In a move that shocked many B2B media insiders - including Incisive Media CEO Tim Weller - global information provider Reed Elsevier has announced the resignation of their CEO Ian Smith, to be replaced by Erik Engstrom, CEO of their Elsevier division. While early speculation from FT's Alphaville blog depicted the management shift as "a proper executive-level knifing," more considered comments from industry analysts and insiders in The Independent seem to indicate that Smith was falling on his own sword in recognition of some major challenges not easily resolved by someone with limited media experience. Three key factors were arguing strongly for changes at Reed Elsevier sooner rather than later: the selloff of Reed Business Information assets had stalled, pre-tax profits were down 52 percent in half-year results and investors lacked confidence in both projected earnings and Smith's aggressive recapitalization efforts. With Smith's mentor Jan Hommen having departed from Reed Elsevier's board in January to head the ING bank, a graceful exit was probably in order.

Labels: business, Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, elsevier, engstrom, enterprise, legal, LexisNexis, management, reed elsevier, scientific, technical, thomson reuters

It's a tough market out there for startup companies, much less enterprise-oriented content startups, but LaunchBox Digital is an efficiency-oriented funder of startups that is helping good ideas to get off the ground on a shoestring. One of LaunchBox's newer properties is Legal River, a startup spawned at the University of Maryland that focuses on enabling legal services providers to market their abilities more effectively to small and medium-sized businesses. That business model in and of itself is a tip-off that at least some of today's content-oriented startups are moving towards solutions that focus on solving very specific problems for very specific marketplaces - a refreshing change from "we have a feature, now what's the market for it?" approaches that haunted many of the early waves of content startups.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, enterprise, lawyers, lead generation, legalriver, marketing, online, services, SMB, SME, startups

I enjoyed this year's SIIA Information Industry Summit and Previews events very much; there were great presentations and great discussions throughout the two-plus days in New York. However, I was a bit disturbed by some of the gossip I heard percolating in the background about the successes of Congressional Quarterly that were highlighted by CQ's president and editor-in-chief Robert Merry in his panel presentation. Under Merry CQ went from being one of many challenged niche Washington print publications into a highly successful for-profit online subscription service with a healthy array of complementary of online and print publications. The undercurrent at the conference was along the lines of "Well, that's easy for him to say, he works for a non-profit." Sorry, folks, while the non-profit Poynter Institute owns CQ as well as The St. Petersburg Times via parent umbrella Times Publishing Co., Merry has had to work towards a profit component as much as any other publication.

Such critiques are especially ironic given the announcement that TPC is now looking to sell CQ in order to raise cash that will allow its beleaguered St. Pete Times to stay afloat. Politico has a particularly meaty take on the proposed sale, with lots of insider quotes. The bottom line of this deal is fairly simple: CQ is a valuable asset, will sell as soon as there's money available to buy it and is the baby being thrown out to rescue the soiled bathwater that is today's consumer newspapers. It is akin to The New York Times' recent decision to lease out real estate from its new building to raise operating cash for its newspaper, but unlike the NYT, TPC has decided that it's better to hang on to a dying publication and to let go a publication that's done its homework on how to survive in a very tough market niche.

At least TPC is making an honest attempt to try to figure out a working business model for newspapers in a post-print era. By contrast, The New York Times went to print with an op-ed piece by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt which claims that today's news organizations should be subsidized as non-profit organizations. The op-ed piece lays out the facts of the news industry's woes objectively enough, but then it adds this nugget:

By endowing our most valued sources of news we would free them from the strictures of an obsolete business model and offer them a permanent place in society, like that of America’s colleges and universities. Endowments would transform newspapers into unshakable fixtures of American life, with greater stability and enhanced independence that would allow them to serve the public good more effectively.

Perhaps with bailout fever in the air news organizations are feeling that they should join the Washington gravy train and try to get a permanent government subsidy. If so, this would be both extremely ironic and highly unlikely, given Washington's relentless cutbacks on public radio and television outlets, which have lost the lion's share of their government subsidization and which do not have the extensive international correspondent networks that Swensen and Schmidt claim are in need of subsidization. From crowing about "cash cow" profits to going hat in hand to governmental organizations seems to be an unlikely transition for most major media companies, especially given their recent tendency to play high stakes M&A games on highly leveraged dealmaking at the expense of staff and product development.

In one sense the concept of endowing consumer news journalism is a sound one; we should be making it easier for good news to be collected in a way that puts less profit pressure on news organizations. The truth of the matter, though, is that this is happening anyway. In addition to some news organizations teaching people in local markets how to help them in collecting news, the marketplace is encouaging startups that are filling the gaps left behind from the media industry's dilution of news coverage. Emma Heald notes at Editorsweblog.org the progress of VoiceofSanDiego.org, an investigative journalism startup funded by contributions from the greater San Diego, California community and from the Knight Foundation. VoSD.org has the flexibility to produce investigative journalism without the pressure of advertising, but that's not the only solution to filling in the revenue gap required to produce important news. More partisan outlets such as The Raw Story have periodic fund drives to help close the gap between modest online ad revenues and what it takes to field journalists who are willing to pursue commercially unpalatable news.

So although it is romantic to think that news organizations that have tried to be blue-chip stock plays can become well-disciplined investigative news organizations at the wave of an endowment wand, the reality is that there is a new generation of investigative news being produced both by professionals and citizen-journalists independent of those media companies. News will survive and thrive in the online world, to borrow from the title of Content Nation, but not necessarily in the hands of organizations that are the product of the era of mass production. Much of it will be produced for free or for the purposes of people who choose to support it either through endowments for through their good will in producing it. But news will continue to be produced for a profit - if its producers can understand that the content industry is entering the post-industrial era. Mass production still has value, but the most value in the publishing marketplace is in the mass-production of highly contextual information and experiences. The key to the survival of publishing is to focus on monetizing the contexts, not the "things."

In some ways the consumer news industry understands this in their improved focus on search engine optimization, contextual ads, better content engagement and better integration of content generated by its communities. But at the heart of the gap between yesterday's more robust revenues and today's more meager online revenues is a failure to monetize contexts efficiently. Some of that gap can be closed by a standardized approach to micropayments, but in large part the proliferation of news on many topics from online sources and independent aggregators of news links means that there will always be fewer contexts that traditional news organizations can monetize. So yes, get those endowments if you can find them, but don't expect that you'll support the same kind of news organization with them.

All of this brings us back to Bob Merry's great historical insights on the news industry. He noted at the SIIA Information Industry Summit that prior to the rise of today's "objective" news gathering organizations in the industrial 19th century there was a robust array of smaller and more partisan news organizations from which people could pick and choose insights on the topics of the day. In this fray, few news rooms would claim to have the "objective" view of the truth: people would have to assemble that on their own through studying the sources and discussing them with others. In Merry's view the industrialization of news to produce a standardized consumer commodity was a relatively brief phenomenon in its long-term history. In other words, perhaps what we are seeing in the news industry is not its undoing but rather its re-doing into its more native form.

CQ can expect to find an eager buyer soon enough, and the consumer news industry as a whole will turn into whatever free markets want it to be soon enough as well. I do believe that it would be a mistake to subsidize today's news organizations as they have existed in recent decades. This would be as large a mistake as countries that have subsidized other inefficient industries in the past. Instead, we need to continue to ask the question of major consumer news publishers, "Which part of the word 'change' is it that do you not understand?" Let's endow new business models for consumer news such as new approaches to micropayments and community-supported news generation methods that serve people as they want to be served. The rest will take care of itself soon enough. In the meantime, the successes of CQ underscores the point that a good publication in a good niche will always have a fighting chance. And in any business it really is all about the fight, after all - isn't it?

Labels: B2b media, congressional quarterly, Deals Partnerships and Sales, newspapers, Robert Merry, subscription, washington

It seems like only a few weeks ago that I was blogging about semantic search startup Powerset's soft-launch beta. In fact, it WAS only six weeks ago that we were covering Poweret's soft launch of new semantic search technology. But in that six weeks Barney Pell's crew got in a ton of good PR and a few meetings that have already resulted in a USD 100 million exit into the hands of Microsoft, according to VentureBeat. It wasn't so many years ago that Barney was a part of the bumpy exit of WhizBang Labs and its Web mining technologies. This time around his team was well ahead of the burn rate and blessed with both a good idea and good timing. With tons of cash on hand after their war chest for a Yahoo acquisition Microsoft was ready to vent by spending some large (or, for them, small) at the deals mall to pump up its search for more advertising revenues.

Given Powerset's ability to parse natural language questions as well as to provide "factz" topic clusters that could draw in related content, the target for Microsoft has to be the revived Ask.com portal as much as Google's leading search engine. Already Microsoft's Live.com search engine provides rich search results that emulate Ask's more user-friendly approach to search-driven content aggregation, but Ask still manages more meaningful responses based on natural language queries. Better front-end parsing and clustering of results terms from Powerset's technologies would certainly help Live to get more relevant and rich results that could help to build a larger audience, though how Powerset's technology will fare in absorbing Web content lacking the encyclopedic style of it's trial Wikipedia content remains to be seen. On most test queries using natural language questions one finds Google to be at least or more relevant in its results than existing major search engines, so even with new semantic technology Microsoft has its work cut out for them.

A better match for Powerset might be found on the enterprise side of Microsoft's offerings, where its recently acquired FAST enterprise search technology may benefit from some extra semantic search and clustering mojo - and find somewhat more structured content sources against which to apply semantic algorithms. That's not to say that Powerset won't succeed with open Web content, but in general semantic search technologies are most easily tuned when they're digesting documents with relatively similar styles. It would seem that this would be easier to tune to an individual enterprise's needs overall than to a world of Web content that could be in any shape at any time.

A better question might be why Microsoft hasn't considered purchasing Answers.com if they are so interested in natural language queries. With millions of pre-formed questions already in its WikiAnswers database many natural language questions map very neatly to its answer sets. In other words, sometimes the best answer to a full-sentence is a person who understood the question in all of its semantic details and has already provided the answer. This is far from a goof-proof solution to semantic search, but it's an approach worth considering as a valuable supplement to semantic document parsing.

In any event the Powerset set now finds itself in the enviable position of having sold their ship before it ever went down the launching track into the waters. That's certainly more than a few publishing portals can say these days. Congratulations to Barney and all of the other rocket scientists at Powerset - it pays to have a technology that solves a problem that companies with deep pockets are ready to get their hands on.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Microsoft, powerset, Semantic Web, Wikianswers

In what promises (for now) to be the end of the Silicon Valley soap opera known as the future of Yahoo, AP reports that Yahoo opted to seal a deal with Google for both the use of Google's ad network and enabling the interoperability of their instant messaging networks shortly after having announced the suspension of their attempt to revive talks with Microsoft on a potential acquisition deal. Yahoo shares tumbled immediately afterwards, leaving the long money on Yahoo holding a devalued stock but a deal that is likely to be one of the best ways forward for ensuring a reasonable future for Yahoo.

As noted two months ago in ContentBlogger, a deal with Google seemed to have been the best route for Yahoo all along, promising lots of new Yahoo page inventory for Google's more robust ad inventory and complementary media and technology profiles that were never as much at loggerheads as people made out some years ago. As for Icahn et al., while some may have been looking out for shareholders wanting short-term money out of what they had assumed was a cooked goose they never really seemed to have the goose's best interests in mind - or, for that matter, the best interests of Microsoft shareholders. After Yahoo would have been carved up it would be hard to believe that there would be a whole anything that would be greater than the sum of the parts.

