RTB/Programmatic Buying gets another push on by people with a ridiculous name.

Programmatic media buying or RTB, is here to stay, big time.

It makes absolute sense in automating the transaction between buyers and sellers. As well as, proving better real time data and indeed, more price transparency. 

Today's announcement of CNN, The FT, Thomson/Reuters and The Guardian coming together under a group umbrella of 'The Pangaea Alliance' (interestingly pangaea.com is bizarrely, taken by someone else, we checked!) offering access over programmatic buying to their claimed 110 million users.

Each is bringing 10% of their inventory to the deal from April with its own sales channel (presumably replacing the existing in-house teams). 

Indeed. Perfect sense and will result in selling what has generally been considered 'unsold' inventory because with RTB, all space has a price. These 4 brands together too, offer real advertising opportunities.

But but but.....they've fallen at the first hurdle with quite frankly, a ridiculous name that will do them no good.

Piers Morgan goes viral. The must see video of the year so far.

You may know about Piers Morgan, the former newspaper editor now on CNN replacing Larry King. You definitely know about the gun control controversy that still rages in the US.

You may not know that a petition was started to have Piers deported from the US which got 109,000 signatures meaning, under law, it had to be dealt it. But The White House have said he can stay. 

Morgan then tweeted "Thanks for keeping me Mr. President, much appreciated".

However, it began a tweeting battle and Mr. Morgan is not exactly shy, giving as good as he got. So much so, he decided to have the petition mastermind, on his show - perhaps thinking it would do some good.

A man called Alex Jones who is also a Texan Broadcaster (The Alex Jones Show ironically) and I think it's fair to say, an advocate of no gun control.

This "interview" went out live - mad idea in itself - but it has gone crazy on Social Media all starting with YouTube. 6 million views already and it's becoming viral as an attempt to influence gun control - by both sides!

You have to see it.

And it brings up something else about the relevance and usefulness of YouTube. Because it is. A national treasure.

Obama Romney. There's no doubt who won on Social Media. A walk over.

Oh dear, President Obama didn't look himself last night and so say Twitterers. It was broadcast live on YouTube for the first time.

An analysis of Tweets by Crimson Hexagon reliably, showed that 10.3m Tweets during the debate, set a new record, with 26% saying Obama looked "rusty".

16% were in support of the President, 22% for Romney (with only 12% disagreeing with him). In plain English that's actually a landslide for Romney.

The moderator, ex US marine Jim Lehrer (a well experienced debate corespondent) was badly criticised for not keeping control and 14% of the Tweets were just jokes.

A post-event poll by CNN gave victory to Romney 2:1. Topsy, a Social Media aggregator, showed that Romney tweets spiked 2.5 times more than Obama.

So if you want to use Social Media as a guide, there's no doubt that public opinion was with Romney. And I concur.

Having no bias and having sat up until 330am, there was little doubt in my mind who was the winner (and I've worked on political campaigns in Ireland so I've a little experience of this). He was confident, thoroughly well briefed and almost presidential. Obama looked a tired, beaten old man with an almost "couldn't care less" demeanour.

And yet, Obama is one of the greatest orators.

It seemed to me (and it's one of the old tricks) that Obama was told not to fight, look confident and casual. In other words, don't try too hard because you're a winner. In keeping a stance like that, it often looks like you're in control but can sometimes just look so casual that it's like you're not bothered. "I am the President and I've nothing to fear" so the strategy goes. It makes the other candidate fight and possibly, trip up.

But this backfired.

Clinton was the master of the "I'm in control" stance.
And if you're interested in American politics, buy Robert Caro's just published new book on Lyndon Johnson - a truly wonderful piece of work as was his previous. It's just terrific. The video on this blog is worth a listen to get a sense of the real Johnson. A really remarkable fellow.

Anyway, Obama is in trouble.
So expect one thing - a different fighting stance next debate.
He'll come out charged up and attack Romney. 

Watch it and smile.

Microsoft and NBC divorce from MSNBC. It puts Microsoft in the news. Again.

Microsoft made more news today by pulling out of its 1996 joint venture that was MSNBC.com (Microsoft + NBC News, now owned by Comcast) with NBC buying Microsoft's 50% share.

Whilst both companies have said they want to get on with their own online news agenda, it would seem that Microsoft have its own news agenda and plans.

Up to now, Microsoft for example had to feature the news feed on all of its inventory and it's well believed that NBC's "liberal" (pro-Obama) agenda was not well liked. NBC always sees itself as the opposite viewing choice to pro-Republican Fox News. It also meant that Microsoft couldn't offer other alternative news feeds, or indeed its own, exactly as AOL/Huff Post has done or The CNN/Mashable alliance/acquisition.

It's widely believed that this represents another poor Microsoft online venture (they've lost 10 billion usd online in recent years) having paid 220 million usd into it, it's believed it received 300 million usd back (just about the capital + interest). Equally of course, the corrollary is true - this allows NBC News to supply its content to other non-Microsoft websites and the divorce is being seen as "amicable".

