Facebook has been buzzing again in publicly noting that it’s now over 300 million users, and perhaps even more importantly cash flow positive.
The latter of which surprising even those that follow the company daily. Earlier this year Marc Andreessen, who sits on Facebook’s Board of Directors, said the company “would do $500 million in revenues in 2009, up from an estimated $280-$300 million in 2008.”
However, this latest news means that the company could do even better than Andreessen’s predictions for 2009, with eyes on a potential late 2010 or early 2011 IPO.
The one question that remains is if advertising will be the singular revenue stream for the company. Yes, the ads we see on our profile pages and news feeds are lucrative, driving the company’s current revenue growth, but are they missing other opportunities to capitalize on a site that has now outpaced Yahoo! as the second most traffic’d site on the Web (Alexa graph).
Douglas Macmillan of BusinessWeek hypothesises today that Facebook’s users can afford to pay for Facebook’s services and Facebook should charge them.
His basic thesis: Facebook users are no longer college kids with little discretionary income, media companies are planning to charge so why not Facebook and they’re in the unlikely Internet position of having power over their consumer base who are devoted to their product.
Some quick math asserts that Facebook would reach the billions in revenue – Andreessen believes they’ll reach in a few years – in a year’s time by charging only $1 per month to its 300,000,000 active users. To the tune of $3.6 billion in annual revenue. Even if Facebook did it to offset advertising to a percentage of users that didn’t want to be bothered with ads, it’d still be fruitful.
So would users pay? The jury is out on that. I have to believe that there are more creative revenue strategies through engagement points (think of them as frequent flyer miles) or even corporate accounts (brands paying to host their Websites / Fan pages on Facebook). On the other hand the thought of pulling in $3.6 billion by only asking for $1 per month from each user is pretty tempting.
Social media’s rising influence on how journalists and bloggers collect and report news has been in the spotlight lately; last week, PR Week released a study showing that 70 percent of journalists use social media to assist in reporting, compared to only 41 percent last year. Clearly, journalists are increasingly viewing social media as a reliable, effective source to aid their professional commitment to delivering accurate news.
But what about how journalists use social media in their personal lives? Careers aside, journalists certainly can’t have been immune to the popularity of Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networks primarily used for personal communication. Journalists have an obligation to objectively report the news, so what does that mean for their participation in these interactive, highly visible social networks? Should journalists maintain completely neutral social media profiles to avoid associating their personal views with their professional reporting?
The Washington Post thinks so. After editor Raju Narisetti posted a few tweets hinting at his political opinions, The Post took a public stance on journalists’ use of social media, forcing Narisetti to close his Twitter account and distributing an internal memo not-so-subtly referencing his actions. (See the full leaked memo on PaidContent.)
The Post’s guidelines make some valid points. Journalists do renege some rights they’d have as a private citizen by choosing to represent an objective news organization. And as I mentioned in my post on journalism’s financial history, publications have a democratic obligation to report unbiased news. But when does the quest for objectivity become censorship? As more and more traditional newspapers give way to digital formats, will limiting journalists’ activity in the social media space ultimately stifle that publication’s creativity, growth and evolution?
I’ll leave you with some provocative comments made by Paul Bradshaw at Online Journalism Blog:
“This week a new nail was driven into the coffin of the notion of journalistic objectivity. The culprit? The Washington Post’s leaked social media policy. The policy is aimed at preserving the appearance of objectivity rather than its actual existence. It focuses on what journalists are perceived to be, rather than what they actually do.”
It’s been a long time in the making, but Yahoo!’s new site is now available. This fresh look attempts to be more like iGoogle, with a column for favorites on the left side of the page. The cool part is that when you scroll over a category, a box pops open on the screen, enabling you to view your Facebook profile (for example) without even one click. You can also add favorites such as WordPress, Flickr, many news outlets such as All Things D and WIRED, and even Gmail (yes, Gmail.)
Check out the site and let us know what you think of Yahoo!’s new look.
Earlier this week Advertising Age took a look at how PR heads are shifting towards the center of marketing departments. The role shift at top levels evidence of a larger shift for communications and PR as a whole. The media meltdown, combined with the explosion of social media, has served as the great equalizer for the PR and marketing / advertising industries.
Corporations no longer able to leverage “old media” to reach mass or niche audiences with messages are moving their budgets online to new media channels. Channels that are up for grabs in the agency world. And guess what? PR agencies have the early leg up on owning these channels.
PR leads marketing in the management of all social media communications channels.
In 51% of organizations, PR lead digital communications compared to 40.5% where marketing leads
PR is responsible for blogging at 49% of all organizations. Marketing is responsible for blogging at 22% of all organizations. PR is responsible for social networking at 48% of all organizations. Marketing is responsible for social networking at 27% of all organizations.
PR is responsible for micro-blogging at 52% of all organizations. Marketing is responsible for micro-blogging at 22% of all organizations.
Capitalizing on the fact that social media is relationship-based, a top PR characteristic, and that we specialize in creating content, a big part of social media, it’s not that surprising.