As much as people tried to paint this as a Yahoo desperation deal clearly it was moreso a desperation deal by Microsoft to buy some time to build a broader position in online markets for its faltering ad network, with virtually no apparent upside for Yahoo properties. There was a lot of Ballmer bluster but underneath it all Microsoft was rolling the dice heavily for a very risky deal that had little solid strategy behind it beyond a temporary ad revenue boost from peeling away Yahoo ad accounts.

By contrast the deal consummated by Yahoo with Google is expected to pump in significant new ad revenues to Yahoo from Google's superior ad network, a total win-win any way you look at it. The deal is non-exclusive, so Yahoo can choose a plan "B" any time that it wants. In the meantime the other huge win-win is the promised interoperability of instant messaging networks. Google already has interoperability with AOL's still-popular messaging network, so the stage is set for the next major deal to whisper about - a Twitter acquisition that will provide a unified front end to the world of instant messaging.

With a generation of Web users coming of age focused on IM, Facebook and other platforms, email systems creaking with offensive and virus-laden spam have become a legacy messaging technology that wil die a slow and largely unprofitable death in much the same way that the telegraph lingered well past its prime. We use email because we have to - not because we want to. Focusing on accelerating the growth and usefulness of IM systems while leaving their email services to take their own paths is a smart move for both Google and Yahoo. A merger of Yahoo mail accounts to either Google or Microsoft's mail networks would have been a long, painful and largely unprofitable endeavor.

I felt all along that an independent Yahoo would be better for the content industry as a whole so I am glad that at least tonight we can go to sleep knowing that there will be a wider variety of good platforms through which to publish content than if the Yahoo deal with Microsoft had gone through. Jerry Yang's team still has a lot of challenges ahead of them but with an improving stable of user-friendly destination content properties and a progressive approach to supporting brand advertisers Yahoo promises to have a strong place alongside other major online portals for some time to come. At least I hope so - I really don't relish a deal war as ugly as this one any time soon.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo

The CBS Corporation Web site features photos of their television news staff, most of whom are well into their sixties, or well further in some instances, interspersed with shots of the young stars of some of their entertainment shows. Both motifs show some of the demographic challenges that CBS faces in developing audiences. Having missed largely the shift into cable television news and entertainment and faced with a rapidly aging audience for its news products, CBS has been leapfrogging its marketing strategy into online content development. The latest of these is a fairly "big fish" - CNET Networks, which according to paidContent.org was puchased for USD 1.8 billion, a 44 percent premium above its current share price.

This number may be a little eye-popping for some in the media industry, but this is no mistaken enthusiasm. CNET is one of the oldest commercial Web sites offering news on the technology industry and consumer goods, with a solid top-200 audience and some of the best journalism and analysis on the Web. CNET has always stood for best practices in publishing and site design on the Web, with a solid team of largely Bay Area journalists, analysts and bloggers, a great library of videos on tech and gadget topics, product reviews, well-tracked blogs, strong comments and a great channel strategy. There's not too much not to like. I think the factor that impresses me more, though, is that as a bazillion blogs have sprouted up to talk about topics in CNET's domain it's held on to its audience very nicely through a diverse array of content assets. While its U.S.-centric focus limits some of its appeal for growth in other markets, it's likely to be a good revenue generator for years to come.

More to the point, it begins to round out a portfolio of solid and up-and-coming destination content holdings that CBS has assembled. As CNET's own news blog notes it will make CBS one of the 10 most popular Internet companies in the United States, with a combined 54 million monthly unique visitors and about 200 million users worldwide. While much of the media business focuses on familiar moguls and the battles of print titles to condense into some sort of stable business CBS has become quietly a superstar of destination content the old fashioned way - by building up a portfolio of superstar publishing properties. It makes one wonder what investment bankers were thinking as they continued to spin out questionable multiples on continually sinking print-based news properties.

There are still profitable print titles left to play with, but CBS is reaching for and developing the online brands that will help it to bridge into the next generation of content consumers very aggressively - while milking what it can out of old media channels. Kudos to CBS for a well-timed and solid purchase and for focusing on the properties that will help their shareholders have a brighter future as the next generation bypasses cable television for new forms of news and entertainment.

Labels: CBS, CNET, Deals Partnerships and Sales

Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang adds to his signature in his weblog posts the moniker "Chief Yahoo," a label that seems to be more of an epithet in the mouths of some shareholders and dealmakers disappointed by Yahoo's recent and apparently final rejection of a potential Microsoft takeover. With Yahoo stock plummeting on the first market day after the deal fell through the sore attitudes towards Jerry Yang's rejection of Microsoft's offer claims of needing some Prozac seem to be at least tied with the claimed "high fives" amongst some Yahoo executives when news of the deal failure came through. Even Yang himself on Yahoo's corporate weblog claimed that "No one is celebrating about the outcome of these past three months… and no one should." It was a tough battle with bad blood generated both inside and outside of Yahoo in the process.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Yang made the right decision for Yahoo shareholders as well as for the company itself. While there were some important synergies that would have come out of a Microsoft deal, in general it would have been an acquisition by a company driven by old concepts of intellectual property value of a company that is starting to move far more aggressively into new concepts for realizing the value of intellectual property. CNET News notes that Yang is betting heavily that its more open approach to content integration using its own APIs as well as emerging APIs such as OpenSocial will increase significantly the exposure of Yahoo content to audiences in increasingly valuable contexts. Combine that with a completed deal to use Google's ad networks and to integrate in AOL's user base and you have the makings of a company that will shine in building highly engaged audiences using content from many sources. Think of Yahoo as an enormous warehouse of content, commerce and community that can be rejiggered into countless social media applications. Sounds like the man has a plan to me.

In the meantime Microsoft is left licking its wounds from what was perhaps their last great opportunity to leverage their way into more secure online revenues in the face of stagnating income from its traditional product lines and modest growth from its online ventures. The Yahoo acquisition would have brought them some synergies but at the end of the day it was largely a cash flow fix and an attempt to buy an audience for Microsoft's online tools that may or may not have succeeded, given their history of coming in very strong and proprietary with such efforts. By the time they would have focused on Yahoo's existing efforts to open up their content and to focus on contextualization rather than IP ownership as the key to revenues it's not likely that they would have survived Microsoft's more traditional outlook on IP value generation.

In this parting of the ways Yang will face angry shareholders and some shell-shocked employees for some period of time and softened share prices as the new(er) Yahoo takes shape. It's unclear that he will survive this unsettled environment in his current position but hopefully his vision for a Yahoo more in tune with today's most valuable opportunities for content will continue to move on. In the meantime Microsoft needs to consider both new cash cows and new stars on its matrix of properties to help it make a transition to a future that is moving away steadily from proprietary software on proprietary platforms as the most certain long-term bet for steady and growing revenues.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Microsoft, Yahoo

paidContent.org notes the USD 50 million that Austin Ventures has announced that it is pumping into its CEOs-in-residence fund to back Razorfish ex-CEO Jeff Dachis as he explores B2B opportunities for social media. While social media backing for consumer ventures seems to have cooled somewhat there appears to be a rising tide of private equity beginning to back social media plays for business services. Details are highly vague, just the promise of a Software-as-a-Service suite that would be positioned against LinkedIn, Generate, VisualPath, and others already in the social media business information space, according to PCDO.

And there you have it - a quick 50 million infused into a trusted ex-CEO and before you know it there will be another choice in the rapidly expanding market for B2B social media. While it's far from clear where Dachis will take this venture what's already clear is that business information aggregators are going to have more points of potential disintermediation for their services as new forms of content aggregation begin to arise in the space between media, enterprise and personal content services that is neglected oftentimes by traditional database licensors. All this in a year in which many subscription content services are going to be challenged in their renewal cycles as the ROI arguments for their services come under increasing scrutiny.

While some business information services are fairly young and already very promising, I would caution those beginning to put their investment dollars into this space that while there's lots of money to be made in the space there are only so many good tools for managing business conversations that are going to take hold in any particular market sector or for any particular role. This is in part because those services that are already out there have been building a few years' worth of content quality from mined content and socially collected content that is not going to be reproducable from the Web or brand-new social networks - no matter how good one's technology is. This will mean a) licensing content from existing distributors, b) taking more time to build up one's own unique content assets and likely c) needing to position one's services carefully so that they are not trying to reinvent already extant wheels.

So invest on, courageous private equity people, there are indeed great opportunities to create valuable business information services using social media. But be prepared for a lot more careful analysis of what it takes to succeed with business information using social media tools.

Labels: austin ventures, Business Information, Business Intelligence, Deals Partnerships and Sales

I was chatting with someone from Dow Jones' Enteprise Media Group at Buying and Selling eContent exhorting them to get more into virtual aggregation products while noting that folks from Generate were saying that a deal announcement with someone was eminent. This morning the deal news broke - with Dow Jones coming out the victor in a range of financing and exit options that Generate was considering. The Generate team will form the core of a new business unit at Dow Jones to be called Dow Jones Business & Relationship Intelligence, to be headed by Generate President and CEO Tom Aley in a SVP slot with Darr Aley, his twin brother and EVP of Marketing for Generate, taking on a VP of Marketing role in this new business unit.

With a softening economy challenging Generate's value-add strategy for short-term growth, this is one of those win-win deals that you hope for and are glad to see when they come about. Dow Jones' Factiva business unit, the business information backbone for their Enterprise Media Group, has done well enough but had seemed mired in its efforts to move its business intelligence capabilities beyond traditional aggregation of licensed content for most of its clients. The acquisition of Generate provides Dow Jones three critical springboards into a much more robust future based on The New Aggregation concepts that we've advanced here at Shore for many years.

The first springboard is the virtual aggregation capabilities that Generate's web harvesting provides. Generate, unlike some other Web harvesting tools for business information, has focused very heavily on ensuring that harvested data is cleansed and de-duplicated before releasing it into its databases. This doesn't make their data perfect, but with more and more institutions making their own Web publishing the "golden source" for publishing business information it does give them a distinct advantage in both update cycles and overall breadth of content quality that will accrue as more and more data gets released into the Generate/DJ databases. Now Dow Jones has an engine to build an independent and powerful source of business information that will not have to rely as heavily on licensed content sources.

The second springboard is a very robust intelligence front-end in Generate's G2 platform, which combines semantic analysis of incoming content for events that may trigger specific types of deal-oriented activities with a very rich and well-designed business intelligence application and API toolkit that has enabled Generate to build a market very quickly for its high-end business intelligence services. G2's integration of watch lists for both companies and people combined with real-time triggers will give Dow Jones a real-time business intelligence service far more powerful than what is currently in their quiver - with Factiva content helping to add value rapidly to the application.

The third springboard into making virtual aggregation a reality for Dow Jones is Generate's gClick tool, which enables content on people and companies served up from Generate's database to appear in a pop-up window or other Web display with a click of a browser-embedded icon or a Web page link. An entire page or a highlighted section of content can be analyzed by gClick to determine which companies and people are present and a customized dossier is prepared and displayed automatically. While the media applications of this tool have proven to be useful for some of Generate's clients, expect this to be particularly useful in enterprises where it's easier to manage features like this on a standardized basis. With many enterprise Web portals and search engines failing because they don't provide the right content in the right context this capability can help to build a foundation for many virtual aggregation services within the enterprise.

