Christmas TV Ads have started but we already have a winner. Stunning spot from Lego.

So the Christmas Ads have started then and we already have a winner!
This is going to be hard to beat.....

A classic piece of Advertising from Amsterdam's 'we are pi'. 
Great copywriting, smashing kids voice and like any Dad out there, you just get it. And Lego is what the Dads buy ("When I was your age son....").

'Let's build'. 

Dear oh, dear I just want to go home and do this with Jack (8) right now. Because it's a little piece of magic, not about the product itself, but rather about the benefits. I'll keep harping on about that as being key to good advertising.

Bang on the money magnificence. 
This will sell Lego.

Twitter debuts on NYSE today at the high 26 Dollars a share.

The Twitter IPO starts on NYSE today.

Trading will take place starting at 26 us Dollars a share which is at the top end. But as predicted, it's being talked up and up to allow early investors turn a profit. One spread betting company IG, today in The Guardian, are predicting a +70% rise to 43 usd......

In the words of Mandy Rice Davies, well they would, wouldn't they.

Everybody is bullish so a gain is the most likely outcome here today.
It will be the 3rd largest IPO this year but the average one day rise (or 'pop') this year is +17%.

So there's a play on the day but after that....remember Facebook.
There's a lot of bulls out there looking for a quick gain.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 7th - Early trading, shares to go to high of 50 Dollars, drop back to circa 45 Dollars. Huge gains on the day circa +75%. IG were right) 

Amazon announce 2 new original series. Another threat to traditional TV.

Original online content is growing, to compete with traditional TV, just as expected.

Following Netflix with 'House of cards' and others, Amazon have announced two new original series which they're producing.

Alpha House, a comedy about US Washington Senators (with John Goodman), goes out on November 15th on Amazon instant. It is written by the great Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury fame.

Betas, a series about social media start ups (yep, could be good), starts at the end of November. Silicon valley friends have their moment in setting up a new Social Media play. 

Both have 11 episodes. They've also 3 kids shows in production.

This is the first time Amazon have produced their own original Series and no doubt, follows Netflix. It allows the online broadcasters to compete for viewers with good, quality programming and is great news again, for the online digital video sector.

But it's more bad news for TV.

Already being hit as viewers switch over to online low cost, programming on subscription, as well as, an ongoing obliteration of their audience by Social Media, now they have a content challenge. Their only hope was to retain viewers because of the content traditional TV offers and even this, is being eroded.

Furthermore, Netflix and Amazon are sitting on big cashpiles, and we understand that they're going to compete to buy broadcast rights for live events - notably big sporting occasions. TV will not be able to compete with them here either.

Even as content providers, the recent YouTube deals show that online broadcasters, as YouTube is, are prepared to pay TV stations less for their content. So that revenue stream, small as it might be right now, is definitely reducing.

And as sure as night follows day, Advertising money follows audience. More and more of it is going online.

Yet, TV Stations persevere in the hope that terrestrial broadcasting will "see off" the continuing online challenge as they try to spin "good news" that's just not credible. They continue to live off in some cases, huge state aid, instead of getting into the space, embracing it and being prepared to re-formulate their model. Like newspapers have been prepared to do.

The ticking clock, just got a lot louder.

YouTube are changing their deals with TV Stations and Movie providers. But in doing it, they're encouraging that old no no. Media brokering.

YouTube is starting to flex its muscle.

In the past, it encouraged TV Stations and Movie makers to put their content up on YouTube in return for what was called a "sweetheart" deal. Basically the content provider (Movie Studios/TV Stations) got 70% of the Ad revenue in return. More favourable terms than other content providers got....but YouTube got good content.

Movie clips, TV programmes, etc.

Not any more.

As those content contracts are being renewed, YouTube are now offering them, 55% of the advertising, with YouTube retaining 45% - so down from the 70%. 

Basically these are now, the same terms YouTube offers everyone else - so no longer "special deals" for the networks anymore.

However, (I think this is most dangerous part,) YouTube have agreed to "cap" this share - to limit the YouTube take. So they'll take the 45% to a certain amount of money and after that is reached, the TV stations/Movie makers can keep 100% of what's left. Therefore, if the movie/TV stations (content providers) get more Ad money than the "cap", they keep it all. What's being called the "threshold".

So if the content producers sell more advertising at higher prices, they benefit in full. And this deal encourages them to do that. They will charge their advertisers more than they're actually paying.

