Big Wall Street pre-IPO interest in Twitter's IPO. Expect the market manipulation that follows.

Twitter's pre-IPO shares are already oversubscribed as their investor roadshows come to an end.

So it has attracted really strong Wall Street investor interest before it goes public in November (7th?). Which probably shows, as everyone said at the time, that the shares were underpriced (deliberately?) at 17-20 usd a share and selling 70 million of them, raising about a billion usd. 

So all this means is that stockbrokers and investors see an opportunity to make money from Twitter, for themselves.

Those Stockbrokers (supposedly on behalf of clients, but they're not) that have committed to the stock from Wall Street, will now start sending out 'buy' recommendations, wait and see, to cover their own position. You're also hearing reports from Wall Street of potential upsides of +45% and target pricing of 29 dollars. Real positive PR follows pre-IPO activity like this to boost the price.

What they're doing, is convincing people to buy and thereby inflating the price and thereby making a profit for themselves. They'll talk it up. Watch it.

It's market manipulation, that's all, as they try to stir up enough interest to give themselves a gain. These boys will be offloading asap - same day probably - whilst encouraging longer term stayers - like you.

So now Twitter will probably price itself at the higher end of the 20 Dollar range and/or sell more than 70 million shares. So the pre-IPO investors will get an immediate return on opening day. 

If you don't understand the market and the way it is constantly manipulated, stay a millions miles away. These people make money off your lack of knowledge and they actually call you 'mugs'. They are in it for themselves.

Either way, it looks like a real 'dot com' IPO. Already showing this level of interest, means it's going upwards on the day. But for how long? 

Or it's another complete Facebook IPO sham.

(UPDATE - Twitter shares will be priced between 23 and 25 Dollars when it floats on the NYSE next Thursday) 

Flights will allow devices on Take-off and Landings. Delta already have started.

You'll soon be able to use your Ipad, Ipod, Mobile, Kindle and any electronic device for take offs and landings on planes according to Mashable.

Although you won't be able to make calls for the duration ('airplane mode' still applies) and the rule doesn't apply to heavier items such as laptops which still have to remain off.

Whilst this week's FAA announcement (the airline industry ruling body) applies to the USA, it's almost automatic it will be followed across Europe. Delta Airlines have said they'll introduce it from Nov 1.

It follows an industry panel where they've established that the radio interference of such devices is well within tolerable limits for modern aircraft. Each airline will do some tests on their own fleets but it's good news for Mums and Dads to try to keep the kids occupied for the whole flight. And in some ways, that has benefits to cabin crew too.

For those of us who don't like flying (me!), it's great to keep occupied as the plane takes off and there's no doubt, that in-flight phone calls are coming - but Airlines see those as a potential revenue source.

I can almost hear the tweets already. 
"Delighted to be one of the first to....blah, blah, blah".

LinkedIn has more users than Twitter. 259 million monthly active users. But it's still losing money.

LinkedIn announced this week that it has 259 million monthly active users.

That's significant growth, up nearly 20 million quarter on quarter and up from 187 million last year. So more people are using LinkedIn actively.

Firstly, it may reflect the general downturn as businesspeople have more time on their hands and secondly, they're looking for better business opportunities.

However, it may also reflect that LinkedIn is more popular and it's just natural, organic growth. It puts LinkedIn ahead of Twitter (230 million active monthly users). That astonishes me anyway.

Even more astonishing is that LinkedIn lags behind the dreadful Google+ (300 million active monthly users) which I can only think is because most of us are forced into Google+. It's hard to find one deliberate active user that I know anyway who actively uses Google+. 

LinkedIn posted strong revenues too of 393 million usd although Q4 forecasts were lower than expected. 62% of the revenue is still US based so LinkedIn needs to bring in more revenue from the 200+ countries in which it operates.

Those countries are only accounting for 38% of revenue combined. An opportunity?

That said, it's still good revenue, still strong.

A quarterly loss of over 3 million usd, isn't and I just can't understand how, like Amazon, these companies can't turn profits on such extraordinarily high revenues?

And if LinkedIn continues to grow its active members in the way that it clearly is, revenue uplifts must follow. They have a core market of businesspeople which in itself, has a premium value outside of just "the numbers" say compared to a Twitter.

So in a way, it's a premium Social Network.
A growing premium Social Network.
That needs to stop losing money.

Social Media is going niche. Nextdoor raises another 60 million on top of the 40 million it has. Lovely idea.

The future of Social networking is niche.

By that I mean, that people will not just want broad Social Media networks where 'one size fits all' but rather networks that are full of like minded people. People interested in the same sports or same team; the same artists or bands; the same hobbies or interests.

Of course niche means smaller. So your reach for such a social media site is to a narrower base of people - but in global terms, that can still be in the millions. 

For example a Social network dedicated to Soccer or American Football or U2 or Baking (on which Pinterest was largely built by the way). 