Although to be fair, in 2002, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is credited with saying that they shouldn't have gone ahead with the deal.

According to the NBC site announcement the "focus on hard news and original reporting would remain the same" although we know of Microsoft plans to launch a new news service in the Autumn.

The joint venture was considered one of the most profitable news sites in America by "the trade".

It is being viewed as a move by NBC to take out Microsoft and given that they're the buyers, that seems to make sense.

Given too all of the negative publicity regarding Microsoft (as you'll read plenty regrettably, in this blog alone http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/vanity-fairs-expose-of-microsoft-and.html), the timing is possibly co-incidental or perhaps, commercial.

It could be a simple matter that NBC don't want to bet on a brand that's diminishing and that makes sense.

It also makes sense that NBC News are gearing up for a better news service following The AOL/Huff Post live announcement and when they're facing one hell of a competitor on August 13 and they want to plan for that.

http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/huffington-post-live-worlds-biggest.html

News gathering is the hottest topic of the moment http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/search/label/rupert%20murdoch as of course is the whole role of citizen journalism http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/citizen-journalism-is-spreading.html

It'll be interesting to see how this divorce develops - on both sides - but also how the whole news content online flourishes and how TV particularly suffers. we know the demand for online news has already impacted negatively on traditional TV viewing.

Let's get ready to rumble.

The Huffington Post Live, the world's biggest citizen journalism video venture goes on air August 13. Online news like you've never imagined it.

                             

The Huffington Post is expected to launch it's full-day online video news network on August 13 (to be called 'Huff Post Live') but it's doing it differently under the growing banner of "citizen journalism". And the service is beginning to be revealed - although most staffers are sworn to secrecy.


The launch budget by the way....about 30 million us dollars. 30 million.
Every wonder why it's called 'The Huffington Post'? Because it was co-founded by Greek born, Arianna Huffington. One for the pub quiz of the future.

That's her on video at the top of this blog talking about citizen journalism and actually in an inspiring way. Here's what she blogged recently:

HuffPost Live, our new live streaming network, is launching August 13. One of our goals is to create the most social video experience possible. And that's why we're putting you, the HuffPost community, front and center in everything we do, including having you join us live on the air -- an integral part of the dynamic, ongoing conversation that is the heart and soul of HuffPost Live.

The days of media gods sitting up on Mt. Olympus telling us how things are have been over for a while. But now we have reached a critical mass where millions of people have a seat at the table and can join what has become a global conversation. People are tired of being talked at; they want to be talked with. The news is no longer about a few people telling everyone else what happened -- it's about everyone telling everyone what's happening right now. And how.

Never really a news "creator" at their 2005 start, actually more of a blog, The Post was a news "aggregator" but it has now moved firmly in the news gathering business, even winning a Pullitzer Prize in 2012. This is a dramatic move into video vlogging and not as a separate brand but as a link off their main site.

Firstly, The Huff Post Live is not carrying traditional Ads "live" in the traditional TV way.

So no commercial breaks and instead, circa 5 brand sponsors a day. Cadillac have already signed up as a launch sponsor and I'm hearing about some serious brands getting involved (and so they should). My understanding is that these will be like "in programme" sponsorship or like the "olden days" of sponsored hours/programmes.

Instead, archived content will have pre-roll advertising only, which will be lucrative too. The Huff Post is owned by AOL since 2011 (bought for 315 million usd) and so as The Huff Post Live, broadcasts every day, it's going to create massive video inventory which will then be used to create a "youtubey" platform for AOL.

Broadcasting live every day is a lot of video to create - an awful, awful lot and needing production teams, editors and in particular, checkers. Sources will need to confirmed if they move outside of their own crews. BBC has 50 people alone doing just that in their "hub" for example.

Secondly, it plans to carry 12 hours of live video every weekday - pretty impressive stuff for a newspaper and a HUGE endorsement of the need for publishers to have video. It will be "always on" running highlights when it's not actually live.

In fact this looks more like a TV Station with highlights at weekends. I'll bet too they'll resell other content (Netflix anyone?) at weekends. Remember we're talking 300 million minimum page impressions a month here. Comscore estimates 40 million monthly unique visitors. Massive!

We all know that Video grew 42% last year and is expected to grow 54% this year online (emarketer) so this is capitalising on that.  

Advertisers want video so badly, demand outstrips supply in Ireland, and that in a depressed market! But significant ventures like The Huff Post Live, may actually create a glut and weaken ad rates (video cpm attracts a premium because of the lack of supply right now). But there's no doubt, they're going to be a big supplier of online live video.

Thirdly, they have hired a 100 person newsroom including traditional CNN veterans and those from other TV networks. Massive resources. But they're not reporting the news as such, they're trying to develop the news.

"We're not trying to report the news," said Roy Sekoff, a founding editor of the Huffington Post who is heading up the streaming network. "We are trying to have conversations that the news inspires."

