Online video is well and truly, having the best time of its life right now. It seems to be factoring in every marketing plan worth its salt, with some incredible videos being produced by brands that are lighting up social media. I wanted to explore the state of the online video industry a bit further and delve into the stats that show the huge growth curve online video is currently on. Right now it is one of the most fascinating aspects of online, as brands continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible and engaging the audience in completely new ways. It is a seriously big business and one that every brand wants to be a part of. And it’s easy to see why..
Over 35 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute
This stat on its own is pretty stunning and quite hard to get your head around. But when you look at in in the context of the past 3 years, or even 6 months, you realise just how impressive this is. The graph below from Youtube shows the average hours of video uploaded every minute, back to June 2007. While this started at 6 hours, in the past 6 months it stood at 23. That’s a huge increase of 12 hours per minute in just 6 months :
That is some seriously impressive growth and also shows that just as much as brand video is growing, ugc is growing at a staggering rate, due largely to the growth in mobile and ease of uploading. As Youtube note themselves there are other factors, such as upping the time limit in videos, which would obviously attribute for an increase in the total length of video uploads. But this is impressive nonetheless.
Blinkx shares up by 400%
At the business end of video, Blinkx are showing that online video is starting to become a profitable industry. While Google still won’t reveal whether Youtube is making them money or not, Blinkx have recently announced their first ever turn in profit in the 6 months up to September. And it comes 3 years after they first launched. Blinkx make money through running ads alongside the videos they index, acting as a huge video search tool. They have certainly had a good year, as the 400% share increase shows. It’s also encouraging to see that online video isn’t just about Youtube and there are some other serious players in the market with unique offerings.
Online video ads reach half of U.S. users
While some research shows that advertisers are cautious over online video advertising, due to factors such as standardisation of ad formats, online video advertising is going from strength to strength. A recent study from ComScore (the people who measure things), found that just over 45.4% of users in America viewed at least one video ad over a month. But more impressively, were exposed to 32.2 videos each, on average. That’s over 4.3 million video ads that were served to the online U.S. population in September 2010. This shows the power of online video ads to get right in front of your target audience. And while there are some definite rights and wrongs in the content of the video ad, I think we’ll see this grow even more and prove itself as a valuable industry up there with TV.
Comedian makes $315,000 from online video
A recent study found that comedians top the bill for online video earnings, and one in particular is doing very well. A recent study found that comedian Shane Dawson, who amassed 431.7 million online video views in the past year made $315,000 from his content, through ad revenue. He came out top for independent earners on Youtube and it’s certainly an aspirational case study that shows the business of online video isn’t just for big brands.
Kia spend a third of budget on online video
In a bold move, Kia Motors have invested a third of their £2 million marketing budget for the new Sportage model, into online video. We’ve seen the motor industry embracing social media more and more – with Ford launching a model through Facebook – and this shows the commitment that some brands are making to online video. Not so much an add-on or a nice to have, but a central facet of a multi-million pound campaign. The online campaign will focus on the central characters from the TV adverts and include home-page takeovers and video ads. Cases like this help to solidify online video as a serious marketing avenue that can bring a campaign to life and help you get that extra bang for your buck.
20% of downstream internet traffic is to Netflix
In a huge coup for Netflix, a recent study found that 20% of peak time donwstream internet traffic was streaming video from their site. This is great news for Netflix, and perhaps not so great news for the DVD market. If Netflix were available in Ireland I would be there in an instant and would choose to view all films in this way, as it simply doesn’t make sense to invest in a DVD anymore and I expect that even the gift market for this may eventually die out. 20% is a huge figure and shows how much Netflix has staked its claim in this market.
2 billion videos viewed each month Facebook
In June 2010 Facebook released some interesting stats into their online video offering, which show the huge potential it has to own this market. They revealed that as well as 2 billion video views on its site each month, there were 415,000 online video uploads each day. While it may not be a contender to Youtube just yet, the sharing capabilities within Facebook and the ease of connecting with your community show the potential for this to grow. Interestingly, Youtube now offer the option of connecting with Facebook instead of logging in with your gmail account. This shows Youtube recognises the power to use the huge community on Facebook, something it can’t compete with, to combine with its own wealth of online video.
Live stream video viewing up by 650%
In their most recent report into online video, Comscore announced that the amount of live-streamed video we’re watching has grown by 648% over the past year. This is absolutely phenomenal growth and compares to a (still impressive) 68% increase in video views on Youtube. While it may still form a minor part of the online video market, live streaming is growing in popularity and use, as we become more accustomed to this form of content, both as consumers and producers. UStream are owning the market here, but Facebook are quickly getting in on the game – recently introducing LiveStream integration with Facebook pages. This has the potential to hugely increase the live stream video market and see it really reach the mainstream.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
bench craft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
benchcraft company scam
Online video is well and truly, having the best time of its life right now. It seems to be factoring in every marketing plan worth its salt, with some incredible videos being produced by brands that are lighting up social media. I wanted to explore the state of the online video industry a bit further and delve into the stats that show the huge growth curve online video is currently on. Right now it is one of the most fascinating aspects of online, as brands continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible and engaging the audience in completely new ways. It is a seriously big business and one that every brand wants to be a part of. And it’s easy to see why..