Nextdoor, is one of those and to prove it, they've just raised 60 million usd, having previously raised 40 million usd. Their slogan is, 'Your neighbourhood online'. It's Social Media for neighbours.

It's on the go for two years.

Nextdoor is a Social network for neighbourhoods. A chance to meet people who live near you online and perhaps offer them local services like babysitting, or just to engender goodwill. Perhaps just looking out for a neighbour or alerting them to things that are going on. Helping to create community.

Most of us don't know our extended neighbours and Nextdoor helps us to do that or at least, those of us that want to. It also allows local trade, never a bad thing, to generally make our lifestyles better.

Nextdoor as yet, doesn't generate revenue but clearly as the network develops, revenue opportunities such as local advertising or local trading, will. 

Not a bad idea at all.
Social Media is becoming niche.

Amazon is making lots of money and losing lots of money.

Amazon is making lots of money and losing lots of money.

The darling of Wall Street (what the New York Times calls the company as "the teacher's pet") recent data on Q3, showed more of the same.

Great sales with continued great losses.

Revenue was up a staggering +24%, beyond expectations, to just over 17 billion usd. But it lost, 41 million usd in this quarter. They lost 274 million last year although some of that attributable to poor investment in the deals site, Living Social.

But how do you generate 17 billion of turnover and still lose, 41 million? Beats me.

Investors see it all as ramping up for the future, with the Amazon Share price now 10 times what it was in 2008. In particular, they see Amazon's investment in string after string of Warehouses (100+), as enabling it to become the biggest retailer in the country. Hmmmm.

Amazon is still warning of a further loss in Q4 and investors are still smiling.

I do think Amazon is a great company and I do think The Kindle will bring it places. 

However, I do not like a strategy of owning warehousing (although I understand why) because it's old economy. These services could be supplied by someone elsewhere - they are massively eating into potential profits.

They require significant investment in perishing stock (which books for example, are) as well as high levels of investment in property that can quickly devalue. Maintenance is high and consistently rises. Staff are required 247. It's a little bit mad.

The consistent growth in Amazon is undoubtedly superb and a real indicator that what they're doing is right. However, the losses cannot go on forever like this - it is truly laughable not to be able to generate a profit on these turnovers. Something is endemically wrong with cash management and that's not good long term.

Investors are smiling.
But for how long?

I've seen it so many times before - investors will get tired of this and then things could go South. Amazon needs to make money early in 2014. Must.

Twitter IPO circa November 15th will be priced at 17-20 Dollars a share.

Twitter will price its shares at their upcoming IPO on November 15th (or sooner) at between 17 and 20 Dollars.

It's not greatly significant in itself, but would value the company at around 11 billion usd at these prices and these share prices will increase. 

So Twitter is heading to that 15 billion usd mark.

It's not like the Facebook IPO in money terms, but it will be easily, in hype.

Twitter are selling 70 million shares to raise 1.4 billion usd in this initial offering. Facebook offered 400 million shares at 38 usd raising 16 billion usd.

The fundamental core behind getting involved in buying shares in a company is to whether or not you think it's a good company with a future. Period. If you think it is, then look at the numbers and take a view on the price and fully understand that Wall Street will manipulate you. 

I think what Twitter does is great and hard to replicate, but there's room for improvement. Like the way tweets load at once and the constant security hack issues....but generally, it's a good one and only starting to show good advertising returns (which means there's a lot more to come).

But hey, be careful out there.
Most people lose their shirt.

Ipad Air. The launch and now the Ad. Pretty good it is too.

Have to say, having blogged on Wednesday about the launch of The IPad Air, I hadn't seen the new TV Commercial and it's actually pretty good.

With a voice-over by Bryan Cranston, the actor of the hour from 'Breaking Bad', it compares it to a pencil. Nice idea in there.

It also reflects the Apple ethos which goes back to the "Crazy ones" commercial where it's not about the product, but what you can do with it. 

Instilling dreamy thoughts of exploring, science, discovery, writing and so on - the benefits - it's exactly as all good advertising should. It's not what it is, but what you can do with it.

"It's an extremely simple tool" says Cranston and an extremely simple piece of advertising. As all the best ones are.

I presume the Agency is TBWA but it has Wieden Kennedy written all over it. Have they started an advertising trend?

Whatever about the Ipad Air, this advertising will sell it. 

Apple launch Ipad Air. Much ado about nothing?

So much ado about nothing. Or is it?

Apple's long awaited, over excited, highly pumped PR launch of the new Ipad (the first launch was in 2010), the 'Ipad Air', just didn't seem worth the 'long-awaited' wait.

Okay it's much lighter and slimmer, about 20% less, which MD Tim Cook said took "years" to develop and heralded it as a big "leap forward", a new generation but then there was little else to say. 

It replaces the IPad 4.

