On the Advertising Revenue side, it looks like Facebook and Google are hoovering it up leaving 'second tier' companies such as LinkedIn, Yelp, Twitter (who's shares fell -26% last Tuesday) and even those less established like Snapchat/Vine, finding it hard to make Ad progress.
Those second tiers are showing time and again, that their Ad revenue is growing, but slowly and too slowly for investors.
The dominance of Facebook and Google is more than likely, to continue and so that 'gap' will widen.
In 2014, both Google/Facebook had more that 30 Billion US Dollars (60%) of the 49 Advertising Billion spent - that's dominance. Which is why those other businesses need to move into niches - as LinkedIn has done for recruitment - for as long as Facebook/Google have the largest audiences (over a billion users a month) they'll always get the Ads.
Video too is where the Ad growth is and Google's YouTube is well positioned whereas for others, their video offerings are unclear and poor.
Of course too, these shares of tech companies are particular high, so one bump in the road causes real pain. Investors won't wait.
But even so, that Ad revenue gap will widen in display advertising between Facebook/Google and the others. Now, that's a problem.
'Video is eating the media world'. So says NewsWhip.
According to Pew Research quoted in their story, 63% of Americans watch online video and 36% of those, watch news video clearly driven by smartphone usage.
They suggest (and I agree) five ways to use video.
Firstly, Facebook. If you have a lot of fans, Facebook can be your TV Channel. I note in Ireland for example, Radio Station FM104 have over 200,000 likes and so a video placed there, reaches a big audience immediately and a potentially huge audience if some of those share again.
Remember too, that those "likes" are potent because they already "like" what you're doing.
Secondly, use short clips to draw attention to long clips.
Not a bad idea either, as video viewers always look at video length first so if you make a shorter version, they'll be more disposed to view that first. So it's almost a "preview".
Thirdly, explain things using video. In other words, simple video can demonstrate how things work (like a graphic) which illuminates a story. Interesting but a bit of a fringe idea.
Fourthly, Twitter 'video cards' allow videos to be played in a timeline and draw attention to the video. And using Twitter as a strong video teaser is a good idea.
Lastly, they also point to Vine and Instagram. Although limited in length, they work on those platforms quickly so the user can be enthused even with very short clips.
I think overall, they're looking to ways in which video can be promoted. A really important issue that's often overlooked. Creation of content is only one side of the equation, distribution is the important other.
Get a video company that can help you with both.
Streamabout. So there.
It's a real issue for Twitter but it's also an issue for a lot of online publishers - monetising Video, which is the biggest growth in advertising inventory.
When you share video on your site, exactly as Twitter allows you to do, those videos need to contain some form of advertising in order for the site owner to make money. If you control the video, you control the advertising. But if you don't control it, because you're linking it, you get nothing. Nada.
Whether it's a sponsored sting, or a sponsored mention in-video or a pre-roll....whatever, but if you're embedding someone else's video (like YouTube or Vimeo) you're giving them the Ad money instead. And it's so easily fixed.
When you think of the huge Twitter video sharing audience every day, it's pretty shocking that they are not making any money from it. And particularly after their IPO where they need to start reversing losses and turn profits.
Cisco forecasts that the video audience will grow to over 13 billion views by 2016 - we know it's huge - and that's a lot of eyeballs, a lot of advertising.
Video advertising is probably becoming the key way to generate Ad money and yet Twitter and publishers, aren't doing it? They hand that money to YouTube - so Twitter is generating cash for YouTube. Mad?
Vine, which Twitter owns, doesn't sell advertising so there's no way Twitter can make money on the explosion of Video. Equally too, online publishers who are linking to video sharing sites, such as YouTube, are doing the same - handing over advertising dollars, pounds and euros to someone else who is monetising that audience in turn.
The cost of hosting video and having your own player is tiny. Not only that, but there are deals out there to allow you to provide a player for free and split the revenue. If Twitter did that today, it would generate millions in advertising, today.
Equally any online publishers, starved for cash, can do the same. By uploading their own video, rather than linking it, they can turn those viewers into advertising money. Perhaps develop sponsored video sections nevermind pure in-video advertising. Advertisers want it too.
A publisher should be putting up all Video it can and there's enough brand/corporate/PR video out there to do so now. In fact, those PR/Brand companies WANT it seen so they provide it for free.
It's an easy trick, easy to fix that even Twitter is missing.
Are you?