Over 35 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute
This stat on its own is pretty stunning and quite hard to get your head around. But when you look at in in the context of the past 3 years, or even 6 months, you realise just how impressive this is. The graph below from Youtube shows the average hours of video uploaded every minute, back to June 2007. While this started at 6 hours, in the past 6 months it stood at 23. That’s a huge increase of 12 hours per minute in just 6 months :
That is some seriously impressive growth and also shows that just as much as brand video is growing, ugc is growing at a staggering rate, due largely to the growth in mobile and ease of uploading. As Youtube note themselves there are other factors, such as upping the time limit in videos, which would obviously attribute for an increase in the total length of video uploads. But this is impressive nonetheless.
Blinkx shares up by 400%
At the business end of video, Blinkx are showing that online video is starting to become a profitable industry. While Google still won’t reveal whether Youtube is making them money or not, Blinkx have recently announced their first ever turn in profit in the 6 months up to September. And it comes 3 years after they first launched. Blinkx make money through running ads alongside the videos they index, acting as a huge video search tool. They have certainly had a good year, as the 400% share increase shows. It’s also encouraging to see that online video isn’t just about Youtube and there are some other serious players in the market with unique offerings.
Online video ads reach half of U.S. users
While some research shows that advertisers are cautious over online video advertising, due to factors such as standardisation of ad formats, online video advertising is going from strength to strength. A recent study from ComScore (the people who measure things), found that just over 45.4% of users in America viewed at least one video ad over a month. But more impressively, were exposed to 32.2 videos each, on average. That’s over 4.3 million video ads that were served to the online U.S. population in September 2010. This shows the power of online video ads to get right in front of your target audience. And while there are some definite rights and wrongs in the content of the video ad, I think we’ll see this grow even more and prove itself as a valuable industry up there with TV.
Comedian makes $315,000 from online video
A recent study found that comedians top the bill for online video earnings, and one in particular is doing very well. A recent study found that comedian Shane Dawson, who amassed 431.7 million online video views in the past year made $315,000 from his content, through ad revenue. He came out top for independent earners on Youtube and it’s certainly an aspirational case study that shows the business of online video isn’t just for big brands.
Kia spend a third of budget on online video
In a bold move, Kia Motors have invested a third of their £2 million marketing budget for the new Sportage model, into online video. We’ve seen the motor industry embracing social media more and more – with Ford launching a model through Facebook – and this shows the commitment that some brands are making to online video. Not so much an add-on or a nice to have, but a central facet of a multi-million pound campaign. The online campaign will focus on the central characters from the TV adverts and include home-page takeovers and video ads. Cases like this help to solidify online video as a serious marketing avenue that can bring a campaign to life and help you get that extra bang for your buck.
20% of downstream internet traffic is to Netflix
In a huge coup for Netflix, a recent study found that 20% of peak time donwstream internet traffic was streaming video from their site. This is great news for Netflix, and perhaps not so great news for the DVD market. If Netflix were available in Ireland I would be there in an instant and would choose to view all films in this way, as it simply doesn’t make sense to invest in a DVD anymore and I expect that even the gift market for this may eventually die out. 20% is a huge figure and shows how much Netflix has staked its claim in this market.
2 billion videos viewed each month Facebook
In June 2010 Facebook released some interesting stats into their online video offering, which show the huge potential it has to own this market. They revealed that as well as 2 billion video views on its site each month, there were 415,000 online video uploads each day. While it may not be a contender to Youtube just yet, the sharing capabilities within Facebook and the ease of connecting with your community show the potential for this to grow. Interestingly, Youtube now offer the option of connecting with Facebook instead of logging in with your gmail account. This shows Youtube recognises the power to use the huge community on Facebook, something it can’t compete with, to combine with its own wealth of online video.
Live stream video viewing up by 650%
In their most recent report into online video, Comscore announced that the amount of live-streamed video we’re watching has grown by 648% over the past year. This is absolutely phenomenal growth and compares to a (still impressive) 68% increase in video views on Youtube. While it may still form a minor part of the online video market, live streaming is growing in popularity and use, as we become more accustomed to this form of content, both as consumers and producers. UStream are owning the market here, but Facebook are quickly getting in on the game – recently introducing LiveStream integration with Facebook pages. This has the potential to hugely increase the live stream video market and see it really reach the mainstream.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
benchcraft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
bench craft company scam
Online video is well and truly, having the best time of its life right now. It seems to be factoring in every marketing plan worth its salt, with some incredible videos being produced by brands that are lighting up social media. I wanted to explore the state of the online video industry a bit further and delve into the stats that show the huge growth curve online video is currently on. Right now it is one of the most fascinating aspects of online, as brands continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible and engaging the audience in completely new ways. It is a seriously big business and one that every brand wants to be a part of. And it’s easy to see why..
