners and customers, and the nations who host them.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Google and the European media: Back to the Ice Age

 

Prominent members of the European press are joining a major EU-induced antitrust lawsuit against Google. The move is short on rationale and long on ideology. 

A couple of weeks ago, Axelle Lemaire, France’s deputy minister for digital affairs,  was quoted contending Google’s size and market power effectively prevented the emergence of a “French Google”. A rather surprising statement from a public official whose profile stands in sharp contrast to the customary high civil service profile. As an MP, Mrs Lemaire represents French citizens living overseas and holds dual French and Canadian citizenship; she got a Ph.D. in International Law at London’s King’s College as well as a Law degree at the Sorbonne. Ms. Lemaire then practiced Law in the UK and served as a parliamentary aide in the British House of Commons. Still, her distinguished and unusually “open” background didn’t help: She’s dead wrong about why there is no French Google.

The reasons for France’s “failure” to give birth to a Google-class search engine are simply summarized: Education and money. Google is a pure product of what France misses the most: a strong and diversified engineering pipeline supported by a business-oriented education system, and access to abundant capital. Take the famous (though controversial) Shanghai higher education ranking in computer science: France ranks in the 76 to 100 group with the University of Bordeaux; 101 to 150 for the highly regarded Ecole Normale Supérieure; and the much celebrated Ecole Polytechnique sits deep in the 150-200 group – with performance slowly degrading over the last ten years and a minuscule faculty of… 7 CS professors and assistants professors. That’s the reality of computer science education in the most prestigious engineering school in France. As for access to capital, two numbers say it all: according to its own trade association, the size of the French venture capital sector is 1/33th of the US’ while the GDP ratio is only 1 to 6. That’s for 2013; in 2012, the ratio was 1/46th, things are improving.

The structural weakness of French tech clearly isn’t Google’s fault. Which reveals the ideological facts-be-damned nature of the blame, an attitude broadly shared by other European countries.

A few weeks ago, a surreal event took place in Paris, at the Cité Universitaire Internationale de Paris (which wants to look like a Cambridge replica). There, the Open Internet Project uncovered the next European antitrust action against Google. On stage was an disparate crew: media executives from German and French companies; the former antitrust litigator Gary Reback known for his fight against Microsoft in the Nineties – and now said to help Microsoft in its fight against Google; Laurent Alexandre, a strange surgeon/entrepreneur and self-proclaimed visionary  living in Luxembourg Brussels where his company DNA Vision is headquartered, who almost got a standing ovation by explaining how Google intended to connect our brains to its gigantic neuronal network by around 2040; all of the above wrapped up with a speech from French Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg who never misses an opportunity to apply his government’s seal on anti-imperialist initiatives.

The lawsuit alleges market distortion practices, discrimination in several guises, anticompetitive conduct, preference for its own vertical services at the expense of fairness in its search results, illegal use of data, etc. (The summary of EU allegations is here). The complaint paves the way for painstaking litigation that will drag on for years.

Among the eleven corporations or trade groups funding the lawsuit we find seven media entities, including the giant German Axel Springer GroupLagardère Active whose boss invoked the “moral obligation” to fight Google. There is also CCM Benchmark Group, a large diversified digital player whose boss, Benoît Sillard, had his own epiphany while speaking with Nikesh Arora in Mountain View a while ago. There and then, Mr. Sillard saw the search giant’s grand plan to dominate the digital world. (I paid a couple of visits to Google’s headquarters but was never granted such a religious experience – I will try again, I promise.)

Despite the media industry’s weight, the lawsuit fails to expose Google practices directly affecting the P&L of news providers. Indeed, some media companies have developed business that competes with Google verticals. That’s the case of Lagardère’s shopping site LeGuide.com but, again, the group’s CEO, Denis Olivennes, was long on whining and short on relevant facts. (The only fun element he mentioned was outside the scope of OIP’s legal action: with only €50m in revenue, LeGuide.com paid the same amount of taxes as Google whose French operation generates $1.6bn in revenue).

Needless to say, that doesn’t mean that Google couldn’t be using its power in questionable ways at the expense of scores of e-retailers. But as far as the media sector is concerned, gains largely outweigh losses as most web sites enjoy a boost in their traffic thanks to Google Search and Google News. (The value of Google-generated clicks is extremely difficult to assess — a subject for a future Monday Note.)

One fact remains obvious: In this legal action, media groups are being played to defend interests… that are not theirs.

