Peter Chun

Over the last couple of years, Google has been making a variety of changes to the quality score impacting paid search.  First it was more then CTR*Max CPC’s, then the “more” became a dynamic ad ranking model which included landing pages, then that was stretched further into min/max CPC’s as well as “content” on landing pages being valuable.

Effective April 1st, Google will be strictly enforcing a “new” policy that display URL’s must match Destination URL’s.  This will likely have a large impact on free-loading search publishers that aren’t adding much value through the “real-estate” model.  Here’s a list of changes that we should expect with some examples to help explain things better: (more…)

Sources close to the deal reveal that the acquisition was ~150M USD.

Why this makes sense. . operating under the ad.com umbrella, you now have a strong reputable ad network that performs on various pricing modes (CPC, CPM, CPA) side by side with an affiliate network that will likely leverage alot from ad.com

There’s alot of operational leverage that buy.at can capitalize on. Merging the ad.com technology will also create scale and a “more” integrated platform for buy.at.

Lastly…uniting AOL’s properties puts them straight into the servicing game with an ad network, affiliate network, universal data feed utilities and an SEM agency.

CJ with VLCK, Performics with DCLK, LinkShare with Rakuten and now Buy.at with AOL creates a landgrab for premier retailers in the space. Expect AOL to go after Quigo/Ad.com clients aggressively over the next 9-15 months as well. If you thought price cuts were one of the challenges to the affiliate space, get ready for some more.

Wow.

Google misses earnings, stock plummets, people “freak” out - before some thoughts, here are some facts:

• Total paid clicks in the fourth quarter rose 30% compared to the same period in 2006, but slower than the 45-52% growth seen during the first three quarter of 2007
• Most disappointing probably was the number of aggregate paid clicks which increased just 9% during the quarter
• For the first time since its initial public offering three years ago, Google’s quarterly profit failed to climbed more than 25%
• Overall, Google reported fourth quarter net income of $1.21 billion, or $3.79 per diluted share, up nicely from $1.03 billion, or $3.29 per diluted share, in the same quarter last year but, the earnings per share number excluding items came in at $4.43, below the consensus analyst estimate of $4.47. Revenue also fell short by $60 million

Now for some Thoughts

• Google search market share is the largest it has ever been (through December of 2007)
• The online advertising market continues to grow with healthy projections into 2012 (with search leading the charge)
• Google adjusted clickable areas through the paid search (top listings) from the “shaded area” to the actual “advertisement” to reduce what they call “invalid” clicks (different from fraud clicks, as they cast a wider net of false positives to catch invalid activity before it needs to be accounted for)
• Google’s investments and entry into new markets/products/services will need to come together over the next few years - the dependency on the advertising business unit will continue to become an issue
• Google needs to diversify the revenue mix and need to manage the street’s/investors expectations - they’re growing…don’t forget that

I know, I know. More stuff coming….

However - some stuff to chow on in the interim.

1. The Facebook SmackDown - if you haven’t played this app yet, you should (and I’m not just saying that because my best friend created the application) - it’s really cool, in BETA - full review coming shortly
2. I’ll be in San Frizzle this week - I have a speaking session at our annual event Summit Event - it’s on “online-video” as a merchandising tactic for Advertisers - should go smooth
3. If you’re in the area, gimme a shout…

Till further updates - i’ll leave you with “a (2) letter” words to live by

Last week, the City Council revealed its new website after months of delay. But while most agree that it is a good step, the site has received mixed reviews from people dealing with the intersection of technology and government.

The Councils’ new site is meant to be more stable than the old site, which was notorious for crashing. It offers more details on committee hearings, including direct links and briefings. An RSS subscription is now available for the committee’s calendars, and there are plans to add RSS features throughout the site in the future. Council members also have the ability to update their own pages as they see fit, and can add such features as voting records, calendars and press releases if they choose. The Council’s communications office is training staffers and even Council members on how to do so.

Cathilea Robinett, the executive director of the Center for Digital Government, said the new web site is very sophisticated for a council site. “This is an excellent use of technology with several innovative features. Congratulations to the New York City Council for a citizen-centric and citizen-friendly site.” The center publishes a yearly survey ranking American cities on their use of technology to reach out to constituents. (New York City has not been in the top ten large cities since 2002, when it ranked fourth.)

Councilmember Gale Brewer, chair of the Technology in Government Committee, was happy about the new site as well. She says that it is now much easier to find legislation, and finds the additional information available for committee hearings useful. But her enthusiasm was tempered by what the site didn’t have.
(more…)

NY-based KickApps is announcing this morning a new partnership with Advertising.com to monetize video content built on the KickApps social networking platform. Social networks using KickApps can select advertisements as either pre- or post-roll messages. I assume this means videos that use the KickApps video player.

Revenue share percentages were not disclosed. I like this deal because it helps small publishers to earn more and provide better ads than with smaller advertising networks. In fact, most of the smaller ad networks can't even support video ads.

Since their $11 million funding round in August, KickApps has continued to make press-worthy announcements.

Pat O’Gorman, an award winning television industry veteran, has joined New York City online media company For Your Imagination and will help develop their online web video programming and serve as a senior advisor.

Currently working as a media consultant for Beauchamp Communications, O’Gorman boasts an impressive resume with more than four decades of experience in the television industry.  Alongside Reese Schonfeld, she co-founded CNN in 1979 and served as an executive producer of both The Book Channel from 1984-86 and The Food Network from 1992-99.  Additionally, she received four Peabody awards for her work as a documentary film editor at CBS.

“We’re thrilled to add Pat to the For Your Imagination team,” said For Your Imagination’s CEO, Paul Kontonis.  “Her unrivaled experience in the television industry will be immeasurably helpful in allowing us to continue to create outstanding online television shows and branded content.”