Over 35 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute
This stat on its own is pretty stunning and quite hard to get your head around. But when you look at in in the context of the past 3 years, or even 6 months, you realise just how impressive this is. The graph below from Youtube shows the average hours of video uploaded every minute, back to June 2007. While this started at 6 hours, in the past 6 months it stood at 23. That’s a huge increase of 12 hours per minute in just 6 months :
That is some seriously impressive growth and also shows that just as much as brand video is growing, ugc is growing at a staggering rate, due largely to the growth in mobile and ease of uploading. As Youtube note themselves there are other factors, such as upping the time limit in videos, which would obviously attribute for an increase in the total length of video uploads. But this is impressive nonetheless.
Blinkx shares up by 400%
At the business end of video, Blinkx are showing that online video is starting to become a profitable industry. While Google still won’t reveal whether Youtube is making them money or not, Blinkx have recently announced their first ever turn in profit in the 6 months up to September. And it comes 3 years after they first launched. Blinkx make money through running ads alongside the videos they index, acting as a huge video search tool. They have certainly had a good year, as the 400% share increase shows. It’s also encouraging to see that online video isn’t just about Youtube and there are some other serious players in the market with unique offerings.
Online video ads reach half of U.S. users
While some research shows that advertisers are cautious over online video advertising, due to factors such as standardisation of ad formats, online video advertising is going from strength to strength. A recent study from ComScore (the people who measure things), found that just over 45.4% of users in America viewed at least one video ad over a month. But more impressively, were exposed to 32.2 videos each, on average. That’s over 4.3 million video ads that were served to the online U.S. population in September 2010. This shows the power of online video ads to get right in front of your target audience. And while there are some definite rights and wrongs in the content of the video ad, I think we’ll see this grow even more and prove itself as a valuable industry up there with TV.
Comedian makes $315,000 from online video
A recent study found that comedians top the bill for online video earnings, and one in particular is doing very well. A recent study found that comedian Shane Dawson, who amassed 431.7 million online video views in the past year made $315,000 from his content, through ad revenue. He came out top for independent earners on Youtube and it’s certainly an aspirational case study that shows the business of online video isn’t just for big brands.
Kia spend a third of budget on online video
In a bold move, Kia Motors have invested a third of their £2 million marketing budget for the new Sportage model, into online video. We’ve seen the motor industry embracing social media more and more – with Ford launching a model through Facebook – and this shows the commitment that some brands are making to online video. Not so much an add-on or a nice to have, but a central facet of a multi-million pound campaign. The online campaign will focus on the central characters from the TV adverts and include home-page takeovers and video ads. Cases like this help to solidify online video as a serious marketing avenue that can bring a campaign to life and help you get that extra bang for your buck.
20% of downstream internet traffic is to Netflix
In a huge coup for Netflix, a recent study found that 20% of peak time donwstream internet traffic was streaming video from their site. This is great news for Netflix, and perhaps not so great news for the DVD market. If Netflix were available in Ireland I would be there in an instant and would choose to view all films in this way, as it simply doesn’t make sense to invest in a DVD anymore and I expect that even the gift market for this may eventually die out. 20% is a huge figure and shows how much Netflix has staked its claim in this market.
2 billion videos viewed each month Facebook
In June 2010 Facebook released some interesting stats into their online video offering, which show the huge potential it has to own this market. They revealed that as well as 2 billion video views on its site each month, there were 415,000 online video uploads each day. While it may not be a contender to Youtube just yet, the sharing capabilities within Facebook and the ease of connecting with your community show the potential for this to grow. Interestingly, Youtube now offer the option of connecting with Facebook instead of logging in with your gmail account. This shows Youtube recognises the power to use the huge community on Facebook, something it can’t compete with, to combine with its own wealth of online video.
Live stream video viewing up by 650%
In their most recent report into online video, Comscore announced that the amount of live-streamed video we’re watching has grown by 648% over the past year. This is absolutely phenomenal growth and compares to a (still impressive) 68% increase in video views on Youtube. While it may still form a minor part of the online video market, live streaming is growing in popularity and use, as we become more accustomed to this form of content, both as consumers and producers. UStream are owning the market here, but Facebook are quickly getting in on the game – recently introducing LiveStream integration with Facebook pages. This has the potential to hugely increase the live stream video market and see it really reach the mainstream.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
bench craft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
benchcraft company scam
Casting <b>News</b>: How to Score a Guest Spot on 'Glee,' Annette O'Toole <b>...</b>
If you want to be on 'Glee' and are not an A-list recording artist or an Oscar nominee promoting your new movie, there's still hope.
Google <b>News</b> Blog: Credit where credit is due
News publishers and readers both benefit when journalists get proper credit for their work. That can be difficult, with news spreading so quickly and many websites syndicating articles to others. That's why we're experimenting with two ...
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
The design challenge is this. GIven the latest HTML techniques, do a mockup of a great River of News. If it's really something new, I'll put the software behind it and make it live. Permanent link to this item in the archive. ...
how to lose weight fast benchcraft company scam
bench craft company scam
benchcraft company scam
No comments:
Post a Comment