However, a troubling stat caught my eye on Mashable earlier this week, given that PR and communications are leading the way with social media. An August 2009 survey by Mzinga and Babson Executive Education found that 84% of professionals using social media – in a variety of fields – don’t currently measure the ROI of their social media programs.
RED FLAG. No wonder the head of the PRSA is calling out the entire industry to establish measurement standards – Fast. The fallout of Madison Avenue, combined with the digital media evolution, is a huge opportunity for the communications and PR industry. One opportunity that we better get right – with measurement. If we’ve learned one thing from our peers in online advertising, it’s that today, companies pay for measurable ROI. While Google may not have been recession proof, it’s successful because it efficiently provides and measures ROI with its search marketing services. If we hope to move corporate communications where we believe it belongs – into a key component of marketing’s media planning stage, we better make numbers (more than 3)a top priority.
As the founder of Newswise, a company that provides social media monitoring and reporting services for communications professionals, Roger S. Johnson knows his primary market, and he brings that market expertise to his Twitter handle. Roger provides insight on trends in PR and marketing and often passes along compelling studies on the uptake and importance of social media. His profile page reads like a overview of the past week’s most noteworthy traditional and social media news. For anyone looking for updates on interesting, relevant news from the media and PR realms, Roger (@PRwise) is an excellent follow.
Social media is obviously a hot topic for the mainstream media. They see opportunity in using it towards turning their career paths and organizations around, and thus their coverage of it is through the roof.
That said, it was puzzling to hear earlier this year that a survey by PR Week / PRNewswire found that only 22% of journalists were leveraging Twitter for crowd-sourcing, connecting with readers and aggregating their stories on the Web. A separate survey, around the same time, by the TEKgroup found that only 38% of journalists would be interested in receiving corporate news via corporate Twitter handles. Yes, those second numbers seemed promising, but where were the mandates to adopt these strategies – FAST?
Well, perhaps the moves by media organizations like the New York Times, to get serious with social media have paid off.
According to a new survey from Middleberg Communications and the Society for New Communications Research (SNCR), 70% of journalists said they use social networks to assist in reporting. Compare that to the 41% that said they used social networks to assist in last year’s “Survey of Media in the Wired World.”
The online survey, which will remain open for a few more weeks, has the responses of 317 journalists to date. Far less than the 2,174 polled by PR Week and PR Newswire in April, so the validity of the findings may be in doubt.
For what it’s worth, The Survey of Media in the Wired World also found that:
69% of journalists go to company Web sites to assist in their reporting
Almost a year after announcing that they would no longer accept most embargoed news, TechCrunch has declared that the embargo is officially dead – at least in their opinion. Michael Arrington argues that since Google and Microsoft are no longer able to hold their embargoes (PaidContent broke Google’s embargo about Sidewiki on Wednesday), the last tree in the forest has fallen, effectively leaving embargoes news on the side of the road for trash day.
The Wall Street Journal has also adopted a similar policy as TechCrunch, only accepting embargoes for exclusives.
One of the more interesting discussions comes in TechCrunch’s comments section, where one reader discusses the value of having multiple outlets reporting on news as opposed to one outlet that is granted an exclusive. In response, Sarah Lacy argues that it’s easier to get news just from one source which explains the popularity of aggregators like Techmeme. However, Techmeme is actually a collection of stories from various sources, effectively making the reader’s point that readers value different sources for information.
In any case, TechCrunch has declared that the embargo is officially dead, so now the big question is how many other outlets will follow suit…
With a seemingly worse reputation than its second cousin – the press release – the press conference has been brought out to the cow pastures in most industries. Political leaders, along with governments and corporations in Asia, making up the fairly small list of abstaining parties still practicing the art of the media scrum and photo op.
However, thanks in large part to Apple and Steve Jobs, a new ‘press conference on steroids’ has emerged over the last several years in the form of the live press event.
Capitalizing on the Internet Age, and the media’s desire and willingness to report stories minute-by-minute, the live event has become a powerful PR tool to disseminate major announcements to a broad list of media outlets. It allows for pre-event buzz, live event buzz and post-event feature stories, which maximizes the exposure for the brand and whatever they are announcing. It also allows corporations and PR folks to avoid going down the road of pre-briefings under embargo, which have become unbelievably challenging with bloggers and reporters looking to scoop each other by minutes, and even seconds.
Unfortunately for most corporations thinking about hosting a live event (to paraphrase the great Rick Pitino), “Steve Jobs isn’t walking through that door.” So how do you pull off a successful live event without an iconic CEO? Here’s a few basic tips.
1. It all starts with the invitation: The number one goal of most live press events is to get butts in the seats. In order to ensure this you need a good invitation. The trick is you need to spark interest in attending while maintaining a certain level of mystery to increase pre-event speculation.
One way to spark interest, without giving the announcement away, is with the location. Most successful live events are hosted in a location that is a natural tie-in to the theme of the announcement. For instance, Apple’s Rock-N- Roll themed event last week utilized the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts – which usually hosts dance groups and other entertainment acts. Try to plan for a location like this rather than using corporate headquarters. It will help with getting bloggers out of their current seats, and into yours.