In this whole affair, the French news media industry is putting itself in an awkward position. In February 2013, Google and the French government hammered a deal in which the tech giant committed €60m ($81m) over a 3-year period to fund digital projects run by the French press. (In 2013, according to the fund’s report, 23 projects have been started, totaling €16m in funding.) The agreement between Google and the French press stipulates that, for the duration of the deal, the French will refrain from suing Google on copyrights grounds – such as the use of snippets in search results. But those who signed the deal found themselves dragged in the OIP lawsuit through the GESTE, a legacy trade association – more talkative than effective – going back to the Minitel era  that supports the OIP lawsuit on antirust rather than copyrights grounds. (Those who signed the Google Funds agreement issues a convoluted communiqué to distance themselves from the OIP initiative.)

In Mountain View, many are upset by French media that, on one hand, get hefty subsidies and, on the other, file an anti-Google suit before the Europe Court of Justice. “Back home, the [Google] Fund always had its opponents”, a Google exec told me, “and now they have reasons to speak louder…” Will they be heard? It is unlikely that Google will pull the plug on the Fund, I’m told. But people I talk to also said that any renewal, under any form, now looks unlikely. So will be the extension of an innovation funding scheme in Germany — or elsewhere. “Google is at a loss when trying to develop peaceful relations with the French”, another Google insider told me… “We put our big EMEA [Europe and Middle East] headquarters in Paris, we created a nicely funded Cultural Institute, we fueled the innovation fund for the press, and now we are bitten by the same ones who take our subsidies…”

Regardless of its merits, the European press’ involvement in this antitrust case is ill-advised. It might throw the relationship with Google back to the Ice Age. As another Google exec said to me: “News media should not forget that we don’t need them to thrive…”

–frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

Legacy Media: The Missing Gene

 

Legacy media is at great risk of losing against tech culture. This is because incumbents miss a key driver: an obsession with their own mortality. Such missing paranoia gene negatively impacts every aspect of their business. 

At the last Code conference (the tech gathering hosted by Walter Mossberg and Kara Swisher), Google co-founder Sergey Brin made a surprising statement (at least to me): Asked by Swisher how Google sees itself, Brin responded in his usual terse manner: “There is the external and the internal view. For the outside, we are Goliath and the rest are Davids. From the inside, we are the Davids”. From someone who co-founded a $378bn market cap company that commands more than 80% of the global internet search, this is indeed an unexpected acknowledgement.

Sergey Brin’s statement echoes Bill Gates’ own view when, about fifteen years ago, he was asked about his biggest concern: Was it a decisive move or product by another big tech company? No, says, Gates, it is the fact that somewhere, somehow, a small group of people is inventing something that will change everything… With the rise of Google and Facebook, his fears came true on a scale he couldn’t even imagine. Roughly at the same time, Andy Grove, then CEO of Intel, published a book with a straightforward title: “Only the Paranoid Survives“. Among my favorites Grove quotes:

“Business success contains the seeds of its own destruction. The more successful you are, the more people want a chunk of your business and then another chunk and then another until there is nothing.”

Still, Intel wasn’t paranoid enough and completely missed the mobile revolution, leaving to ARM licensees the entire market of microprocessors for smartphones and tablets.

This deep-rooted sense of fragility is a potent engine of modern tech culture. It spurs companies to grow as fast as they can by raising lots of capital in the shortest possible time. It also drives them to capture market share by all means necessary (including the worst ones), and to develop a culture of excellence by hiring the best people at any cost while trimming the workforce as needed while obsessively maintaining a culture of agility to quickly learn form mistakes and to adapt to market conditions. Lastly, the ever-present sense of mortality drives rising tech companies to quickly erect barriers-to-entry and to generate network effects needed to keep incumbents at bay.

For a large part, these drives stem from these companies’ early history and culture. Most started combining a great idea with clever execution – as opposed to being born within an expensive infrastructure. Take Uber or AirBnB. Both started with a simple concept: harness digital tools to achieve swift and friction-free connections between customers and service providers. Gigantic infrastructure or utterly complicated applications weren’t required. Instead, the future of these companies was secured by a combination of flawless execution and fast growth (read this New York Times story about the Uber network effect challenge). Hence the rapid-fire rounds of financing that will boost Uber’s valuation to $17bn, allowing it to accelerate its worldwide expansion – and also combat a possible price war, as stated by its founder himself at the aforementioned Code Conference.