Biography
Pat O’Gorman is an award winning television producer and director with over 40 years experience. Presently, she works as television network and media consultant for Beauchamp Communications. Pat was the executive producer for the Television Food Network (1992-99) and the Book Channel (1984-1986). She has worked as an editor on "60 Minutes," CBS’ "Who’s Who," "Crime Watch Tonight" and as an editor and producer for Woman’s Magazine. In 1979, Pat started CNN with Reese Schonfeld, and developed a program for "Video Journalists"   to teach all aspects of Journalism and TV News. In addition to her plentiful professional experience, Pat has received 4 Peabody Awards for her work as a documentary film editor at CBS. Pat has collaborated on many projects; "Cambodia", a documentary reported by Ed Bradley and "Assassination MLK", reported by Dan Rather, are two of her finest. 

A new project I’ve been working on with Darrell Silver, Erin Sparling, and Lee Semel launches today: CommandShift3.

It’s like Hot or Not, but for websites.

Started on a lark during a NYC Jelly session with Adam Varga, Darrell Silver, Dan Lurie, Erin Sparling, and Lee Semel, we’re really proud to open it up to the world today.

Much thanks to everyone who’s given us advice and support, including the celeb designers who recorded short videos we’ve hidden in the site for you to find. (Khoi Vinh, Matt Linderman, Taylor McKnight, Derek Powazek, Brad Smith, Ryan Sims, Dan Cederholm, Chris Messina, Ben Brown)

In an industry shaking move, four of the most influential new media organizations in New York - SobelMedia, NY:MIEG, The Producers Guild of America/New Media Council and For Your Imagination - are teaming up to bring you a Holiday Get-Together on Wednesday, December 12th starting at 7pm at For Your Imagination, 22 West 27th Street, 6th Floor. You can RSVP at the Facebook group or email bash@foryourimagination.com. For Your Imagination has been at the center of the most influential and industry shaping events in new media and online video events in New York City in 2007 ranging from Video 2.0, BigScreen LittleScreen, nextMadisonAve, CenterNetworks, nextNYers, Revver Content Creators and OneWebDay and this event is no exception.

Last week, as many are aware, the Silicon Alley Insider released the much awaited Alley 100 list.

I say much “awaited” because (I feel no shame in pointing out) leading up to the release of the official list there was a large amount of activity on, and buzz around, a site I put up (using BricaBox) called the “Silicon Alley 100: People’s Choice.”

This was a place for “the people” to nominate and vote on folks to be recognized for their influence in the NY tech scene.

It was this list which stirred up quite a controversy within the nextNY community and greater NY tech scene, garnering scathing posts from folks like my friend Charlie O’Donnell along with mostly excited and engaging posts from folks like Greg Verdino and Darren Herman, to name a few (here are a few others).

Regardless of opinion, it was clear that with the People’s Choice version of the list everyone had an opinion. Either it was the best thing ever that “the people” had their own version of the list, or it was an example of how “the people” are ineffective at measuring influence and power.

So, when the Insider finally released their list last week, my first questions was, “How close were We?”

The answer:
Pretty darn close.
Minus some pretty big holes.
Plus some holes filled in by big misses on the Insider list.

Today I finally got around to posting a quantitative analysis comparing the list up on Google Spreadsheets. Check it out. I think it tells an interesting story.

What the list shows is that the “people’s” list had about 20 of the 100 people on the SAI list, under-weighting the average person by 13 places. This under-weighting was due, in part, to the fact that the “People’s Choice” list included 6 of the 21 unranked “Up and Comers” that the Insider recognized. (Full Disclosure: SAI put me in this list, which I can only attribute to a “typo,” as Caroline McCarthy did for herself.)

Now, there are several ways to interpret the difference in weighting of the lists, but I think it has to do with community and entrepreneurship versus power and the establishment. To illustrate this point, consider the folks who were most under-weighted and most over-weighted by the People’s Choice list.

Most under-weighted by “the people”:

1. Quincy Smith
2. David Rosenblatt
3. John Borthwick

Must over-weighted by “the people”:

1. Allen Stern
2. Andrew Rasiej
3. Charlie O’Donnell

What makes the first three folks “power and the establishment” is that their influence in exerted on the exiting and king-making side of “influence” (supposedly the measurement we were going by). Quincy buys “new media” companies; David sold DoubleClick; John sold Fotolog. It’s not a knock on them or SAI: It’s an observation of one way to measure influence.

The “over-weighted” folks, however, are the foot-soldiers, the folks changing (read: influencing) the face of NY tech literally from its grassroots.

Perhaps it’s a chicken and egg question, but I’m not surprised the “the people” sided with the grassroots side of influence (the egg?).

Anyway, I think the type of influence each list weighted is an important way to analyze what went on. Another way to analyze the two lists is by omissions.

Looking down the SAI list, it’s clear to me that “the people” missed some pretty important people altogether. Consider these “holes” (in order of measured importance):

1. Michael Bloomberg
2. Alan Patricof
3. Tim Armstrong
4. Jim Cramer

Then look at these omissions from SAI’s list (in order of measured importance):

1. David Rose
2. Stephen Colbert
3. Arriana Huffington
4. Clay Shirkey

Once again it seems to the a “people have spoken” vs a “powers have spoken” thing. Again, not that “power” is a bad way of measuring “influence,” it just shows you from what mindset a “people’s choice” list comes from and from what mindset a curated “kind-maker” list comes from.

So, I’m interested in what *you* read into these two lists. I personally believe that each has its place and each is important in its own right. I wouldn’t want the “official” list to have many of the folks who made it into the top of the People’s Choice list, but I also think a people’s choice version keeps the “official” guys honest.

Besides from the usually cries of “lists are stupid,” what are your opinions? I’d love to see a blog post or a few comments of your reaction.