Apple has also capitalized on pictures being more powerful than words in their invites. A picture that symbolizes the theme with a few teasing words – keeps the pre-event buzz going, and serves as the art for pre-event blog posts. It also allows you to get reporters in the right frame of mind heading into the live event, to ensure that they aren’t let down by what actually transpires.
Aim for getting the invites out 2 weeks in advance of the event and plan on following up repeatedly with media to get the event on their calendar.
Keep reminding them even if you get an RSVP. Attendance at live events is usually (anecdotal evidence) 60 – 70 percent of those that said they will be there.
2. Room logistics: A great location is nothing without a good room. The old PR trick of lots of people in a small room still can work, but if you want to spawn live blogging you better make sure everyone can see the stage.
Stadium-style seating is best. If that’s not possible, just make sure everyone has an equal view.
Bloggers and reporters interested in live-blogging will want seats and space to type. Try not to overfill a room to the point where no one can report live because they can’t get their laptop up in front of them.
Make sure you have the room set-up for the conclusion of the live event. A room close by for one-on-one interviews (great for the ever-popular Flip interviews), a demo area and some food should be in the planning.
3. The connection is key: While the status of the Internet connection may be an after thought for the typical press conference, it’s a top line item for the live event. In order to maximize the exposure of the event, you need to make sure that the connection will support minute-by-minute tweets and posts by attending press. Bring in IT people to make sure the connection is fast and reliable.
Make sure you let media know that they will be able to live-blog, and there will be a reliable connection. Some folks have given up trying to cover events live do to unreliable connections provided by companies.
Make it simple for media to log in. We’ve handed out cards with press materials at events, which detail network names and passwords for easy log-in.
4. It’s all in the delivery: Steve Jobs and Apple are successful with live events because they keep the media hanging on every word. While your news may not rival Apple’s (in terms of media interest), you have something important to share (that’s why you’re considering a live event). Make sure that news is shared at the end of the event, so the media hang on every word throughout.
The live event should be planned out minute-by-minute. You want to make sure that you give media attendees the news in advance of it crossing wires, but you don’t want to take the air out of your spokesperson’s delivery. Plan to email the details on the big news (along with the secondary news and pictures) to attending media when the spokesperson finally delivers it.
It’s a good idea to give those folks attending a head start on reporting that news before the release crosses the wire. 15-20 minutes after the email has gone to attendees seems to be a good time to officially put the news over the wire.
5. Become one of the live-bloggers: Given that every company is a media company, the live event is the ideal venue to leverage all of the media channels you have available to you. Even if you can’t attract 100 media outlets like Apple, you can get your story out to everyone through your own channels.
Make sure the folks managing your corporate Twitter handle(s) put out the hashtag (#) to follow the live event a day in advance of the conference.
Assuming you have a corporate blog to leverage, you should also leverage it to live-blog. In addition, have a full blog post written in advance – that you can put up when the release crosses the wire. House photos and other media there, to increase traffic to the blog and the corporate Website.
If it makes sense, and you calculate that it won’t take butts out of seats, look into the possibility of live streaming the live event. Ustream provides a quality service. You could even host the live stream on your corporate Facebook fan page.
In promoting his new film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” controversy-prone filmmaker Michael Moore made some interesting statements about the future of newspapers as a profitable business model. Moore claims they “slit their own throats” and attributes the struggles of the medium to corporate greed and stupidity.
Moore blames newspapers’ dependence on advertising sales as a main contributor to the greedy media culture, and he goes on to cite circulation-sponsored models like those in Europe and Japan as more democratic alternatives. He says because these models look to readers as their primary sources of revenue, the newspapers are forced to be more committed to producing high-quality, relevant content for readers.
From a historical perspective, the ad-sponsored model for newspapers stemmed from a democratic mindset. When small newsletters first began springing up around the colonies in the early 1700s, they were funded, of course, through reader purchases. Coming from fifteenth-century Britain, where newspapers were government sponsored and notoriously biased, America’s first journalists passionately held that a for-profit model would ensure a democratic, free press. But as these papers began to grow and evolve, they realized sales alone wouldn’t be able to support much expansion. Not wanting to turn newspapers over to government funding, the advertising-sponsored media model evolved as a revenue stream based on the desire to maintain an independent press.
So advertising was invoked with good intentions, but where does that leave us today? As Moore suggests, are newspapers a failed business experiment merely reaping what they sowed?
With media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of NewsCorp, recently putting his foot down on charging for newspapers’ online content, the industry may be at a crossroads. But for the now, the future of this storied, historic medium remains uncertain.
Yesterday Google launched Fast Flip, a new service that allows you to read the news in more visual way then through Google News. While the site appears intriguing, it currently lacks content and personalized settings that would make it tool for everyday use (at least for right now). It also seems to take longer to browse through the article as you need to click on the images in order to make them a size that is legible (the picture below is pretty similar to how it appears).
What’s also new about this service is that the Fast Flip only pulls content from specific news outlets that Google has partnered with (currently about 3 dozen are on board). According to Google’s blog post, “these partners will share the revenue earned from contextually relevant ads.”