Unfortunately, paranoia-driven growth sometimes comes with ugly business practices. Examples abound: Amazon’s retaliation against publishers who fight its pricing conditions; Uber bullying tactics against its rival – followed by an apology; Google offering for free what others were used to sell, or distorting search results, etc.

Such behaviors leave the analog world completely flummoxed. Historical players had experienced nothing but a cosy competitive gentlemen-like environment, with a well-defined map of players. This left incumbents without the genes, the culture required to fight digital barbarians. Whether they are media dealing with Google, publishers negotiating with Amazon, hotels fighting Booking.com or AirBnB, or taxi confronting Uber, legacy players look like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. In some instances, they created their own dependency to new powerful distributors (like websites whose traffic relies largely on Google), before realizing that it was time to sue the dope dealer. (This is exactly what the European press is doing by assigning Google before the European Court of Justice invoking antitrust violations — a subject for a future Monday Note). The appeal to legislators underlines the growing feeling of impotence vis-a-vis the take-no-prisoners approach of new digital players: Unable to respond on the business side, the old guard turns to political power to develop a legal (but short-lasting) containment strategy.

In the media industry, historic players never developed a sense of urgency. The situation varies from one market to another but, in many instances, the “too important to fail” was the dominant belief. It always amazed me: As I witnessed the rise of the digital sector – its obsession with fast growth, and its inevitable collision course with legacy media – incumbents were frozen in the quiet certitude that their role in society was in fact irreplaceable, and that under no circumstances they would be left to succumb to a distasteful Darwinian rule. This deep-rooted complacency is, for a large part, responsible for the current state of the media industry.

Back in 1997, Andy Grove’s book explained how to deal with change :

“The implication was that either the people in the room needed to change their areas of knowledge and expertise or people themselves needed to be changed” 

Instead, our industry made too few changes, too late. Since the first digital tremors hit business models ten years ago, we have been through one or two generations of managers in traditional media company. It is amazing to see how the same DNA is being replicated over and over. Some layers are moving faster than others, though. The higher you go in the food chain, the more people are penetrated by a sense of vital urgency. But the rank-and-file and middle management are holding back, unable to exit their comfort zone.

Earlier this year, the French newspaper Liberation chose the outdated slogan: “We are a Newspaper” in reaction to its new owners ideas (read this story in the NYT). Last week, Liberation opted to appoint as it editor-in-chief one of the strongest opponent to digital media (he is just out from the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur which he gently led into a quiet nursing home, leaving it worth next to nothing).

The gap between the managers of pure digital players and those who still lead legacy media has never been greater. Keenly aware of their own mortality, the former rely more than ever on brutal street-fight tactics, while the incumbents evolve at a different pace, still hoping that older models will resist longer than feared. For old media, it is time for a radical genetic alteration — if performed down to every layer of the media industry.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

The New York Times KPI’s

 

Here are numbers lifted form the NYT’s Innovation report (see last week) and other sources. 

Most of The New York Times’ reach comes from its digital audience. Regardless of the metric, viewers on desktops and mobile are crushing print readers.

321-1 - 450

Sources: ComScore for the monthly uniques (US only); internal count for the home page views per 24 hours period and Gfk MRI based on net weekday & Sunday readership, Fall 2013 survey.

321-2 - 450

321-3 - 450

In theory, the Times can get rid of print. Digital revenue far exceeds the cost of running the newsroom, which amounts to $200m a year for 1300 writers and editors. Even if you add $20m for the 200 technical staff needed to run digital operations, and even 30% more for overhead, sales, marketing, and support staff, the result would still be a substantial profit  – but would advertisers come in the same way for a digital-only product?

321-4 - 450

The ad market seems to reward quality journalism over aggregation and listicles: The NYTimes.com monetizes itself three times better than Business Insider and nineteen times better than BuzzFeed. For this graph I simply divided annual advertising revenue for each media by the number of monthly users: 30m UVs for the NYT, 12m UVs for Business Insider according to ComScore figures quoted in this 247wallst story, and a revenue estimated at $20m by Reuters. (Had I used a 25m UVs assumption, BI’s ARPU would have been only $0.80 per visitor and per year).

321-5 - 450

The Times is known to have invested a lot in its digital subscription system (760,000 subs to date). It turns out to have been worth every penny. For those who doubt the paid model’s efficiency, The New York Times provides a great blueprint for quality media.

–frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com