About Frédéric Filloux

http://

Posts by Frédéric Filloux:

Lagardère acquiring Doctissimo

Groupe Lagardère is acquiring the majority of the health specialized website Doctissimo. Lagardère Active Digital will get 53% of the capital and 58% of the voting rights of Doctissimo for about E70m that valued the company at E138m. By paying a 7.4% premium over the share price, and a multiple of 12 times the 2007 sales, the transaction seems way more reasonable than a year ago when Springer coughed up 21 times the sales for the French portal AuFeminin.com. Lagardère and Doctissimo agreed for a valuation in the low end of the E130m-E165m range set by analysts.
> story in Bloomberg
> and in Le Figaro

Murdoch’s competitive metabolism

On the same subject, Howell Raines, former editor of the New York Times, reminds us of the true drive of the new owner of the Wall Street Journal: competition. In 2002, in a discussion about how to compete against the WSJ, Murdoch gave Raines a piece of advice : “You ought to hit them where they live,” he said of the Journal. “Go after hard business news and beat them on their strength.” Times people know what to expect from someone who reportedly send a handwritten note to Arthur Sulzberger after the acquisition saying : “let the war begin”.
> story in Portfolio

Truce at the NY Times

The New York Times Company has reached a deal with Harbinger Firebrand, the hedge fund that was knocking (hard) on its door. For the first time since it became public in 1967, the Times will open its board to outsiders. The two new directors will advocate asset sales (the Boston Globe for instance) as well as aggressive investments in the Internet. The Sulzberger family retains the supervoting shares, but board meetings won’t be as comfy as they used to be when “we all were family”.
> story in the New York Times and as seen by the rival, The Wall Street Journal

Infrastructure — Oil price vs. Moore’s Law

The Internet runs on a simple equation: bandwidth and computer power are growing exponentially as their price keeps falling. Which is fine, since the demand is also surging the same way. There is one glitch though. More Internet traffic means more data centers across the globe and more electricity to power and to cool millions of overheated processors. Problem is : energy supply can’t follow the same trend. The cost of electricity consumed by data centers doubled between 2000 and 2006 and could double again by 2011, as mentioned in this Business Week article. This trend is about to become the main problem of the Internet sector. Especially with oil at $110 a barrel (one analyst even sees spikes at $150 ).

To address the question, two simultaneous races have begun. One is to use new technologies to lower the energy consumption of data centers. The other is to find the best locations, regardless of where the traffic demand resides, since the expense of transmitting data is small compared to the processing cost. A worldwide scouting operation is underway: Iceland or Siberia are on the radar-screen of data-hungry companies such as Google or Microsoft. Over there, energy is abundant, and cooling is natural. Political problems can be natural as well… No one wants a Putin-like dictator cutting the supply of bits coming from Northern data centers the way he does with Ukrainian pipeline.

It will be years before research for energy efficiency or Siberian computer farm will yield any result. In the meantime, content could take the heat. YouTube is said to account for 10% of the entire Internet traffic. This raises questions about YouTube economics : a free service, consuming so much bandwidth/energy, yielding very little ad revenue ? Can’t go for ever. In the media business, we were used to think that digital costs of distribution were negligible. That might be true compared to a newspaper, but certainly not in absolute, future terms.

Social networks — Possible and fatal flaws

How long for the social network bubble to burst? Market forces are working on it. First, last year’s fiasco of Beacon — Facebook’s behavioral advertising system, massively rejected as soon as introduced. Then, audience numbers reach a plateau, at least for MySpace, still the leader of the pack. Now, uncertainties about the business model are looming, with the increasing suspicion of a triple flaw.

One is the tendency to replicate ill-fated online models: Compuserve, early AOL, Prodigy. They were walled gardens, not interconnected systems. They simply died of it, as recalls this opinion piece in The Economist (the business magazine is not exactly embracing the social network frenzy). That’s why platforms like Open Social, the setup conceived by Google poses a threat for current social network players that won’t adopt it. An example: Facebook applications must be written specifically for the platform, using its own markup language, its own query language (see here a demo on how Open Social works ).

The second question addresses the notions of network / applications / features. See what Charlene Li from Forrester Research says in the Economist: The destiny of most services embedded in social networks is to become simply web-based and no longer be tied to a specific network. “We will look back to 2008 and think it archaic and quaint that we had to go to a destination like Facebook or LinkedIn to be social. [Future social networks] will be anywhere and everywhere we need and want them to be.”

The third flaw is simply time allocation. It is a fact that the use of a social network tends to drop fairly quickly after the discovery phase. Only the flow of newcomers helps to sustain growth in pageviews. But as the web is becoming deeper and richer, who wants to spend hours a month to have a virtual beer with a pal? How long will last the novelty effect?

That leads to the business model questions: if the users, in a flash of common sense, reject the behavioral-powered ads; if the applications tend to work outside the proprietary platform; if the click-through rates keep falling… How sustainable is the bizmodel?