It comes with a better HD camera for 'Facetime' and dual microphones but regrettably, the same battery life. Don't know about you but speed has not been an issue with my IPad, nor camera, nor microphones - but battery life has. As the Ipad moves into movies, extended battery life will be key and that hasn't been fixed.

Innovation has to solve a problem, rather than just for the sake of it.

The Ipad Air is much, much faster too (A7 chip) and it comes with free Mac software, although costing £739 stg for the 128 gig, Wifi enabled version, it's not cheap. The entry level 16 gig version, will be about £399 stg when it's available on November 1st. But 16 gigs, is really of little use in my view.

It's an increasingly competitive market too with Samsung and Nokia "phablets", although Apple's is guessed to have a 32% market share having sold 170 million Ipads. 

Nokia of course, have just been bought by Microsoft for over 5 billion usd and launched their new Windows 8 tablet this week too. Microsoft's own 'Surface2' went on sale yesterday but nobody seemed to care. They were watching Apple.

So it's a hot space to be in.

One of the great criticisms after Steve Jobs (I know, yawn) is that Tim Cook's leadership hasn't brought real innovation to Apple since.

If this is a sign of it, I'm inclined to agree.

A lighter, faster, more expensive, Ipad might be good and useful but it's hardly, earth shattering. 

And earth shattering was how Apple used to be.

Google powers on. They know how to make money.

Google powers on.

A +23% rise in revenue for its Internet business, in Quarter 3 to 10.8 billion usd, (all revenue was nearly 15 billion usd) boosted the stock to circa 1,000 usd, a new record.

Although their average cost-per-click rate went into further decline, it was well offset by the high jump in volume.

Basically, Google is suffering from lower margin but a rapid increase in volume. The total amount of paid "clicks" is up +26% year on year (yoy).

Yahoo on the other hand, reported a drop in revenue the same week so it's likely that Google's growth is both organic and that it's taking market share from competitors. It's also enhancing its cashflow position as well as better Ad revenues up +17% yoy.

Motorola, which they own, showed a growing loss in Q3 of 248m usd and it's a continuing bad loss when compared to previous years. A 24% increase of a loss yoy. So still problems there.

But these are strong, effective, healthy results at Google. It also shows the company has adapted well across all devices, notably mobile (40% of YouTube traffic is now mobile), and particularly for their 'Adwords' product.

To be fair, Google is the best Search product in the market and continues to retain customer loyalty and has become intuitive. It is also well-run with a good employee profile and practices.

Their brand strength and cash warchest, is continuing to make things difficult for their competitors. 

In time, they might consider to acquire them and be done with it. 

Social Media profiling and the Ad targeting that's needed. One size doesn't fit all.

Business Insider has produced a really interesting report as part of their BI Intelligence work about the general profile of Social Media sites.

It's not exactly shocking but, it allows us to consider the different profiles of each site rather than consider them all, just as "Social Media". As Social Media develops, it's clearly going to become more niche.

More sites targeting specific interests rather than how it all started as "catch all" sites. They each have a different audience with different beliefs that we need to understand better.

This should be of real interest to brands and advertising.

Here is the broad analysis extract from the Business Insider website;

*Facebook still skews young, but the 45- to 54-year-old age bracket has seen 45% growth since year-end 2012. Among U.S. Internet users, 73% with incomes above $75,000 are on Facebook (compared to 17% who are on Twitter). Eight-six percent of Facebook's users are outside the U.S.

Instagram: Sixty-eight percent of Instagram's users are women.

Twitter has a surprisingly young user population for a large social network — 27% of 18 to 29-year-olds in the U.S. use Twitter, compared to only 16% of people in their thirties and forties. 

LinkedIn is international and skews toward male users. 

Google+ is the most male-oriented of the major social networks. It's 70% male.

Pinterest is dominated by tablet users. And, according to Nielsen data, 84% of U.S. Pinterest users are women.

Tumblr is strong with teens and young adults interested in self-expression, but only 8% of U.S. Internet users with incomes above $75,000 use Tumblr.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-primer-on-social-media-demographics-2013-9#ixzz2i5OZE81m

The Facebook profile data (young but broadening) comes as no surprise.

Instagram users are 68% women is a surprise because it basically started as a photographic nerd site that has developed into general photo sharing. Why that should be more women users, seems to reflect that women like to share their pics more (aka Facebook). So perhaps that's just a trend or reflects the scourge of selfies. 

Twitter is younger largely, because younger people are early adopters and they are the SMS generation but again, it's broadening. More older people and business see the benefits of tweeting. 

LinkedIn being more international and male, reflects their business ethos and positioning as a place to connect businesspeople. So that's fairly obvious.

Google+ being more male is unfathomable. Google+ I mean is unfathomable. It has members who don't know they are (like me) and a manner of connecting up your Social Media that no one understands but that seems to screw up everything else. So really, anything to do with Google Circles is beyond me.