Put these three capabilities together and you have a huge leap forward in Dow Jones' ability to add value through business intelligence services beyond its traditional base of users. While they had been making some new inroads with their Factiva SalesWorks tools into the line managers who need more value from business information the data sets that Factiva alone could provide were not particularly better than any other set - with Web content left to the side in raw form. With its Generate acquisition Dow Jones has set the stage for a new era of growth in business information services based on the real-time, all-the-time world of Web content combined with sophisticated analysis that can transform this information into highly actionable business insights quickly and effectively. My congratulations to all involved: business information just got a lot more fun again.

UPDATE: A couple of extra thoughts that have been rattling around in my head today. The gClick feature will be a very nice proprietary advantage for the WSJ.com site in time, although it's likely that they'll still market the feature to non-competitive media outlets. Also, if you think of how the G2 platform has done well in financial markets to date it makes a wonderful complement to other DJ products in this sector - providing a new real-time oriented service that need not mess with stock exchange market data to make an impact on the markets. Neat.

Labels: Business Information, Business Intelligence, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, Generate

In war it's said sometimes that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If business deals are a form of warfare then we're seeing some interesting friendships in Silicon Valley these days. The Wall Street Journal covers an emerging wrinkle in the battle for Yahoo as they march closer to a deal to replace their ad network with ads from Google's more powerful stock of advertisers. WSJ speculates that this will make it harder for regulators to approve other acquisition offers from Microsoft and News Corporation to take over Yahoo - or at least slow down a potential re-upping of a bid from them. That may be the case, but it seems as if step by step Yahoo is navigating to a peaceful conclusion to its current woes - and forming a more healthy revenue picture that could help it to define a more comfortable independent future.

With the USD billion -plus boost it's likely to receive from Google's ad networks for ads displayed on its search pages and other page inventory and a potential pickup of already Google-friendly AOL, we're beginning to see the outlines of a duopoly to counterbalance the strong push of Microsoft and News Corp to dominate online media. In broad terms, think of Google as the search, video, database/API and ad backbone for the commercial Web and Yahoo as the media licensing, aggregation and community backbone. Each of these specific domains will overlap, of course, but in broad terms there's a symbiosis between them that offers each a path to revenue growth and the industry as a whole two distinct partners with two distinct strength sets.

This is probably the way that it should have been a while ago. I don't think that there was ever really a strong rivalry in many ways between Yahoo and Google on the product level. Each has always had their specific strengths, and probably both would have benefited greatly for earlier cooperation of this kind. Google was never going to "do media" as well as Yahoo and Yahoo was never going to "do technology" with quite the intensity and neutrality as Google. But between the two of them they both do online content very well indeed. And between the two of them they will have oodles of page inventory for ads to help them weather tougher economic times with fewer concerns - hopefully a key factor that can appeal to Yahoo shareholders being faced with choices.

More to the point, perhaps, such a duopoly would restore some natural balance to the Web that would enable marketers and publishers to understand who to deal with more effectively. There have been too many players with designs to be a "new number one," too much time wasted on kingmaking and not enough time spent on product development. It still leaves Microsoft plenty of room to focus on new and better platforms for content with mobile operators, auto manufacturers and appliance makers and to try to lock up entertainment deals for those platforms. News Corp may prove to be a stepchild in this situation for the moment, but with MySpace still chugging along healthily I doubt that it will be out of the game in any long-term sense.

The key loser in this deal would seem to be not so much Microsoft as Microsoft's strategy of domination by selling intellectual property. Be it software or content, Microsoft's continuing focus on proprietary consumer goods and services is distinct in many ways from the more open and collaborative assembly of value found in many Web-oriented environments. This may work to Microsoft's advantage where they can provide new and powerful platforms for content, such as in their Sync line of automobile communications technologies, but with ownership of content being more at the mercy of companies that own contexts it tends to be a strategy that conflicts with successful online media. It's that conflict that seems to be at the heart of their failure to convince Yahoo that a marriage would be good. At its heart, after more than a decade of online development, Microsoft still doesn't "get" the Web in some fundamental ways - nor does it seem to want to.

I'd be very happy if this path towards collaborative independence for Yahoo works out the way that it's headed currently. None of the acquisition paths for Yahoo were looking very positive for either Yahoo or the industry as a whole, even if they would have been good portfolio matches for potential stockholders. Here's hoping that we can let this deal fracas die off so that we can get back to focusing on the growth of the Web's greatest strengths - great content and powerful contexts.

Labels: AOL, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, Microsoft, News Corp, Yahoo

One of the more interesting things about coming back to blogging after a short hiatus is that the Yahoo deal drama has only gotten worse. There's great coverage from many sources, including a good summary of recent analyst takes on paidContent.org, as well as a New York Times story now circulating that News Corp may combine with Microsoft to complete a deal for Yahoo, presumably to combine MySpace's social media strengths with MSN and Yahoo's strengths along with a combined ad network. The counterfoil to this is a possible deal to merge AOL into Yahoo.

Certainly an AOL/Yahoo merger would help Time Warner's plan to get out of the portal business and help Yahoo to grow market share significantly - and certainly working towards one set of user accounts, one messaging network and other combined infrastructure could become very valuable over time. But one wonders how much time and effort would be spent on merging plumbing on these two legacy platforms to get a unified portal business when they could have been focusing on the growth in traffic comes from social media products that operate largely via other platforms.

By contrast the Microsoft/NewsCorp/Yahoo combination may offer a lot more punch for a shareholder's money. Leveraging the power of MySpace, a still-powerful social media platform well-attuned to mass media markets with Yahoo's strength in content aggregation and user accounts and Microsoft's strength in software development, platform strength and ad network brokerage, all in one package, has a lot of interesting parts that could produce more value in the long run. AOL and Yahoo combined, for example, will do little to penetrate mobile markets more effectively. Yahoo, Microsoft and MySpace, by contrast, could make some interesting things happen in mobile between platforms, social media, user accounts and ecommerce.

This is all well and good, but why are we so fixated on this deal, anyway? It's not that it won't create some sea changes over time, but the strengths of a deal with Yahoo come largely from what the partners may offer in combination. Yahoo is big, still powerful - but for the most part in its lifecycle a cash cow with relatively low new product investment waiting to be turned into hamburger. The real issue is what this means in terms of exit plans for online content and technology companies, as pointed out by Fred Wilson over on A VC - that is, if a company with fairly obvious marketable attributes like Yahoo has a hard time cashing in, what does this mean to online plays in general? If there's no exit at the top, what does that say to other players?

Somehow a deal will be forged for Yahoo in the next few months if the company's staff doesn't implode before then from takeover stress. But in the meantime I honestly don't think that it's all that significant a deal to watch from the overall industry's standpoint. Big will get a bit bigger - and that combined entity will still look nothing like Google. I think that we're seeing that overall getting any bigger is not necessarily going to solve anything in online markets. Online publishing is still in its infancy, still requires an enormous amount of investor patience as new ideas face daunting risks and still will have periods of high uncertainty that don't lend themselves to quarterly reports, much less private shareholder reviews. In other words, while some people are still focusing on making larger dinosaurs the long money is still probably in making more and better mammals. Be patient, be foresightful - and don't get too caught up in the scuttlebutt.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, MSN, MySpace, News Corp, Yahoo

TechCrunch notes along with others the possible bidding war brewing between Google and Microsoft to acquire social bookmarking service Digg, which sounds probable given the relentless march for each of these companies to build market share. I wonder whether the prices will really accelerate that much off of last year's earlier possible bids for Digg, though, given the soft ad economy and the stabilization of Digg's audience. Mind you I am sure that either Google or Microsoft would love to have 20 million monthly visitors but the real issue is how one of these majors can recover from the flattened prospects of a Facebook deal in a down economy.

With Facebook seeming more interested in improving their platform as of late than cashing in their chips perhaps to some degree both Google and Microsoft have been played off against one another by Facebook via their high asking price to keep either of them from getting stronger through another social media property acquisition. Certainly the stock buzz has been off of both of these properties since the Facebook deal went cold, so perhaps with quarterly earnings calls looming around the corner both Google and Microsoft are eager to have at least some social media story to tell.

Google's Orkut platform was always an also-ran in traffic and is suffering from declining traffic, in part perhaps due to losses to new local-market social media platforms in India and other regional markets, so it's about time for Google to pony up for a bona fide social media community. From the Microsoft side its ad deal with Digg would go away in all likelihood with a Google acquisition so a Microsoft deal would help to shore up momentum for its still-young ad network, but with only a tiny finger into social media via MSNBC.com's Newsvine property it has a lot of catching up to do as well

On balance, though, Google's needs would seem to make this deal a "must do" at this point to ensure that it can get some flesh-and-blood "wisdom of the crowds" that's been managed largely through their search algorithms to date. Search is still an important tool, but as the word "curate" begins to trip off more and more tongues this year Google needs to step up its ability to curate content with a human eye as well as through machine intelligence. While its audience doesnt' stretch down deeply into specialty topics Digg's ability to lend weight to what really interests people on the most popular topics for a younger audience that starts and ends their day with social media is an important factor for Google to address. Combine that with the potential to marry Google search algorithms with Digg's increasingly sophisticated curation of bookmarked articles a and there could be some very interesting news products in the offing.

The other factor that Google seems to need to address through such an acquisition is a cultural issue. Google's presence to the world is friendly oftentimes but not very conversational. A brand like Digg is by its very essence a conversational brand, one that creates most of its value through people interacting as a group. Google needs that more open approach to brand building in its DNA more deeply. It's good to at listening to geeks and getting a bit better at listening to real-world people, but folks in the Web 2.0 world like Kevin Rose who are just far more accessible can become effective bridges to that more open collaborative culture. Microsoft could certainly benefit in similar ways, but the cultural divide between most of the Web 2.0 world and the corporate culture of Microsoft would seem to be a pretty wide gap to fill in.

This could be just one more social media deal that goes sour after the earnings calls but somehow this one has a heft to it that may lead it to completion. The prices being bandied about are far less steep than Facebook's earlier numbers - USD 200 million or so - and as fine a job as Digg has done with refining its platform it's not clear that it can go much further as a standalone product. Social bookmarking is still an important social media capability, but the future probably belongs to those services which can blend generic platforms such as Digg with services that can use that technology to build enthusiast communities that may carry a publisher's brand or a product brand. We'll see where this goes but hopefully one of these players finally gets off the dime and starts embracing social media communities more fully in an open Web environment.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Digg, Google, Microsoft, Social Media

Reed Elsevier is doubtless looking over its shoulder at the Thomson/Reuters merger as of late and wondering how they can improve shareholder value in troubled times for traditional publishing against this looming B2B database giant already divested of print publications. Well, when the going gets tough, the tough buy databases would seem to be the answer to the wondering.

USD 3.6 billion later Reed finds itself lining up to be the proud owner of ChoicePoint, one the world's leading collectors of data on individuals used by businesses, governments and non-profits for a wide array of marketing, credit scores and background checking functions. Barron's notes that this deal has been in the works for about two years, but clearly the accelerating of scale by other B2B database providers has Reed eager to get some good news on the radar for shareholders. AP notes that ChoicePoint will be merged with Reed's LexisNexis risk business unit, with expected redundancies on tap as a result for LexisNexis employees.