Social networks — Fed up with the ad deluge

Question : how acceptable would it be for you, to log on a social network site and get a flurry of ads about what your acquaintances are reading or buying ? OK, interesting… for few weeks, and then — get out of my sight. That’s seems to be happening with MySpace. Its user base remains huge, but it is slipping, from a peak of 72m in October 2007 to 69m in December. Overall, advertising on social networsk is not performing well : a click-rate only the fifth of average website at best. Behavioral targeting is definitely not the magic bullet. Pushed to the extreme, it even seems to backfire.
> story in Business Week Nevertheless, prices remain high for this market segment : AOL will acquire Beebo, n°3 of the sector, for $850m. Based on 2007 results, that’s a ridiculous 42 times revenues and 160 times EBIDTA, according to the tech site AllThingsD. Even if, overall valuations should fall saysVenture Beat

March 11, 2008 : a new era in the internet advertising sector

The European Union had the power to prevent Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick. Last week, the regulator unwittingly set a milestone in the history of the Internet. They greenlighted Google’s absolute supremacy over Internet advertising, a position comparable to Microsoft’s domination of PC operating systems, Windows, and applications, Office. To get a fresh read of the kriegspiel, Monday Note spoke last week with Alain Levy, CEO of Weborama a fast growing player in the European internet ad sector. Some excerpts follow:

On the EU’s motives for approving the deal, Alain Levy : “European regulators undoubtedly performed a very thorough investigation before making their decision. They sent us a detailed questionnaire; however, it was limited to pure competitive considerations. Issues such as privacy, the protection of personal data, where not addressed. To me, these remain key questions. Microsoft’s attitude contributed to the outcome : first denouncing the deal as the quintessence of anti-competitive behavior, and then bidding for Yahoo. In doing so, Microsoft killed most of the arguments against the DoubleClick acquisition. It is quite possible Microsoft had a clue about the upcoming decision of the EC”.

On the monopoly issue and consequences for others players: “…I can’t think of a better definition of a monopoly than the new position assumed by Google in the ad-serving market. The tremor will be felt in many areas. Google will control critical parts of the business. Advertisers will lean to go with them more than ever. Agencies will be squeezed by Google’s propensity to talk directly to advertisers. I don’t buy Eric Schmidt’s [Google's CEO] statement about its willingness to preserve the brand-agency relation, we already have many indications that they will do exactly the opposite [see below].

Even the rules of merger and acquisition will be effected: “…Thanks to its unprecedented access to market data — CPM, market share, revenue structure, demographics — Google now has the ability to assess in an instant the value of almost any player in the market, on the ad side, as well as on the publishing side. This is a decisive advantage when looking at potential targets, especially with a current market cap of (still) $137bn… Conflict of interests are lurking everywhere — especially in a totally non-regulated business. Today, all media companies and communication groups — internet and non-internet — are thinking: How do we position ourselves, how do we adjust our strategy in light of this acquisition?”.

Is there still room for independent players ? “…Oh, yeah! More than ever, actually. From now on, any brand using Google’s ad serving does, in fact, give up its entire inventory; those who work with Google for media buying deal with someone controlling 40% to 60% of the market. And advertisers who are already DoubleClick’s clients become totally transparent for Google. In such an imbalanced environment, yes, we have a lot of room to grow”.

Further readings :

These figures are amazing : every month, for each visitor, Yahoo collects marketing data 2520 times ! For My Space, the figure is 1229 times, for Google: 578 times, the New York Times, only 45 times per visitor and per month. This also shows what’s really at stake with the Microsoft/Yahoo battle : Yahoo is able to get data on 400 billion events per month, Microsoft only 51 billion.
> This article in the New York Times, reveals the depth of advertising-related data sites are able to harvest.
> and here on NYT Bits

Here is why the entire advertising food-chain has good reasons to be worried : “Google’s strategy is to have advertisers load their entire ad budgets into Google’s system, which would allocate spending across media whether online or offline”. Says who ? Tim Armstrong, Google’s president for advertising.
> more here

Google waited no more than three days after the decision of EU regulators to launch its Google Ad Manager. This is a crystal clear indications of Google ambitions : sterilizing the market, not with Microsoft-like intimidating practices, but simply by giving for free what others will charge. For Google, giving away some ad serving features is simply a way of generating new streams of cash. Thanks to its gigantic infrastructure, the “price” of the gift is marginal. And for the site publisher, choice between being limited to a midsize Ford for free or paying full price for a Saab is simply a no-brainer. As for Google Analytics that gives access to powerful traffic tools for free, Google Ad Manager will prove to be the lethal weapon to capture market share.
> see how Goolgle it works How big Google display advertising business could be ?
>Here are some answers.“There Will Be Blood” : collateral damages will be serious in the wake of the DoubleClick acquisition.
>read some self-explanatory quotes of Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt in Silicon Alley Insider. and a more PR polished version, his interview in Portfolio.