Pinterest users are female and that is no surprise either (84%) as the site has been dominated by Fashion, Cooking and more female activities. But being dominated by tablets usage, is. So perhaps more women are using Tablets like Ipads and traditionally better at keeping, taking and sharing pics than blokes?

Tumblr is micro blogging, so perhaps teens and younger adults are more prepared to show and share their feelings to the world and perhaps they have more time to do so. Although my experience of blogging, is that it's an older profession. But Tumblr as a brand, is very cool in the blogosphere so that too could be the attraction.

What of course that means, and excuse me for stating the obvious, but different Social Media networks reach out to different demographics for different reasons. Hardly earth shattering but often not understood. And it's more crucial than it sounds.

Ad Campaigns tend for example, to be one creative treatment pushed out everywhere. Where in fact, it would be far more effective to have different, more relevant copy, for each platform. 

The Ad on Pinterest for example, should talk more to women and possibly featuring high end visuals. Whereas the Ad on LinkedIn should have a business slant.

But we don't do that. We use Ad networks to push it all out uniformly because we see it as all being "impressions" or as all being just Ads for the "samey Social Media" when it's not. Or shouldn't be.

Like traditional Media, different newspapers reach different audiences. Online is no different. When Streamabout do video for example, it may be that a video needs a different edit or a different take, depending on what site it's being shown on. Rather than the same video for everyone. The same thing applies here.

And it's a sign that Digital Advertising and Marketing, is maturing when we start to see coarse data like this. Because we're moving from trying to keep up with what's out there, to understanding what they do.

Exactly as traditional media started.

So we just need to understand it all better to do it better as the fog of an all-embracing Social Media lifts.

Whatever happened to IBM?

IBM (International Business Machines, in case you're wondering) is a company you hear very little about these days and yet, growing up, it was the talk of the town.

'Big Blue' was the share to hold and considered to be the high flying tech company of its age. Although in my view, it's one company that missed the digital boat. However, it has a 20 billion usd war chest for acquisitions.

Interested (and surprised) to see that new figures on Q3 show revenues falling by a billion usd largely due to a fall in hardware sales. They also point out a slowing of emerging markets, notably China.

Although I was surprised that the 9 month revenues were 72 billion usd - only a 4% decrease - nothing to be sneezed at. They expect to be in profit in 2014.

The figures were however, below expectations.

The fall in hardware sales is driven by the switch to the cloud where data storage is cheaper and probably, more effective through easier access. Indeed, probably more secure. IBM is also in that space to be fair and in these numbers, their cloud division exceeded 1 billion usd revenue for the first time.

But the once giant has fallen off the news pages without a high profile CEO or indeed, high profile products. You don't see a lot of it about. But clearly they're still doing some very good business and will achieve profitability.

In fact, it surprised the hell out of me. Strong business here from a sleeping giant.

Possibly, it's their lack of Social credentials.
Possibly, it's a lack of PR and Advertising.

They seem to have their business fixed, just the profile needs work.

The Trouble with TV.

The role of "Television" or "Broadcasting" is changing and indeed, those terms need new definitions. No longer should we think of "Television" being the sole domain of "Television stations".

After all, consumers are now watching content in a variety of different ways. It's these changes in distribution, that's the core issue.

Whether we watch content through a traditional TV set currently, it's more likely that viewers will be watching via a connected device such as Xbox or the very excellent, Apple TV next. Indeed, the myriad of choices offered by Apple TV alone, encourages viewers to watch other content than traditional TV broadcasts. It brings a lot of movie sites, YouTube channels and Social Media into the livingroom, which in turn, brings consumers massive choice. Apple TV, for a low investment, is just stunning.

Where there's global choice of content, there's likely to be less viewing of domestic traditional TV "broadcasts" and the major US networks continue to lose audiences. 

Social Media is also getting in on the act.

Twitter is trying to close the gap by becoming more involved in traditional TV through real-time conversation. Mind you, a tweet yesterday from Twitter UK saying "great to see the Xfactor bringing audiences closer and turning up the show's social soundtrack" was instantly slammed by users. Twitter are trying to become friends of the TV industry and it will fail.

Twitter wants to be the 'TV Social network' that helps build audiences which in turn, means bigger audiences for Twitter. Indeed, they're showing 60 second Ads during TV shows on Twitter as an "add on" to the programming and encouraging advertisers to sync their advertising. Take a spot at a particular time on the traditional TV show and sync it with one on Twitter.

In my view, they've tied their colours to the wrong mast.

What connected "broadcasting" devices are bringing is choice and choice that may come without Ads (such as the current online DVD boxset "binge"). A choice that means you never miss the start, the end, or forget to record a programme because online content is not hamstrung by TV schedules. 

In the online world you get content, when you want it, rather than when a broadcaster decides to push it out. That is the main structural problem with traditional TV - Scheduling....rather than viewing freedom. And it's a difficult problem for TV stations to deal with, being so ingrained in their culture.