The flip side of this deal is Reed's decision to let go of Reed Business Information, its B2B trade publishing unit that contributes about 20 percent of Reed's overall revenues today. With ChoicePoint's annual revenues a tad higher than RBI's and with considerably better growth prospects from ChoicePoint in the near term this an acquisition that fits in very well on the balance sheet. RBI's strong events production unit will be retained, though, as noted by Bloomberg News. With rapidly softening print ad revenues, a slowing business cycle and a very slow transition to online publishing and advertising as a mainstay, B2B media properties are not going to be the margin-producing machines they once were - a conclusion that Thomson had come to several years ago.

The deal offers Reed a number of great opportunities for revenue growth. With deeper personal profile data LexisNexis could develop more sophisticated analytics tools for the enterprise using data collected from other LexisNexis databases and also begin to widen the array of consumer-oriented information analytics that can help people to assess how the world views them as a risk. In a security-conscious world with lots riding on personal risks the value of these services certainly makes for a good investment. But there's a lot of unexplored territory around the potential for this kind of personal data to drive new types of electronic marketing. Generating marketing lists from a database is one thing: being able to match up online profile data to ChoicePoint profile data could give marketers a far more precise view of who they should be trying to reach online via ads and other marketing services.

This last point is key to the decision to drop the RBI division at this time and to hang on to the events properties. It used to be that magazines drove events: these days it's far more the case that events drive magazines, with the relationships formed in face-to-face events becoming far more important marketing vehicles than ads placed next to editorial content which is increasingly being replicated in a multitude of online content outlets. Overall it's probably better for Reed to focus on high-value human interchanges for B2B marketing and to focus its advertising efforts on helping marketers via personal metadata found in ChoicePoint and other databases to target the right people through any number of online and offline marketing channels.

Most all of this is good news for Reed Elsevier in the short run and even quite good for the long run for shareholders looking for steady returns. With the rise of online publishing one needs to accept that the huge influx of investment into new publishing technologies and business models makes it increasingly untenable to maintain the illusion that you can provide steady cash-cow returns in a sector that has reinvented itself around the long-term payoffs to be gained from risky startups. Apparently unwilling to risk margins on traditional editorial models in this environment and having missed most of the choice opportunities to move aggressively into online publishing Reed is probably best off punting its print-centric properties to those better suited for turning aging cash cows into hamburger.

If there's a potential sticking point in all of these moves it's that Reed Elsevier is moving one very control-oriented database culture into the arms of another control-oriented database culture. That bodes very well for the LexisNexis family of databases itself but not necessarily well for a division which in some ways was having trouble looking beyond traditional I.T. infrastructure and search applications into the markets' broader needs. Many changes have been undertaken already in LexisNexis to deliver more responsive product development but perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this merger to watch is how ChoicePoint's dual focus on enterprise and consumer database services might influence LexisNexis product development. With more sensitivity to how individuals interact with databases in a public Web environment there may be some interesting product insights working their way into the LexisNexis fold as well.

Labels: ChoicePoint, credit scores, Deals Partnerships and Sales, LexisNexis, personal data, Reed Business Information, reed elsevier, risk

What does it mean when a company announces disappointing earnings and has no strategic plan to move forward? It means that you've been shopping your company like crazy and you're waiting to see what comes out of it. It should come as no major surprise that Microsoft finally made an offer for Yahoo that it will in all likelihood not refuse - USD 44.6 billion to be exact, more than double Yahoo's closing shares value. With an expected 23 percent drop in earnings over Q406, Yahoo's ability to fund a better position in the marketplace in the face of a looming recession was dimming rapidly. Microsoft wisely waited to buy low.

Six months ago I poured cold water on such a merger, seeing News Corp as a far better partner in the long run. I still believe that a News Corp acquisition would have been a great exit for Yahoo in many ways, as the negatives in a Microsoft deal that I pointed out in that earlier post still stand. But at the end of the day this is a merger of necessity, not of opportunity. Neither Microsoft nor Yahoo can compete with Google effectively at this point, a factor that's only going to be exacerbated as Google's mobile strategy begins to unfold this year.

While one can crow about "the merger of content and technology" or some such meme and marvel at the combined online audiences that these two megaportal providers can offer advertisers through the powerful combination of Microsoft's ad-brokeraging system and Yahoo's own ad marketing services there's one key and overarching problem for both companies: they've been slow to bring hit products to the marketplace. Old media and old technology product cycles are not Web product cycles, and neither company has done well in figuring out how to build online hits as effectively as they know how to buy them. Google may not pop out perfectly conceived products and has product issues of its own, but they're constantly letting new things hit the fan to see what new markets they can open up while others spent time trying to build perfect products for old markets.

The big plus of the deal - there is now going to be only one dominant portal for established content brands and marketers looking to position their own brand advertising - is certainly important, but for an upcoming generation of Twitterers who see their own Facebook homepages or newsreaders as the portals that matter most to them it's not clear that this will be a great solution for either company as the new generation of content consumers gains pruchasing power. If you want corporate content and corporate advertising on corporate technology, one certainly knows where to go now. But in three to five years corporations eager to eliminate the "middle man" of media to manage their own market conversations directly may not see as much value in this union as they might today.

The potential feather in the cap for this deal could be the opening of mobile broadband. With a strong position already in mobile devices and now armed with tons of content and a great ad network Microsoft could stake out an early advantage in broadband mobile frequencies now being opened to all devices based on their existing momentum alone. The struggling Vista platform will continue to be refined for enterprise purposes but Microsoft's mobile Windows CE operating system may become instead the default Windows platform for Microsoft's media efforts as home entertainment shifts between mobile gizmos and HDTVs. This is likely to bring strong profits over the next few years and is a very viable strategy overall.

But in the meantime one wonders whether there will be enough focus to make this happen. Having just survived a failed marriage between Hollywood media culture and Silicon Valley culture Yahoo must now adopt to Redmond ways. Microsoft has been redefining its own culture and focus rapidly in postitive directions as the Ballmer period fades away, but the scale of this merger is going to require some major dust settling. All this as a looming recession slows down both enterprise and media markets cannot be helpful.

It's a "Brangelina" marriage that's bound to eat up media cycles, but at the end of the day the fame of these brands is not necessarily going to yield substance out of thin air. This will benefit Microsoft in the short run, to be sure, if it can get to the short run issues in time, but in the long run onie wonders whether two overripe old brands can make a fresh and effective new brand. Time will tell, but at least we can read about this openly now and watch it play out.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo

The buzz is increasing on a potential acquisition of the Plaxo contacts-oriented social networking service by Facebook, as noted by VentureBeat and others, and there are good reasons to think that this would be a good marriage if one can overlook the personality conflicts in the potential deal. Plaxo's new Pulse social networking service is going strong and helping to extend the value of its core contacts synchronization service, but ultimately Pulse is yet another social media login to maintain with features and functionality not terribly different from Facebook itself. At the same time Facebook is becoming an increasingly popular spot for professionals to congregate for networking of both a personal and professional nature, but it lacks gravitas for people trying to keep abreast of changes in people's professional profiles. Backing in Plaxo data and desktop synchronization capabilities into Facebook's infrastructure may offer an interesting marriage of capabilities that may give Facebook a more competitive posture with professionals as LinkedIn continues to gain mojo as a "social inbox" for the professional set.

Rumor squashers are quick to point out historical conflicts between management in these two companies that might squelch such a deal before it's out of the blocks. But with investors from Sequoia who have fingers in both LinkedIn and Plaxo perhaps there's reason to think that there's a priority being placed on getting Plaxo's potential up to speed as soon as possible in comparison to other assets in their portfolio. With reasonably healthy growth there's not an immediate need for Plaxo to pull the string on a deal just yet, but knowing that venture capital may be harder to come by for subsequent funding rounds in 2008 this might be a good point for Plaxo to exit into the hands of a player such as Facebook as it continues to attract professionals rapidly into its multi-faceted social networking portal. Expect an increasing round of high-profile deals for companies such as Plaxo as social media plays begin to consolidate to grow more effectively in a market that is scrambling for revenue-generating capabilities in a softening economy.

Labels: Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, facebook, plaxo, Social Media

Sometimes two distressful situations can combine to create relief, rare though that might be. Such seems to be the lucky break that both Microsoft and FAST Search and Transfer caught in the recent acquisition of FAST by Microsoft. FAST needed fast relief from crippling cash flow problems generated in part from a sales strategy that reached beyond their ability to deliver on ambitious promises. Microsoft on the other hand had failed to create any significant sales momentum behind its own enterprise search efforts, with players such as Google beginning to breathe down their necks more warmly with each passing day. So a mere USD 1.2 billion in cash works quite nicely to bring together two impressive partners that promise to dominate enterprise platforms for some time to come.

FAST's rapid growth over the past few years into an increasingly dominant position in enterprise search markets is just the ticket that Microsoft needs to position itself in increasingly competitive enterprise platform markets. With ever more content being consumed in enterprises via non-Microsoft platforms, domination requires a more agnostic approach to assembling on-demand content than Microsoft has been able to manage recently. FAST offers both solid enterprise search technology and an installed base of global corporate clients that Microsoft can leverage very effectively with the combination of FAST search capabilities to gather content and Microsoft's Sharepoint servers to store and aggregate content.

This last point is especially important for Microsoft's future revenues. With its Vista operating system rendered a ho-hum at best by most enterprise users and panned widely in consumer markets Microsoft needs to shift the center of its profits to platforms sy uch as search engines that are more central to what drives internal publishing in today's enterprises. Each page of search results can become in effect a purpose-built portal: in effect, the database is now, the content that's required to solve immediate business problems. Search technology such as that offered by FAST holds out the promise of search engines becoming the focal point for Microsoft's enterprise publishing strategy, offering Microsoft more opportunity to have offerings that scale effectively to both global and mid-sized corporations. That $1.2 billlion make look like relative pocket change today, but in terms of the market share secured and the future market positioning that will be required to counter slowing sales on its aging operating systems it's a major investment in securing Microsoft's future cash flow.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, enterprise, FAST Search and Transfer, Microsoft, search

paidContent.org is clucking a bit at the USD 55 million price tag for Dun & Bradstreet's recent acquisition of AllBusiness.com, noting that it's well off the mark of deals from just a few months ago for business media properties. There's certainly a lot of bloom off the rose for online plays trying to find traditional media partners, with the whistling-past-the-graveyard optimism of M&A specialists of this spring giving away to a more sober view of where advertising revenues are headed in the short term. But I think that this negativity tends to bypass the fact that Dun & Bradstreet has found a media outlet that complements its other holdings very well - and promises to help transform them sooner rather than later.

The key issue that D&B needs to address is the declining media audience for its Hoover's business information product, a platform that single-handedly defined the Web business information market a decade ago but which has lost much of its media mojo as it focused on building a stronger presence in enterprise subscription sales. Hoover's online strategy helped it to get a strong base of small and medium sized businesses that it continues to mine. But with an increasing range of online business services gaining audience attention, including business media companies seeking to increase audience engagement through business information services, getting the attention of SMBs is a tougher game.

AllBusiness.com is a good match for helping D&B to address many of these problems. It's a nuts-and-bolts "how to" portal that is designed especially to appeal to the SMB crowd needing practical advice and input on the key challenges facing business professionals. AllBusiness.com also has a core of blog content from leading business experts that helps to give the portal a conversational tone. That's in line with research from Shore and other outlets which shows that business professionals are likely to respond to advice from peers as a key source of business information. Combining this content with Hoover's core business information and analysis tools is likely to increase the engagement of SMB professionals who want both easy-to-use business information and peer advice to solve business problems - engagement which in turn should lead to more successful marketing of their subscription products.