In my mind, this is media brokering at its worst. An activity which has always been frowned upon, if not considered illegal, and certainly considered sharp practice. 

The traditional Ad Agency model of commission (and in this case, the TV stations can be considered Ad Agencies because they're "selling on" other media), is based on a % of the true media cost. An advertiser rightly expects that the Ad Agency to be paying the media the exact price shown on the invoice and simply deducting a commission.

If for example, an Ad is 100 quid, it's charged to the client at 100 quid, less 15% commission (or whatever the agreed commission is). Transparent, above board. 

In this way potentially however, if the same Ad is 100 quid, but the seller negotiates it for less, say 70 quid, and yet still charges the client the 100 quid, that's media brokering. You're charging more than you're actually paying.

Ad Agencies could have made fortunes (I could have) if we behaved as media brokers. Wholesaling media if you like.

And the same TV networks would be livid if they saw Ad Agencies inflating their prices to advertiser clients. Now they might be doing the same thing. In fact, it's a condition for Ad Agencies not to behave like that in the original Ad Agency licence agreements with the same media. And yet, it seems, that's now how media will operate in this deal - if they accept it.

In this YouTube case now, the advertiser would be paying a very probably, higher inflated price to the TV network for their YouTube advertising because the TV network will want to exceed the YouTube "cap". The more they get from advertisers, through higher pricing, the more they keep.

In order to "blur" these transactions, I'd expect to see the TV networks hide from transparency by "bundling" the YouTube airtime with other advertising as "packages". Which ironically, they in turn will probably try to sell on to Ad Agencies!

So if it's accepted, it's a very dark, dubious practice to say the least. And reflects badly on YouTube for suggesting it. For facilitating it. For encouraging it. 

If of course, I'm not misunderstanding it.
Doubt it.....

Blackberry deal is off. Shares start to tank again. The death spiral?

Uh oh, the Blackberry Sale has fallen through.

And its shares are tanking. Again.

It had hoped to sell itself to its biggest shareholder (holding 10%), Fairfax, whom were rumoured to have found difficulty in raising the finance for it. Blackberry is now looking to raise 1 billion usd elsewhere and CEO Thorsten Heins has stepped aside.

Although Fairfax have structured a financial 7 year deal to support the company, it won't be seen as enough.

Blackberry have already planned to cut 4,500 jobs, 40% of their work force.

Last month they reported a quarterly loss of nearly 1 billion usd but are sitting on cash of more than 1 billion which will get them through...for a while (another quarter loss like last quarter will do it).

One would expect though, that shares will plummet tomorrow.

And this is now, probably the start of what last year was termed, The Blackberry Death Spiral.

Newspapers see the Web as an opportunity for digital publishing. They're not sitting on their hands.

I've often said that the 'threat' of the web to newspapers doesn't have to be that - it can be an opportunity. 

One way, as I suggested in an earlier recent Blog, was to turn the huge online audience that newspapers get, into a shopping mall. Get the readers to buy and take a margin.

Another, is to create online publishing through dedicated 'imagazines'. The Irish Independent Group, Ireland's biggest newspaper publishers, are doing just that through a series of imags.

They create and publish online with more and more advertising support. Key to it is Video because it's one benefit that a newspaper publisher can offer online, which they can't offer in the printed version.

Their current edition called 'Lineout' (http://supplements.independent.ie/?xml=line%20out%20iMag%20&iid=83143) gives you a sense of the effort, money and quality that is being put into them. This is actually, their 6th edition. 

Generally, this one is about Rugby (although there's lots of lifestyle features in it) and I've listed some of the video here in case you're interested, which Streamabout produced for them. What they've been able to do is to use their clout (unlike say, a start-up could) to call on big names like the Irish out-half, Jonny Sexton;

And the aspiring out-half, Ian Madigan;

Or legends like Tommy Bowe;

Or Conor Murray;

Or Peter O'Mahony;

And so on. And by having such high profile names (there's lots more in it), they can then draw in high profile advertisers who want to be associated with it. So it really works.

Lineout is only one in what is an ever-growing series of imagazine online publishing. The Independent also bring to bear a huge resource in editorial with really experienced people (such as Bairbre Power the Editor of Lineout) who understand how to put it all together.

And of course, by placing it on their site (www.independent.ie) they instantly deliver views and impressions. Substantial views.

Newspapers are not sitting on their hands contemplating the threat of the internet. 

They are capitalising on it.

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.