Of course too, content makers (which includes traditional TV stations) have to get used to a new model, where they're prepared to give out that content to other networks, with the copyright/royalty issues that come with that. But they will in effect, become content providers rather than "broadcasters". 

BBC are starting on this path allowing 30 days access to content rather than a week, announced last week. Moreover, they'll allow some content to be viewed online before it has been traditionally broadcast. That's the sort of thinking required.

The development of "live" programming (notably Sports) is going to be interesting too. At the moment, few online channels, outside of traditional TV stations, have shown an interest in providing live content because of both cost and technology issues. But they might buy it in.

The difficulty with "TV" is that distribution has changed and will change completely. If TV stations are to survive it, they have to be prepared to change their model and few, it seems to me, are. They'd rather rubbish the online experience in the hope that it will go away, which it won't. And whilst they take the seat of Nero, everything changes around them, quickly.

Netflix develop original, exclusive content (winning Emmy's for their content such as 'House of Cards') but they're not the only ones as Amazon and Hulu now do the same. Big budgets too, so their content is real TV competition.

Binge viewing is driving online as well, as all the content of a particular show (the full series for example) is available same day. No longer do you have to wait for weeks to get to the ending. Movie releases are following suit with some Studios releasing Movies online first.

YouTube channels are developing at pace allowing ordinary content providers (be they members of the public or production companies) opportunities to broadcast. Awesomeness TV, a children's channel, now has a staggering 60 million viewers a month on YouTube. One YouTube gaming channel has 251 million. So these YouTube viewers have to be watching less traditional TV.

Social Media such as Twitter and Facebook are venturing into the space albeit in a collaborative way, for now. But they will develop their own content in time with News content being their initial entry.

Without any doubt, traditional TV has to change and become more online enabled and involved. Rebroadcasting of today's programmes via an App or online, doesn't cut it. It requires a complete re-think about how they create content, how they broadcast it and how they need to ditch their scheduling.

Perhaps too, they have to re brand and realise that their future lies not on what they broadcast on TV sets, but rather through their website. It's their website that's king and critically, how that content is being made available. To prioritise the web over traditional, will require in traditional broadcasters, a massive mindset shift.

All in all, it may be too late.....and in the eyes of this writer, it probably is because there is no sign of any dawn of realisation. 

None. 

It's gone past time to fight it. 

Newspaper Paywalls. The Sports Illustrated Experiment. And perhaps a better one.

There's a lot of talk in Newspaper circles about paywalls. 

Leaky paywalls, full paywalls and basically any paywall way of generating revenue from the news and content they provide.

It is ridiculous when you think about it, that we all expect our news to be free, when it is probably the most expensive content to produce. But we do, because it's always been like that.

And the whole problem is bolstered by a decline in Newspaper printed cover prices as people opt to get their free news online. It's not that they're consuming less news, they're just choosing to get it for free.

So not only is online not generating revenue, but it reduces revenue from print cover prices, as people switch to the "free" version. An Age old discussion, I know. But what happens in effect, is that Newspapers develop excellent online sites to actually damage themselves. There's no choice....or is there?

A problem too, is that if one title in a local market, introduces a paywall and their competitors don't, then they will lose their readers to the competitor's free version. No doubt. So either everyone introduces a paywall same day, or nobody can.

However, when you have a "free" online newspaper or magazine, there is some benefit in generating money from the substantial traffic that follows, through advertising. 

Typically banner advertising, page take-overs and pre-rolls on video. At the minute, that advertising does not come close to compensating for the provision of the service. Nor is it ever likely to

If on the other hand, you introduce a paywall, and provide content only to those who pay for it, then that general traffic dramatically decreases, literally overnight, as people switch to other free sites. Hence any chance you had of generating those Ad dollars, disappears.

The San Fran Chronicle recently dropped their paywall for this very reason.

It's a huge quandary but .....there may be answers.

One is and an interesting one, to see US magazine 'Sports Illustrated' try something different. They're testing a paywall that allows users access to all of its content for free, IF readers watch a 30 second video Ad first. 

Watch the Ad, you get the content "free" for 24 hours. Then you need to watch another video ad for another 24 hours free.

Not unlike the way TV stations force you to watch video ads before their online programmes - sometimes 7 videos!

The view on Sports Illustrated to date, is that 70% of readers will watch the video Ad to get to the content. Forbes have been doing something similar for ages too. 

Because too, those Sports Illustrated (or indeed Forbes.com) readers, are so well targeted (the demographic is clear), Sports Illustrated sell the video ads at a premium.

So they still have the traffic (because the content is ultimately free inside) for advertisers, albeit with a drop-off in readers (-30%). And they now have a new Advertising stream in forcing readers to watch the video ad.

Good experiment, well worth a look and if it works, it could be one answer to the prayers of online newspapers.