The real question, though, is whether this combination will giveDun & Bradstreet enough online engagement to counter increasingly strong business information media competitors. With Zoominfo growing as a media presence far more rapidly than either Hoover's or AllBusiness.com and traditional business media outlets like Forbes improving its audience share is it enough to marry high quality business information with high quality media content? Perhaps not, but the marriage is nevertheless essential for Dun and Bradstreet to build strong long-term engagement with SMB markets. But the Zoominfo model reminds us that business professionals have come to trust the Web as a key source of business content and look strongly towards companies that can help them to organize unstructured sources of information as data in more useful formats.

I think that we can expect to see many deals that parallel the D&B/AllBusiness paradigm in 2008 but I think that we'll also be on the lookout for transformative plays like Zoominfo that challenge traditional business information suppliers to make sense of the Web as a business information resource. Marrying business information and business media is a hot ticket these days, but make sure that you're looking at its hotness through the perspective of audiences who are more likely to embrace Web-based sources of content as a source of business insight along with traditional information and media content.

Labels: allbusiness.com, Business Information, business media, Deals Partnerships and Sales, dun and bradstreet, Hoover's

TechCrunch picked up over the Thanksgiving holiday on a rumor that Rupert Murdoch is pursuing the acquisition of the LinkedIn social network, a rumor later denied by News Corporation in The Telegraph but which has more than a grain of strategic sense in it nevertheless. [UPDATE: VentureBeat provides comfirmation with details that parallel our original post.] With Fox Interactive Media head Peter Levinsohn confessing in a Reuters interview that he finds Facebook "substantially more entertaining" than their own MySpace, there's an acknowledgement that MySpace is more about traditional media in many ways than it is about the multi-dimensional networking that Facebook enables for adults in professional and personal roles. While MySpace's upcoming personal feeds will no doubt give MySpace a little more boost against the rapidly growing strength of Facebook it's clear that Murdoch has many fish to fry when it comes to attracting adults who are at the core of many of his holdings' revenue streams.

A LinkedIn acquisition would help News Corp to fill in not only dwindling business-oriented classifieds revenues as more jobs and services are posted and found on social media networks but as well give them a well-established network of professionals that could become the focal point of hard-core business information services that bridge media and enterprise markets. It's not likely that Murdoch's Dow Jones division will come up with a social network on its own to compete with financial communities on Bloomberg and Reuters networks, but with LinkedIn they would have the ability to have a key tool to help professionals network and execute enterprise business well beyond investment bank trading floors. That's likely to bolster revenues as Factiva database subscription revenues face tough times in a softening economy.

To some degree this might also help to solve some of the question marks as to how best to leverage the highly valuable network of Wall Street Journal subscribers, many of whom no doubt are LinkedIn members as well. What better way to give this elite business publication a powerful business social network than to equip it with the most popular business networking tool available to date? It's doubtful that the WSJ crowd would ever take MySpace seriously as a social networking environment, no matter how much News Corp tries to re-engineer it, so why waste time building one from scratch as potential rivals gear up their own efforts for business-oriented social networking? All of a sudden the idea of premium content takes on a whole new meaning in this context that can transform the WSJ community into an elite social networking community. In the meantime LinkedIn infrastructure can be repurposed to give MySpace some more adult angles as well for younger people who are looking for a Facebook alternative.

There are realistic options for LinkedIn other than News Corp, but few that would be able to leverage all of LinkedIn's value to its maximum potential. It's a logical and potentially powerful marriage of social media via an organization that understands both media and enterprise content value fluently. Murdoch is one of the few old-line publishers who really understands that the value in publishing is already way beyond the inventory that any one newsroom can create. In an era in which user-defined context is king, consider LinkedIn a key acquisition plum that's likely to be pulled out by a major player like NewsCorp sooner rather than later.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, LinkedIn, News Corp

Let's face it, for an enormous company Microsoft is not lining up many hits today. Its Vista operating system has had tepid reception at best, the EU has brought it to its knees on monopolistic practices, its Zune portable is praying for a second life this holiday season and the Xbox's shaky quality record makes a win for the new Halo 3 game a must to be kept in contention with competitive platforms. Ouch. But with oodles of cash and a well-focused online advertising strategy Microsoft is gearing up to exploit the gaps in Google's game plan that will give it a leg up in online content markets.

One of Google's key gaps to date has been social networking. While its Orkut platform has been successful in Brazil and certain other countries and rumblings of a greater social networking plan for Google grow larger, it's Facebook that's attracting both college-age folks and seasoned professionals who are willing to hang their hats up online on Facebook's increasingly robust social media platform. As noted by The New York Times and others, then, Microsoft's USD 240 million investment for a mere 1.6 percent of Facebook ownership is a significant win for Facebook and an opportunity for Microsoft to regain some sorely needed lost ground. The transaction scales Facebook's ultimate market value to a breathtaking but highly speculative USD 15 billion, making Rupert Murdoch's USD 583 million investment in MySpace seem like a bargain basement transaction in retrospect.

The New York Times article notes that the initial investment will secure Microsoft a platform for its ad network's growth, which is certainly a key component of making sure that it can leverage the highly valuable contexts available in social media. With the high level of personal endorsement and interaction available in Facebook Microsoft advertisers will be very pleased to find an alternative to search engine results and typical media outlets through which to build relationships with their markets. But the real underlying move by Microsoft is to have a dibs on Facebook's evolving social media-oriented computer operating system environment, a must-have for Microsoft in light of Google's evolving plans to have a Web-oriented OS of its own that will help drive its social media plans.

With more people than ever using the Web as their primary repository for both personal content and their own publishing endeavors Microsoft is at a dangerous juncture in its evolution, perhaps even more dangerous than when Netscape's browser began to threaten the supremacy of Microsoft's PC platform as a staging ground for content applications. Facebook has demonstrated with its rapidly growing array of embeddable applications that whole classes of content infrastructre that are at the heart of Microsoft's long-term cash flow may be rendered moot by social media environments such as Facebook's that enable people to build and share highly personalized portals with no or limited technical expertise. Applications such as its Business 3.0 module enable B2B communication that may provide a new way for businesses to develop 1-to-1 relationships via Facebook in ways that will make today's B2B advertising and supply chain management seem very ill targeted over time. All in all, Microsoft needs to get a revenue stream from social media badly - far moreso than either Google or Yahoo.

Will Facebook wind up being the dominant social media platform for both personal and business personal publishing? Once people set up shop in a social media environment there's a certain entropy that sets in which is likely to discourage any radical shifts: you want to keep your "peeps" around you as much as possible, and Facebook offers an increasingly compelling environment to enable open publishing and content integration. Most importantly unlike some other social media environments Facebook is designed for people's true identity as opposed to any number of avatars or pseudonyms that they may use in other social media environments. The emphaisis in Facebook is on knowing who you know, not gaming them for PR or other ulterior motives. This makes environments such as Facebook and LinkedIn that enable people to present their real selves the hottest marketing environments available in social media. By contrast, what's the value of selling to someone wearing green wings and fishnet stockings in Second Life? Good for a quick buck, but not relationship selling by any degree.

Realistically Facebook is by far the greater winner in this deal, having established an awesome figure for its market value and strong leverage for any other subsequent deals to help it gain market momentum. It's perhaps not as one-sided as the deal that Bill Gates cut with IBM to get rights to sell Mircosoft's PC operating systems on other platforms, but it's about equally clear who's behind the curve and who is able to help them get back in the game. And like that earlier deal this may be a sign that Microsoft is waning in its ability to influence electronic publishing effectively. But with an advertising strategy that is well-adapted to playing on multiple platforms to service multiple ad networks the Facebook deal is as good a shot a any that Microsoft is likely to have to use social media as a leverage point for future revenues. Don't expect miracles from either partner as a result of this alliance, but to expect their competitors to sweat it a little harder to get a foot in the door of compelling online communities.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, facebook, media, Microsoft, Social Media, Technology

When Seattle-based Newsvine launched in Beta form last January we documented its promise enthusiastically and kept a close eye on it. Not surprisingly so did a number of hot prospects for financing a profitable exit, including MSNBC, which Newsvine has announced in its own story as its new owner. No details are available at this time about the size of the deal or how Newsvine will be integrated into MSNBC.com, but MSNBC News' estimate of USD 75 million seems about right given Newsvine's position in the social news marketplace and there are promises by MSNBC to keep Newsvine an independent entity for now.

It's a pretty good first acquisition for MSNBC.com, which is a humdrum online news portal that trails major outlets for cable news such as CNN.com and Foxnews.com by significant margins and seems to be caught in a major identity crisis. Unlike the online portals for CNN and Fox News, MSNBC.com is obliged to promote the broadcast NBC news properties more than the MSNBC cable unit, drawing away precious attention span to TV shows that have little to do with core online audience demographics. Add in an alliance with Newsweek magazine for feature content and the marketing muddle for the MSNBC.com brand gets no more clear.

Newsvine itself is not a traffic leader in overall visits amongst social news outlets and struggles to build momentum behind an intensely loyal core of news, opinion and bookmark contributors. But unlike other social news outlets Newsvine features a maturing mix of original content along with links to external news stories, a combination that will help MSNBC.com to build inventories of unique destination content and a network of popular online personalities that could be leveraged via MSNBC's cable outlet to build visibility for the community. Newsvine has had a few minor but noteworthy news scoops of its own - a member on the scene of the Virginia Tech shootings broke the initial details of the event - but the strength of the community tends to be a core of contributors who opine on and spin key topics in politics, religion, world events and popular culture. With a reasonable mix of views across the spectrum and the ability for talented writers to expand on their thoughts in their own pieces Newsvine offers a rich mix of content that's sure to complement any mainstream news outlet's offerings if managed effectively.

What Newsvine gets most out of this deal is a parent who's willing to put a little more muscle behind an organization that's been challenged to keep up with itself. With only a staff of six and an editorial policy that requires regular and timely monitoring and intervention by senior Newsvine staff to keep controversial content and comments from spinning out of control Newsvine suffers from the typical startup myopia that keeps it from looking at larger prizes at its disposal. Newsvine's features generally do a good job of promoting engaging content to the attention of its members and its social networking features were well ahead of other social news outlets but its up-only voting system tends to promote content that echoes much of the same controversy-for-controversy's-sake content that one finds in major media outlets. Ironically this may turn out to be a plus when you have a cable news outlet that focuses on much the same sort of stories.

Most major news outlets have been extremely hesitant to embrace social media too closely, a factor that has benefited portals such as Newsvine along the way: when The New York Times closed down its online comments features a few months back Newsvine picked up a good chunk of NYT commenters. With the acquisition of Newsvine established news media outlets may be beginning to recognize that this uneasy balance between social media and their own news is tipping away from their operations, creating loyalties tied to online communities creating and discussiong news that is likely in time to eclipse loyalties to news brands tied to established media channels. It's hardly a one-for-one swapout at this point in time, so the initial decision of MSNBC to keep the Newsvine brand alive as an independent unit is a wise move for now, especially given the typical sensitivities in online communities to being "sold out."