Or to quote Arianna Huffington again;

Instead, HuffPost Live will emulate the online experience. No one looks at their watch and thinks, "It's 10 a.m., time for some celebrity news, I think I'll log on to HuffPost!" Instead, readers come to our site to catch up on what's happening in the world and wind up getting caught up in the wide array of compelling stories we offer. You may start with a story on the upcoming presidential debate, then find yourself drawn to some celebrity news, followed by the latest viral comedy video and a segment on the benefits of napping.

In one way it's not unlike what Google's YouTube is hoping to achieve except they're offering their platform/channel for free if you supply the content. Huff Post are actually generating the content themselves.

This will therefore appeal to any of us who have an opinion on the news - read that as all of us.

But this venture and indeed the dramatic traffic of The Huff Post itself (the second most popular newsfeed on Twitter) which never had a real world presence, is a beacon of online publishing. It's creating jobs, it's creating online publishing to be proud of. And who'd ever thought that we'd see this level of investment in an online newspaper.

It unfortunately contrasts with many traditional newspaper companies which are hugely overburdened with debt from ill-timed purchases. Very few publishers will be able to raise money from the market any longer. Circulations are in decline. Ad revenues are in steep decline (-60%). Online Social media is taking money out of the market and online publishers are competing with them and having much lower overhead.

It's absolutely all changing but that is not to say, newspapers are idle - they are not - because I spend most of my day solving this issue with them (TBA). So they know it and are working towards solving it. Plus they still have the real world brands that have the power to push audiences to this site or to that site. However, they could look to The Huff Post Live as a model to go forward with.

Bring newspaper online publishing into the TV market by providing video and let the audience engage. As GetGlue are doing for TV content.

Because video news/weather/sport/entertainment/fashion/beauty etc is king.
It's what the audience online wants and it's what the advertiser wants.

August 13th we'll see the way it can be.

Microsoft acquires Yammer for 1.2 billion. Leaving billions scratching their heads. A bubble?

OMG! Microsofts Steve Ballmer and the Yammer boys badly pictured officially by Microsoft - could have flashed it through Instagram - announcing the acquisition this week and looking very 1970's. The new leaders in Social Media wouldn't you say?

I've been blogging a fair bit about whether we're in a bubble or not and as recently as last week here    
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4671466363911057753#editor/target=post;postID=1971760983930398308

But I also go back to the Instagram deal and Mashable valuation in their CNN sale, and marvelled at the prices. After all, I'm not against a bubble and if money piles into the space, then good for us.

I note too that 3 year old Pinterest (yes, sure, I know, we all love Pinterest) without any revenues of note, raised 100m usd in the last week. But the hugely interesting thing about that, is that it was based on a valuation of 1.5 bn. 1.5 BILLION. Now it was late last year (yep 7 months ago) when Pinterest valued itself at 200 m. So how does a valuation increase so dramatically so quickly? Unless because of other high valuations and a scramble to do deals at any price. A clear sign that we're in a bubble.


And so along comes Microsoft. Remember them? They were the people who largely owned this space until Apple re-invented itself with Jobs and once Social started. I think they've lost their way although have made some good strides in the mobile phone market with Samsung but generally, not the ship they were. They did pay 8.5bn (yep, 8.5 BILLION) for Skype mid 2011 and did, well, not a lot with it and have recently announced a payment plan (which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?) and Advertising. 

And this was the big plan.......increase payments and bring in advertising?

So I can't help thinking that they want to be back in the space, at the forefront, and now are desparate for attention. So they see Facebook and their 1bn acquisition of Instagram and they say, let's go one better.

Then they find Yammer. Never heard of them? Nearly everyone on the wires agree even those who'd you expect to know it all. Nope they say and look blankly. And Yammer has now been acquired by Mircosoft for 1.2 bn usd. A little bit more than Facebook's deal. Interesting pyschology that.


Yammer launched in 2008 and it provides for private communications within businesses - sort of a social network for your company. In September 2010, it was reported to have 3 million users and predominantly Fortune 500 valuable companies. My understanding is however, that this was based on free trials, but I could be wrong (BusinessInsider have a story that estimates only 20% of Yammer customers actually pay).

Features include allowing workers to share events directly to Microsoft Outlook. Videos and URLs can be shared. Topics of conversations can be shared. Conduct polls can be created, files can be shared. It allows you to see who's online and who's not. Sorry, have I missed something? That's it?

But I think critically important here, is the reporting features that allow company owners track their employees activities. Perhaps that's why companies use it? Perhaps? You think? Yeah Yeah.

It was also well funded having received circa 150m usd in support but obviously a big cash day in this acquisition. Clearly of course, it opens a channel to expose Microsofts products to high-end Yammer customers but a 1.2bn channel? 

A lot of people are bemused with this acquisition.
It's difficult to really see the pull of Yammer and the 'perfect fit' for Microsoft. 
It's more quickly and possibly unfairly, seen as an attempt to get back into the game with big time acquisitions, flagging big time ambitions.

I don't know.

But it seems a lot for a company that no one had ever heard of.

Except if we were in a bubble.