However, there is another, which I've been saying for a long time and spoken to Newspaper CEO's about. And which probably needs another Blog in its own right but it's a thought......

If you have 40 or 50 million views (impressions) a month, it doesn't really matter why they are there really, what matters is, that they are. 

In essence, you have a consumer market to sell into. Ready made Shopping Mall.

And so the answer might be to turn the Newspaper into a shop. 

When you read a story about a Sports match - let customers buy tickets, buy merchandise etc there and then via a clickthru. When you read a piece about a book, a play, a movie etc let readers buy tickets. When you read Fashion, Beauty, even some breaking news, let readers buy. That's the new revenue stream and therefore, you'd actually want encourage free readers with more free content. The more readers you have, the more shoppers to sell to.

Coupled with the Advertising revenue that's already there, it could be the trick.

And even better still, when you have an Ad in the online edition, don't charge advertisers for traditional space, charge them for results. Change the Ad model.

Don't sell a Car manufacturer an "Ad", sell them test drives (which was probably the purpose of the Ad in the first place!).

Don't sell a pharmacy a page take over rate, sell them customers and take a percentage.

After all, that's what Advertisers want - Results. 
And that's what readers want - free content. 
And that's what online Newspapers have - millions of consumers with the potential to generate real money from them.

With 50 million consumers a month, some Irish Newspapers could be the biggest Shopping Sites in Europe.

Digital Radio rolls out globally. iTunes Radio has real potential to own this.

Without a doubt, the next wave is going to be Digital Radio.

We have music streaming services on monthly subscription and we have music downloads, now we'll have sophisticated digital radio with more than 250 DJ curated stations to listen to - for free.

And Apple will own it.

They launched the service in September (same day as IOS7 so it got little PR) across all devices including Apple TV, but only in the USA, for now. Already they're announcing plans to roll it out across Europe. UK, NZ, Australia and Canada were announced only yesterday.

It features in the Itunes store and thereby, immediately putting it in front of an audience of millions. 11 million listeners tried it in the first 5 days after launch.....

What it does in part, is to build pre-made stations around your music choices. So if you hear a particularly song you like, it will tell you the stations that have just played it. Therefore, they might be your kind of stations.

Or you might just want stations that play your favourite genre - Country, Jazz - it will bring you those. The more you listen, the more personalised your station becomes as you decide to make choices - for example, 'never play that song again' - and it won't. The more you listen, the more itunes knows the stations you love and the more it can play the music you love.

So you create your own station in effect, or a pre-made one created based on music you listen to or the music you buy. But there are text and audio ads built into the music and hence it's free although you can remove Ads by upgrading through a subscription. It already has Ad deals in place with P&G, McDonalds, Pepsi and Nissan to start.

It looks too like there's no streaming limits so in some ways it's head-to-head with 13 year old Pandora (Apple are beating them in their quick roll-out and music rights buy-outs) and Spotify, although different. 

Pandora may suffer and reports are that Pandora customers are switching over. However, Bloggers are critical of Apple for simply "copying Pandora". Something Steve Jobs was so critical of other brands doing to Apple.

Of course too, by listening to ITunes Radio, if you hear a song or artist you like, you can buy it there and then.

So it's encouraging music sales by giving listeners what are, free samples. Clever.

And without any doubt, Apple have the distribution, the brand, the financial clout to own Digital Radio globally. Which will have implications for traditional, local stations especially in a young, 14-26 demographic. Those radio stations will need to wake-up to this challenge and they can, by having one big advantage - local content.

Certainly in Ireland, Radio Media owners tend to be smart, bright people but the sudden impact of an Itunes Radio launch will require a response. Now's the time to formulate that because it's coming.

Be 100% sure of that.

Twitter IPO. Looks like November 8th trading day.

Twitter's IPO is probably the most awaited floatation since Facebook.

Although still loss-making and small, it is growing and has revenues of 448 million usd in the last year, twice that of LinkedIn when it floated two years ago. LinkedIn then, was valued then at 4 billion usd (now it's 27 billion usd) and Twitter IPO expectations have been between 10-15 billion usd. Facebook we will all sorely remember, peaked at 100 million usd.

Twitter will shortly begin their investor roadshow and The FT have reported that a first day of trading is likely to be November 8th. Of course, they'll need to convince investors first, that they've turned a corner and will be showing greater future profitability. Twitter's revenues largely come from US traffic although it only accounts for 23% of Twitter usage, so reaching out globally, will be key. It needs its advertising to be better engaged outside of the US.

What Twitter needs to do is to instill confidence that it can generate good solid money in the longer term through advertising and avoid the hyped webby valuations. Facebook lessons still hang in the air and it's fair to assume that this IPO will be more measured, more considered.

Notwithstanding that, Twitter has a big following as being a good all round Social Media player with longevity. It's less "flash in the pan" and more down to earth with its potential for profit, still largely, unproven.