But as audiences empowered as newshounds create and discover a widening range of content their ability to build quality inventory and insights rapidly will eventually find more of today's journalists and commentators becoming professional members of online communities like Newsvine. Social news communities are accelerating in their ability to get their articles good placement in search engine results, a factor that certainly contributed to The New York Times' decision to open up its prime columnists' content to get our from behind their subscription firewall and into the mix of these communities. This transition is still fairly gradual and generational, but essential for ensuring future revenues amongst news audiences becoming used to having their peers help them select what's newsworthy - and worth their attention.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Digg, MSNBC, New York Times, News, Newsvine, Social Media

Reuters covers the licensing of content by Google from four major wire services, including Britain's Press Association, Canadian Press, Agence France-Presse and the U.S.-based Associated Press. On one level this is a very typical licensing deal equivalent to those inked by other major portals such as Yahoo, MSN and other outlets - and in fact Google had licensed rights to these content sources earlier in some instances but had not hosted their content. But the deal takes on a far different dimension given that it's with the leading Web search engine - one whose ability to deliver advertising revenues to portals using wire services is an important driver for traffic.

While Google ranking algorithms will take into account the appearance of wire content in other sites the links from Google searches and portal pages will lead to Google itself - helping its own ratings and, presumably, for its own ad revenues eventually. The AP story claims that this will have a major impact on AP member sites using their content but at least one commenter on Poynter Online claims that "For the vast majority of newspaper.coms I know, wire story traffic is not a big factor, and revenues from AP pages barely, if at all,... For the vast majority of newspaper.coms I know, wire story traffic is not a big factor, and revenues from AP pages barely, if at all, cover the cost AP charges us for its CustomWire service." That may be true, but it's bound to hit those sites' overall traffic counts and referrals to other pages in their sites from wire content.

While newspaper sites will certainly feel some pinch from this move, the far larger losers in this deal will be the major portals such as Yahoo that rely on wire content for a significant portion of their news traffic and search engine referrals. With Google now playing by the same rules their relative lack of original news is bound to be yet another chink in their armor in the battle for ratings and advertising supremacy. At the same time wire services are looking at the diminishing fortunes of traditional news outlets such as newspapers and broadcast services and recognizing that they need to move more aggressively to build their brands online. In this sense Reuters has pointed the way for these wire services with its increasingly selective use of online syndication partners.

The biggest winner in this mix are the original news producers who are looking for stronger marketing of their content. From this perspective member-driven wire services such as AP are going to find themselves in a more advantageous situation as they continue to make it easier for their members to market unique content filed with AP into major outlets without having to hassle licensing deals. At the same time, though, these traditional news producers must become more adept at marketing their unique content directly via search engines, portals and social media services if they are going to continue to build the audience metrics that advertisers expect. Google's move places even more pressure on local news producers to come up with more viable strategies to engage their audiences in the contexts that they value most - and more opportunities for wire services to act as channels for those strategies.

Labels: AP, CP, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, News

Mercifully the carnival that has been the negotiations for News Corporation's acquisition of Dow Jones appears to have pulled out of town, with factions of the Bancroft family finally wrestled into line with the financial and managerial realities of the deal. One shudders to think as to whether any right-thinking corporation would have considered an acquisition of Dow Jones any time soon after these machinations, so from at least that perspective the shareholders of Dow Jones should consider themselves very lucky indeed. But now that the glow of the spotlight is beginning to die down from this fracas, what's really going to happen with Murdoch's new acquisition?

As we said more than two months ago the benefits of having a global media company as a parent that has strengths in markets where Dow Jones needs to become stronger are the key to the real value in this deal. Murdoch's desire to have a major U.S. gem like Dow Jones in his crown will be overshadowed ultimately by his use of Dow Jones as an international brand that will allow him to become a more dominant player in influencing world markets. This will be especially important in U.K. Asian and Australian markets, where the online expertise and editorial strengths of Dow Jones can be used to build an English language global business media brand more able to dominate regional brands and Pearson's struggling Financial Times.
But it's also likely that the Dow Jones brand will be able to find footholds in other markets over times with Murdoch's leverage.

The missing piece from this empire is a strong presence in real-time trading markets. But given the cutthroat nature of those technology-driven markets that are not easily adapted to the managerial strengths of the Dow Jones organization this may be an omission worth skipping for the time being. As financial markets split into highly automated trading venues and opportunities driven by high-end market analysis tools the opportunity for Dow Jones to make better use of its strengths is not likely to solidify for some time in the wake of Thomson's pending deal for Reuters. A conjectural bid for Bloomberg is not really even worth considering at this point, though in two years' time it might be a reasonable play for NewsCorp if Murdoch's focus on succession takes his portfolio into more diversified channels.

While there is doubtless a fair amount of sadness in some hearts at Dow Jones as a proudly American brand passes to offshore ownership it's also an opportunity to reflect on the need for American business media in general to become more adept at managing international footprints. A weak dollar makes this a difficult time to buy in to those markets, so the wave of international acquisitions of U.S. targets this year at favorable exchange rates makes it that much harder for U.S. B2B media companies to make progress in overseas markets. But times will change - if B2B media companies take on a Murdoch-like view of the world that goes beyond the local golf courses and into more international circles of power. In the meantime congratulations to everyone involved in the Dow Jones deal - I hope that you get a few days off to forget about it all.

Labels: Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, Murdoch, News Corp

CNET News chronicles Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's assertion that the software and services giant would be making a big noise in online advertising - an assertion that's been backed up by two short-term deals and likely to be followed by other major announcements. Forbes covers Microsoft's deal with social media portal Digg to use Microsoft for most of their online advertising, a deal that displaces John Battelle's FM publishing in large part for now - though based on John Battelle's upbeat assessment of the deal FM is gaining some inroads into Microsoft. Such a deal would be good for both partners: FM has done well with a number of major social media properties but has lacked the ability to fill available ad inventories effectively oftentimes, whereas Microsoft, ever late to the game, needs to start finding some leverage in social media as soon as possible. Both deals could presage exit plans that result in Microsoft acquisitions, but Microsoft may be learning from Google that it's more important to own the context than the content.

The other deal announced by Microsoft is the acquisition of ad auctioning technology from AdECN, a capability that should enable Microsoft to succeed more effectively against self-service ad placement services such as AdSense. AdECN is modeled after stock exchanges used in financial securities markets, requiring matching sellers' inventories against offers from advertisers, dealing only with existing ad networks as its members. So in effect demand for advertising coming in from one ad network could flow over to match inventory on another ad network, with each network receiving a portion of the buyer's ad fee proportionate to their role in the brokered transaction for the end publisher's sold inventory. AdECN takes a proportionately small piece of each transaction as a processing fee, in addition to up-front membership fees to cover basic infrastructure costs.

One can see how AdECN can be used by Microsoft to match inventory from ad networks such as FM Publishing to a greater universe of advertisers being glued together by Microsoft, giving FM-affiliated properties a broader universe of buyers without having to expand its direct sales presence. One can also see how this will enable Microsoft to enable traditional publishers and advertising agencies to gain access to a wider array of online properties without having to resort to the legwork required to cut deals with an ever-expanding universe of online niche market players and advertising networks. This will become increasingly important as more micropublishers begin to service niche markets more effectively online in B2B and consumer markets. So Microsoft can play "middle man" now with any number of media players, making easy money in the process and developing more direct sales and marketing relationships where it is most profitable for them to do so.

Given Microsoft's relatively late moves into trying to dominate online advertising a brokered market approach is a good strategic move. It enables Microsoft to gain the benefits of broad market penetration while enabling advertisers and publishers to work directly with the ad networks that make the most sense for their industry profiles. Given the increasingly niche-oriented nature of online advertising this may offer Microsoft more flexibility than a one-size-fits-all network like Google's AdSense network or its potential acquisition DoubleClick. The main weakness in this strategy is that it doesn't help Microsoft reach the "long tail" of advertisers as effectively as Google and Yahoo straight off, but in time Microsoft is likely to make inroads there as well. As its software revenues from tools that create content weaken Microsoft has little choice but to seek revenue from the content that's created by publishing tools. It's early days but expect Microsoft to develop some increasingly savvy solutions for ad buyers and sellers in search of the most premium online content markets.

Labels: adecn, advertising, Deals Partnerships and Sales, fm publishing, john battelle, Microsoft, steve ballmer

I had a chance to catch up with Answers Corporation Chief Strategy Officer Bruce Smith recently regarding their recently announced acquisition of Lexico Publishing Group, the publishers of the Dictionary.com, Thesaurus.com and Reference.com online portals , for USD 100 million. Lexico's reference portals are fairly simple and undramatic properties, but they have an audience that's about comparable to Answers.com in overall ranking and a footprint in education that offers Answers.com a complementary and loyal footprint. Most importantly Answers.com has been more efficient in being able to extract revenues from its references audiences than Lexico, so it effectively doubles its advertising base for marketing and ecommerce any may come close to doubling its revenues and then some along the way. As with its acquisition of FAQ Farm the Lexico properties are likely to remain autonomous sites, gaining common branding and integration over time but remaining tools that for the time being leverage highly popular bookmarked addresses.

While many magazine publishers are still sniffing around for undervalued print publications to take under their wings this move by Answers.com to scoop up highly ranked but underperforming online sites with complementary advertising bases demonstrates how quickly a highly profitable online site can extend its advertising efficiencies to build profits - even before an ounce of synergy or integration is added. To hearken back to my earlier post on Yahoo's possible sale it's far more likely that media companies that know how to extend advertising synergies online to related online holdings are going to build profitability more quickly than companies looking simply for overall scale of operations.

Labels: advertising, Answers.com, Deals Partnerships and Sales, reference.com

Bloomberg News covers Stanford Group analyst Clayton Moran's claims that the seeming listlessness of Yahoo's management since Terry Semel's departure and sinking share prices are laying the groundwork for an inevitable and likely sale of Yahoo. Moran cites Microsoft as the likely bidder and beneficiary of online synergies that would boost both properties into a newly competitive position against rival Google. There are a lot of things that still argue for this combination - invigorated search technology and online office components from Microsoft, advertising know-how and effective destination content development from Yahoo - and a such sale is certainly not improbable. Yet I can't help thinking that this may be one of those "perfect" marriages that would go south far more quickly than people may imagine.

The main rub that I see is that both companies suffer from two similar maladies: weakening market mindshare for their brands and dysfunctional product development cultures. Microsoft has had a remarkable string of product introductions that have been flops, duds or near-misses, in spite of having a near lock on many key technologies. Its Internet Explorer browser, once the unchallenged ruler of online Web content consumption, now boasts only about 70 percent of the European marketplace, a problem only exacerbated by mobile content markets moving further away from Microsoft technologies. Yahoo has many comparatively healthy and innovative initiatives, but some of its most innovative properties such as Flickr, del.icio.us and Yahoo! Pipes are either standalone brands or initiatives that are relatively orphaned from the mainstream Yahoo offerings. The Semel legacy of traditional media development stalled the effective development and integration of social media, a strategic error that Yahoo is working hard to correct but nevertheless a legacy of poor market timing that Microsoft will do little to bolster.

Moreover a Yahoo acquisition will do little to help Microsoft penetrate the enterprise/prosumer space very effectively. Yahoo's withdrawal from enterprise services a few years back left the playing field open for Google, which is still at the foothills of enterprise content but building a steadily growing array of products and integration resources to build that base over time. On the consumer side the addition of Microsoft properties to Yahoo's ad base would be a strong plus, but not one that could not be offered by other parters as well with greater online growth potential.