But all of these IPO's get the market's blood rushing. It's an opportunity for Wall Street to turn a profit quickly on "Mom's and Pop's" shares. So we will see their hype rather than Twitters. So be warned of pre-IPO publicity.

But, it's probably a good buy because getting on board now, in a reasonable IPO, reminds one a little of Apple founders. 

What Twitter does is good and growing. 
That's the fundamental.

Instagram to roll out Ads. Enjoy it whilst it's Ad free.

Instagram, the photo/video sharing site, is officially to start rolling out Ads in the US slowly. Video Ads are to come mid 2014 whilst at the moment, Instagram is "ad free".

Instagram is the site where you can use some very cool filters on your pics that makes them look beautiful.....and they work. Owned by Facebook (acquired 2012 for nearly a billion usd), with a guesstimate of 150 million active users, the "Ads" will largely be quality brand photos placed in your feed, whether you follow them or not. But they won't be 'banners'.

However, Instagram are indicating that you'll have some control over what you Ads you see. So they have concerns about the disruption that advertising can cause, especially on a quality site like this. A lot of brands do have already a great presence on Instagram with high followers. Notably fashion brands such as Burberry.

The contextual relevance of Ads is key and in order to deliver effectively on that, data will become key. When signing up for Instagram, that data is fairly basic so that could become the issue for targeting unless they cross-correlate with Facebook usage.

Without the ability to 'click thru' too, it's likely Instagram will just be selling impressions. 

Celebs have already actively made sponsored posts for brands such as Nike, without Instagram earning a cent. Although such posts are now required to feature a disclaimer if they're commercial.

Instagram needs to become a stand-alone business and "monetize" (hate that word) its users. Advertising is one way to do that. However, it will be interesting to watch how they strike that balance between annoying people and generating revenue.

Their owner Facebook, is not exactly strapped for cash, so they'll go at it slowly as they've said, with experiment after experiment until they get it right. If not, they may risk their business.  

More likely is that they'll get it right and it'll be a good model for other sites too. 

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says goodbye emotionally and with his favourite song. And it's not, "On the good ship, Lollipop".

'Crazy' Steve Ballmer, the food of many a blog and mine included, departs Microsoft as CEO. He says goodbye to 13,000 Microsoft employees in Seattle after 13 years at the helm but 33 years at the business.

'Crazy' because of his style of presentation and if you search him on this blog, you'll get the drift. This goodbye one, is actually tame in comparison.

Fairly emotionally he says it too and it's hard not to feel for the man. Despite it all, it's a tear jerker until that is, he ends with a song. A song of his choosing that says it all up for him. His favourite song.

Jennifer Warnes "Time of my life" from 'Dirty Dancing'. Jesus. But that kind of sums him up.

Wonder what Movie song will Bill Gates choose when he goes? Answers on a postcard but I'm guessing..... "Working 9 to 5".

Coke. A real good example of a story well told using online video. Terrific.

Not a big fan of Coke (which is like giving a compliment with one hand and taking it away with the other) because of the high level of sugar which damages kids. There's an average of 11 cubes of sugar in a can of Coke.

But I am a big fan of the type of activity that Coke have done to market themselves. Like the surprise of spreading a little happiness on a grey day as the video shows. It's a great little idea.

What's more too, is the video production which is super, although I don't know who made it. 

It gets across the spirit of the day using gentle cutaways of people being happy in an almost 'secret filming' way and yet it tells the story of the greenery being rolled out. Like every good online video, it should have a start, a middle and an end.

The music track is ideal and certainly feels "commissioned" rather than stock library music. It builds brilliantly.

The reveal of the bottle shape at the end leaves something for the viewer coupled with a lovely end graphic which was not cheap to do, I can tell you.

So a great story, well told.

And a great story to "share" as I am doing with you, which is the whole point of video. Nearly 60,000 personal up close views, in 2 days. That's real one-to-one marketing.

So it's a classic example of online video doing a great job for Coke. Exactly the way video was intended to be used. Little bit of trouble, little bit of thinking and you get something that's viewable and shareable.

Good for Coke. Pass it on.

Delta Airlines 11,000 pilots to get Microsoft Surface tablets instead of flight bags. Ad Campaign crying out to be done....

Delta Airlines have announced that they're to replace Pilot's flight bags with Surface 2 Tablets. That's 11,000 of an order for Microsoft Surface where Pilots will now board without the iconic, but 35 pound heavy, flight kit.

The saving in weight is one good reason as well as reducing paper (and therefore, CO2) but flying lighter saves fuel, saves money. Also, one would think that it's more efficient and that the tablet will have better, up-to-the-minute graphics and information such as weather detail.

The Microsoft Surface has had a poor first year - 900m usd in write downs and a price slash to attract customers and only about 1.5 million Surface tablets sold. How many Ipads sold in the same period you ask? About 60 million.