Which brings us to the question: who would want to buy Yahoo? I think that it's far more likely that News Corp will see a Yahoo acquistion as a perfect complement to its holdings.Its online management team is both upbeat and highly experienced with social media via Fox Interactive Media's MySpace platform and would offer Yahoo a better chance to develop as a dominant media brand with a strengthened advertising base. Yahoo's strong online finance portal would complement potential content fed in from Dow Jones holdings should that deal close, a deal that would have already provided News Corp with good enterprise revenues and technology platforms. Yahoo entertainment offerings would complement MySpace nicely and its enormous base of user accounts would offer MySpace a shot in the arm as Facebook builds a stronger market share.

The only real question for a Yahoo sale is timing - and it's likely that Yahoo's nascent social media replacement for its less-than-booming 360 portal may be the timing telltale. If the introduction of this effort is not stunning or if management becomes discouraged in its early testing phases then it's highly likely that a deal will be executed fairly quickly one way or another. But don't be surprised if quiet talks are already in the works - no doubt awaiting News Corp's finalization of Dow Jones details before focusing on Yahoo. Other potential suitors such as TimeWarner could enter the picture (AOL round two? Probably not.) but few offer clear synergies. We'll see whether Microsoft has the gumption to pull the string on a Yahoo deal, but my guess is that they have their hands full with many core competitiveness issues already - and that News Corp will be able to define more profitable synergies and longer-term brand strength before Microsoft gets to pop the question.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, facebook, Microsoft, MySpace, News Corp, TimeWarner, Yahoo

Google has been pushing its search appliances, email and online application services to enterprises for quite some time, but it's inability to speak the same language as I.T. managers on issues such as security has slowed their progress significantly. Consider their recent acquisition of Postini a major investment in overcoming their I.T. gap and providing new inroads for Google's ASP-oriented content and office automation services. Postini specializes in managing security for external communications such as email, messaging and Web site access with services that are compliance officer-friendly and that are totally outsourced.

Investors Business Daily notes that this places Google in competition with other security services providers such as McAfee and Symantec, but it's really a strong swipe at both Microsoft and as well at Software-as-a-Service providers such as Salesforce.com who are making quick inroads with ASP-based content and automation services in the enterprise sector. With its extensive range of APIs Google can now sew together a wide range of content integration capabilities - including embedded services and database services. With more and more content-oriented capabilities being outsourced by major corporations Google finds itself acquiring more and more basic building blocks to become a future "must-have" technology for enterprises of all sizes. But at this point that's still a future at best - beyond search Google has yet to come up with a killer platform that will be hard for major corporations to resist. Still, it will make it that much harder for competitors like Factiva to dominate in this space as Google becomes more of a go-to source for content and communications behind the firewall.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, enterprise, Google, postini

The announced USD 630 million deal for Incisive Media to acquire ALM is unquestionably the strongest acquisition move in the B2B media space in a year of largely aimless portfolio shuffling. Incisive is biting off a huge piece in the process of doing so - they have about USD 280 million in annual revenues - but this is far from your typical "let's balance the portfolio and combine content management systems" deal. In acquiring ALM Incisive walks away with one of the most effectively integrated range of legal publications for an industry vertical that has strong print revenues but also a remarkably strong and progressive online presence.

In addition to ALM's wide range of traditional ad-supported editorial content they have been very active in integrating leading weblogs into their ad network and have gone way deep into their own vertical user-generated content via VerdictSearch, a portal that allows legal professionals to input details on cases and settlements into a database that can be searched or mined by ALM's editorial staff for hot legal stories. Toss on a strong relationship with Thomson West for enterprise integration and a strong events presence and you get a profile that most business information companies would have to work very hard to top.

And that's before you get to the management team. Bill Pollak has assembled a top-notch staff at ALM to help it transition very profitably into the electronic age, holding out some promise that in the merger of these two companies it will be more than your typical "puff and slough" weed-out of mergee managers. Hopefully Incisive keeps much of ALM's team in place to help them assemble more effectively integrated marketing in vertical segments. Incisive's portfolio includes a wide range of titles largely aimed at financial markets that do very well online in many instances, but they have not leveraged new models of engagement for their audiences as effectively as ALM in many instances while some strong Incisive titles seem to be shoehorned in together rather oddly (do ClickZ and Search Engine Watch really belong in the same group as Inside Market Data?).

Conquering both legal and financial markets in one portfolio is a very shrewd move, with the deal flow in these two segments oftentimes creating very complementary editorial and data flows. While the size of this deal may tie up Incisive's cash for a while it would be nice to think about how some further database acquisitions or alliances might help to create some very interesting synergies for dealmaking business information. But in the meantime there's also the complementary presence of Incisive's UK-oriented legal publications and other globally-oriented publications that will be strengthened by ALM's largely US-oriented marketing.

While doubtless there will be some gnashing of the gears as new interests are merged and some cleaning out of questionable rabbit warrens this is a powerful move that draws into focus the increasingly merging worlds of legal and financial interests that will benefit from the combined coverage offered in these two teams. Hopefully this merger benefits the ALM team as much as it appears that it will benefit Incisive. Time will tell.

Labels: ALM, Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, incisive, legal

Our take on a brewing counter-offer for Dow Jones, thoughts on how Wikipedia's Current Events editing challenges news organizations to take a more objective view and ECNext's Manta uses social media concepts to update business profiles online.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, ECNext, Manta, shoreviews, Social Media, video, Wikipedia

All the above and more in three itty-bitty minutes!

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, shoreviews, Trends, video

Brightcove is one of many video distribution platforms that wrestles for attention in the media world, an effort made easier by the announcement of a deal with Fox Entertainment Group to provide them with a platform for their IPTV plans. Brightcove's portal has featured primarily user-generated content and community, but its technology can accomodate long-format entertainment programming as well. Will Fox use Brightcove technology exclusively for its mainstream programming or will it use Brightcove's platform to build up user-generated content communities around its own assets? Time will tell, but my guess is that Fox Interactive Media's experience with MySpace argues for Fox having a good dose of its own user-gen content in the mix alongside mainstream Fox programming feeding synergies into the MySpace platform.

The key point in this deal is that an OEM strategy seems to have paid off for Brightcove based on the strengths of its own portal strategy that allowed them to refine its functionality with live audiences and to continue to act as a test bed for ideas that can feed into their partner networks. OEMing can be tricky if clients can't visualize the potential outcomes of using a product tailored to their needs, especially when you're a young company trying to get attention in a crowded marketplace. Having in effect bootstrapped their OEM strategy with their own Web site Brightcove made it that much easier for a prospect like Fox to say yes.

Labels: brightcove, Deals Partnerships and Sales, News Corp, video

Two weeks ago when we covered the offer by Rupert Murdoch to have NewsCorp take over ownership of Dow Jones there was plenty of froth from the Bancrofts and some media pundits that this was a "no way" proposition, making us just a little nervous about our bullishness on the deal. Two weeks later the Bancroft family has issued their own press release independent of Dow Jones to indicate their intent to provide Dow Jones with new ownership and that they are willing to speak with News Corp as a potential suitor. Murdoch's patience and low-key approach seem to have brought him at least to a place at the table, if not one fully welcomed, as the Bancrofts seem to have concurred with our earlier conclusion that this is the right time to make a sale. While there is always the potential for a surprise bid from the wings it's probable that whatever solicitations the Bancrofts initiate for alternative offers will be more to provide emotional and intellectual backing to the very likely consummation of a deal with News Corp. Investor's Business Daily noted earlier regarding this deal the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu's writing that exercising patience often leads to victory in war. Perhaps the patience of both the Bancrofts and Murdoch are about to be rewarded with equal measure.

Labels: Bancrofts, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, Murdoch, News Corp

Inxight has provided content organization and visualization tools for many years and picked up federated search tools along the way to provide more content value to enterprise and publishing clients. But like many content technology companies Inxight has had a very difficult time differentiating its capabilities from a broad pack of similar services aimed at similar clients. So after several reorgs and repositionings it's probably a good thing that Business Objects has announced its acquisition of Inxight to round out its broad portfolio of enterprise business information services. As enterprises focus more on solutions that deliver measurable results for specific business functions they have had to view unstructured content assets from inside and outside their own organization as key inputs for their business intelligence efforts. Inxight's ability to process and organize unstructured content adds enables Business Objects to compete more effectively with business information vendors focused on building insights from news, social media and other unstructured content.

Coming on the heels of Reuters' acquisition of ClearForest this signals a ramp-up of the battle between content technology providers and traditional publishers and aggregators for the lead in providing value to enterprise accounts. The content side of this equation prides itself in understanding the business objectives of their clients more clearly, but if the history of financial content vendors is at all instructive it's the enterprises equipped with the technology tools to give them proprietary advantages in market insight that will win the majority of budgets spent on content services. Will content vendors become more adept at delivering technology solutions more quickly than technology companies will become more aware of how those solutions add value to business information? This is going to be a race to the finish - with enterprises wanting to get more value for their content investments the clear winners.

The only losers will be publishers and technology providers that fail to see that their futures depend on them putting on both content and technology hats to deliver high-value solutions to their clients. The era of stand-alone technology features and stand-alone content services is coming to a close rather quickly as businesses try to leapfrog over the inefficiencies of both traditional I.T. solutions and traditional subscription database solutions to gain insight from wherever it's available.

Labels: Business Intelligence, Business Objects, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Inxight, search, Technology

On one level the news from WaPo and others that Salesforce.com is discussing an alliance with Google to integrate Google's office applications, messaging and other key components into their offerings has to be welcomed at business information providers' offices. Many business information services companies are already taking advantage of Salesforce.com's AppExchange service to integrate their content and functional capabilities into SF.com's increasingly popular sales and marketing platform, so SF.com's success will help to enhance their successes as well through on-demand content services sales. But this development must be absorbed along with the announcement of SF.com's launch of a venture funding network to accelerate the development of business information services through their platform. Put the two of these together and you can see a perfect storm brewing for business information providers that have assumed that their investments in enterprise software to drive content sales will flourish indefinitely.

Why be worried about SF.com and Google? The key factor is that bit by bit the enterprise's information base is being absorbed into proprietary Web databases. That's likely to turn out to be a good thing for many enterprises trying to compete in a cost-conscious global environment: the "pretty good" infrastructure of SF.com is increasingly more than just adequate to perform crucial tasks, especially when extended by third party services through SF.com's AppExchange services. Add in the "pretty good" Google office automation services and you can envision a day not too far down the road when many enterprise users will be using the combination of Google and SF.com services for 80 percent or more of their day-to-day business information generation and use. Throw in Google's Web and enterprise search services along with their robust and open development APIs and you can imagine more than a few of those SF.com venture dollars funding business information solutions that will make solutions like Factiva's SalesWorks look fairly limp by comparison.

While a stronger SF.com is in the interest of business information providers who want fast inroads into sales, marketing and management teams in enterprises this ally is beginning to recognize the gravitas that its platform-independent approach to business solutions has to provide leverage over these same vendors. As publishers thirsty for new revenue channels open up more to enabling access to premium content through Google search interfaces the combination of SF.com and Google could spell trouble for traditional licensed database services over the next few years. If SF.com and Google own the development and marketing environment and publishers no longer require traditional subscription services to leverage their content into enterprise applications then it is going to be a far more competitive environment for business information services providers who count on aggregated subscription services for their revenues.

There will be more good news than bad news for a while out of this impending alliance but business information services will be well-advised to sharpen up their strategies as to how to preserve and accelerate revenues through this alliance. Nimble competitors are likely to do quite well if they adjust quickly - but odds are strong that more than a few business information providers will stumble along the way.