So there was some surprise at Delta's decision to opt for the Microsoft Surface. However, it does bring Microsoft a gift in marketing terms, if they're smart to it. A whole Ad campaign about what tablet do pilots trust? After all, your life might depend on it....that sort of thing. 

The Tablet that's trusted because it's reliable; it works under all conditions; it's accurate; it's light - all the stuff that a pilot might need it for.

An Ad campaign crying out to be done.
Hello? Anybody?

YouTube Music Awards November 3rd. They're killing Television.

If ever you wanted an example where digital broadcasting is eating into traditional Television, here's one.

YouTube have designed the 'YouTube music awards' on November 3rd, a lovely idea in itself because of their younger profile and the fact that music is a such a big YouTube driver. A lot of stars would never have got a music deal (such as Psy) were it not for exposure on YouTube.

However, the show which features Lady Gaga, Eminem, Arcade Fire and loads of other top acts, will be broadcast live.....on eh,YouTube. The 90 minute show will be driven by awards from votes and data about viewership on YouTube.

YouTube will also be showcasing contending artists in the build-up. And some of those artists will not be hugely well known generally but big on YouTube.

But this will be bigger than MTV. 

So here is a digital channel that's generating its own awards that it will broadcast itself. So no need for traditional TV there at all and in fact, they're being left out in the cold as they won't have the content. They won't be able to broadcast the show.

So when they tell you TV viewing is growing, be careful out there.

Cause it sure won't be on November 3rd amongst that younger audience who'll be glued to YouTube. 

YouTube and exclusive content on Netflix are killing Television.
This is only the start.

Breaking Bad ends Sunday. Here's a viral to remind you of the best bits. The most rated TV show ever.

The final, all-time last episode (called 'Felina), of Breaking Bad ends on Sunday. The photo above has just been released by the studio taken from the last episode.

Netflix expect to have it within 24 hours of the live broadcast.

It's been called the greatest TV series ever and certainly set the record as the world's most rated show ever. It has also driven Social Media in that it got a massive surge online being given a perfect '10' online.

Believe me, people are crazy about it and I've blogged about it before on September 18th below.

The penultimate episode had 6.6 million viewers live.

Mind you, it reportedly cost 3 million usd per episode, to make. 

So this YouTube viral is outtakes and emotional scenes which for fans, should be enjoyable. 

By the way, Walt dies. Maybe not.

Twitter's moving into Advertising by broadcasting 30 second TV spots.

Twitter is moving more into advertising notably in advance of its IPO. 

If Twitter can show real ways to generate revenue (current 2013 revenues expected at circa 500 million usd, a doubling of last year) it will help their float.

One way they're doing it, and talking to Ad Agencies about it, is to introduce the standard 30 second TV spot. They've been present at Adweek this week in NYC, a big traditional advertising get-together.

What they're suggesting is that advertisers broadcast their 30 second spot in the Twitter feeds of anyone watching the programme live online. So the ad would appear on TV as usual but also on second screens twitter feeds, simultaneously. Lovely idea.

It shows Twitter as an ally of TV which is a good move. TV Broadcasters could do the same in reverse.

With 200m active users sending 400m tweets a day, Twitter has been behind the door regarding advertising. But now, money counts especially in convincing investors of big revenue potential. A lot of Ad Agencies view Twitter as a Social Media tool rather than a medium in its own right. A lot of traditional Ad Agencies mind you, view everything Social as being tools.

Twitter have an Ad strategy that in my view, works.
But advertisers will find the money from their traditional TV budgets.

Flipboard raises 50 million Dollars. Value of 800 million. And it deserves it all.

My all-time favourite App? 

Flipboard and it's not an App, it's a thing of beauty, allowing you to merge and mash all your feeds into one "designery" space. This is top end design with relevant content that's really going upwards.

They've just announced they've raised 50 million us Dollars in funding, bringing the company valuation to about 800 million usd. 

Founded only in 2010 by Mike McCue, they have 85 million registered users which surprises me that it's so low....

Almost like a top-end magazine it aggregates news feeds with social media in the way you want it as "flippable" pages. It also allows you consequently, to create your own magazine and over a million have done that including 'Rolling Stone' and 'National Geographic'. That's a self-publishing dream.

But the long term play for Flipboard I think anyway, is deciding on what content to include and by that I mean, getting revenues from publishers who want to be included. If you own the App, you decide on what goes in.

With 85 million users it hasn't reached the critical mass of say, Twitter (800 million)....yet. But when it does, it will be a real player that it deserves to be. It wasn't that long ago (a year?) that they had 20 million users.

They've also gently started ECommerce with a 'click to buy' button working on a sales margin. That's going to be big.

It's the sort of news innovation coupled with top rate design and functionality, that is leading the way (although the current digital issue of 'Wired', is also something to behold).

And if you haven't got it, get it now.

Flipboard are getting the financial recognition at last.