Labels: Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, Salesforce.com, Trends

The Wall Street Journal reports on NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch's attempts to have conversations with the Bancroft family and other majority shareholders of Dow Jones - efforts that seem to have been spurned so far in spite of promises of editorial independence and limited control over hiring and firing. The article cites a Bancroft family member who saw Murdoch's offer as "the usual stuff" (one wonders what other "usual stuff" has been offered to Dow Jones in recent months). It's understandable that a company with the heritage of Dow Jones would balk at an offer that looks more like a hunt for a trophy wife on the surface than a well-planned merger, but in the details of Murdoch's offer is plenty of evidence that there may be some strong vision at work here.

Specifically of interest is Murdoch's willingness to invest in political and global economic coverage that would make The Wall Street Journal a more attractive international journal of record for business-minded people. In an increasingly global economy Murdoch sees no doubt in Dow Jones the core of an editorial and production team that has the ability to muscle into a more pronounced global leadership role in business media through localized print and online content. WSJ's readership is broad but not broad enough to allow Dow Jones to invest in a major global push effectively. It would be hard to imagine someone other than Murdoch who would have the cash, the influence and the market presence that would allow Dow Jones' brands to thrive in international markets to the extent that his tutelage would allow.

It's understandable that a proudly American brand like Dow Jones would resist Murdoch's advances but the sad fact of the matter is that U.S.-based business media services aimed at mass markets are not going to thrive in the years ahead unless they're more effective on a global scale. U.S. markets for business information are becoming far more data-intensive than overseas markets thanks to both the U.S. regulatory environment and the automated trading capabilities fed by that data. The in-depth journalism that is the specialty of Dow Jones will be focused more effectively on more opaque markets where insights beyond the reach of fair disclosure are needed more urgently. Other offers that are beyond this "usual stuff" may come along at some point but one wonders whether Dow Jones will have the market leverage at such an undetermined point in time to leverage its brand's strength as effectively as it can today. They may not like the suitor but Murdoch is leading with a strong suit that should be considered with a hard-nosed look at the spreadsheets as well as with a journalist's gut.

Labels: Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, media, News Corp, Trends

As Thomson prepares to subsume the assets of Reuters many eyes are on the impact to financial content markets from this historic merger. But with Reuters CEO Tom Glocer expected to take the overall helm at Thomson the more important impact might come from the lessons that Glocer is prepared to apply to Thomson's other divisions. With decades of experience in both real-time and media markets Glocer may have the opportunity to transform Thomson into a far more agile player in global markets for business information.

Click here to read the full News Analysis

Labels: Bloomberg, Deals Partnerships and Sales, News Analysis, Reuters, Thomson

The wires are ablaze with takeover rumors, the leading buzz being about an offer from Thomson to acquire Reuters. Reports put NewsCorp in the race as well, but this sounds like a tepid
"Plan B" as a backup to Murdoch's intents with Dow Jones. The matches in a Thomson-Reuters merger are fairly obvious - Thomson gets Reuters' low-latency content delivery and automated trading platforms for the investment bankers that they've been unable to woo in quantity as well as online ad revenues from Reuters' media offerings, Reuters gets fingers into the securities industry "buy side" and retail operations - but I wonder whether EC regulators are going to feel comfortable with such a dominant combination. On a global basis that would leave Thomson and Bloomberg as the only really viable content alternatives for supporting large-scale securities trading operations.

Then again, perhaps that's all we need these days: the content that's driving securities transactions increasingly comes from sources outside of traditional vendor databases, leaving enterprise-oriented content vendors to perfect data plumbing and desktop tools. In a rapidly consolidating global securities marketplace two may be the magic number for the years ahead. With plenty of cash on hand for just such a takeover Thomson is in an excellent position to tuck away a revitalized but still-fragile Reuters team.

Two may also turn out to be the magic number in online content as Microsoft and Yahoo reopen talks to figure out a better fit. The Wall Street Journal reports that the shelved discussions have been brushed off in light of Google's now-leading Web presence. Yet again, this may be a merger or alliance of necessity. It would cede that Yahoo has largely missed the boat on enterprise content while Microsoft has stumbled with consumer content, even as Google has forged highly profitable paths into both arenas.

As in the securities marketplace for Thomson and Reuters the potential for a Microsoft-Yahoo alignment is as much about global competition as it is with any U.S.-oriented concerns. Asian and European markets are tipping Google's way in comparison to Yahoo and Microsoft, a trend that may be accelerated by Google's office automation tools that would allow developing nations just starting to come online to avoid the dominance of Microsoft Office tools as a prerequisite for playing in the digital economy. It's not clear that a Yahoo-Microsoft merger would help either party in developing markets but it may be powerful enough to act as a brake of sorts on further Google dealmaking and advertising alliances in developed markets.

In both of these potential deals, as well as in the potential acquisition of Dow Jones by NewsCorp, is the looming presence of gigantism in publishing that seems somehow unable to counteract the emerging trend of micropublishing. Huge collections of copyrighted content and patented technologies don't seem to be able to make a dent in the explosion of content developed by and for peers who are able to collaborate effectively with relatively little help from media giants. If there's anything to be said for any of these potential deals to deal with micropublishing it would be to acknowledge that Yahoo has been good at attracting user content while Microsoft has an improving stable of collaboration tools. On the enterprise side Reuters has decades of experience in enabling market conversations and promises to do moreso with emerging social media technologies.

But in both of these instances it may very well be the case that the distraction of merger politics would decelerate rather than accelerate these crucial efforts, leaving these companies further behind in the race to capture value from social media. The time may be right for these potential super-mergers and the resulting balance sheets are likely to look pretty healthy at the end of the day, but gigantism may prove to be a very temporary stop-gap measure in efforts to counteract changes in publishing that seem to favor small and medium publishing efforts that grow organically from open source tools and Web-based communications standards. Which bring us back, as always, to Google, which is glad to sell people valuable contexts for monetizing all of this content in whatever medium is of interest to marketers. I'll avoid the usual dinosaur-versus-mammal metaphor and just say that in a rapidly changing publishing ecology we're better off chasing the mammoth of contextual content value than focusing on building city-states of traditional publications that rely on a vanishing economy based on the value of copyrighted content.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Google, Microsoft, Reuters, Thomson, Yahoo

CNBC Reports along with others on the USD 5 billion cash offer from NewsCorp to acquire control of Dow Jones & Company from the Bancroft family and other majority shareholders. Dow Jones has long been in the eyesights of Rupert Murdoch who prizes the Wall Street Journal editorial page's outlook as much as its healthy subscription revenues and improving online profile, but certainly the recent reoganization at Dow Jones under CEO Richard Zannino doesn't hurt the prospects of Dow Jones getting a good asking price for a traditional news and business information service in a problematic market. The broader problem is what happens if the Bancrofts et al. come back and express interest. Certainly Bloomberg and other business information companies may be willing to put in an offer as a prophylactic move to ensure that another well-funded global competitor is not breathing down their necks, but few outside of NewsCorp would have a globally positioned product that would complement Dow Jones' existing media and business information capabilities effectively.

In the CNBC article Mort Zuckerman notes that NewsCorp's efforts to launch a cable business news channel to compete with offerings from CNBC, CNN and Bloomberg can make this a good fit, and it's a key point. Dow Jones' footprint in video has been very limited so a broadcast-savvy ownership provided by NewsCorp's Fox division would certainly position their editorial assets more effectively - especially in exploding online video markets. The same factor argues somewhat against a Bloomberg acquisition, as it already has a reasonably successful broadcast presence in both television and radio. But the ringer in all of this is business information. The Dow Jones Enterprise Media group under Clare Hart provides NewsCorp with an enterprise footprint that it lacks - and that it needs to give it a more interesting balance sheet compared to Reuters, which maintains growing media interests and solid enterprise interests.

All in all this may be the offer that the Bancrofts can at last not refuse. Expect considerations from Bloomberg and others to enter the picture in reaction to the bid but my sense is that this may be the time for Dow Jones to move into the hands of new ownership - and for Zannino and crew to benefit from a broader array of outlets through which to market their editorial products.

UPDATE: ABC News reports that Dow Jones rejected the NewsCorp bid within hours of its posting. The article mentions, though, that there is no statement from DJ indicating that it would not consider other bids from NewsCorp or other companies. This is not entirely surprising - Dow Jones is likely to want to remain in U.S. ownership, given its history - but my comments stand. This may have been the last best chance for Dow Jones to bail out under reasonably good conditions. Their online operations are doing well enough and they are finding more innovative ways to market non-financial content but the long-term trend for print revenues is not promising. To stay healthy more video production is a must.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Dow Jones, News, NewsCorp

Today's announcement of the acquisition of ClearForest by Reuters highlights the shifting value proposition for business information services in the face of a marketplace that needs better information and ideas to compete in a real-time economy. ClearForest is one of the pioneers of mining content from Web sites, weblogs, corporate filings and other sources for businesses seeking to make sense of the sea of content that doesn't reside in neatly structured databases. ClearForest's mining and semantic analysis techniques allow unstructured content to tell tales that can lead to faster evaluation of financial opportunities, customer support issues and other mission-critical functions. ClearForest's modules that analyze news stories to develop data that can support automated securities trading as well, underscoring the need to treat the Web and internal unstructured sources as sources of content that can have immediate impact on operations and client perceptions as much as real-time financial quotes and news tickers have had in the past.

In other words when the world is one big database everything in that database can have a potential impact on business operations. Structured databases still matter for maintaining "golden sources" of content for specialized operations but the ability of technologies such as ClearForest to create on-demand content structure are placing more pressure on subscription database suppliers to deliver more value to their clients - value that relies oftentimes on unlicensed sources of unstructured content. It's a smart move by Reuters at a good time, picking up a company with mature technology that needed a more publishing-savvy management structure to accelerate its growth to the next level.

While the fit with Reuters' existing client base is obvious, one wonders how this will play against the recent jettisoning of Reuters' interest in its Factiva joint venture with Dow Jones. I wouldn't expect anything right away in a competitive direction from Reuters to circle back against Dow Jones and other general business information competitors but expect the already generalized capabilities of ClearForest to offer Reuters some very interesting leverage points that they may use to offer high-value services to business information consumers in the not too distant future.

Labels: ClearForest, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Reuters

BusinessWeek provides an excellent analysis of recent deals and acquisitions by Google, deals which are resulting in complaints from Microsoft to regulators about potential anti-trust violations as well as similar concerns about market dominance from NETCompetition.org. BW dismisses concerns about anti-trust violations in the Doubleclick deal by pointing out that their main focus is not on ad auctions: at least for now there will be no auctioning off of Google ads on the Doubleclick network. As the article notes, "Even with a Google-owned DoubleClick, publishers can still sell their display ads themselves and set the prices however they want." But the concerns about dominance are underscored by Google's announced deal with U.S. radio giant ClearChannel to sell 30-second ad spots on their radio stations via their dMarc radio advertising platform.

Well, first let's put aside the somewhat unfortunate claims of anti-trust violations from a company that owns more than 90 percent of PC operating systems and word processing software worldwide and focus on the real question: is Google creating unfair business practices? This can get gray pretty quickly but overall I think that the answer is no. The opportunity to build or buy infrastructure that makes the most out of contexts in Web content has been around for more than a decade. Where most companies opted to focus on traditionally marketed intellectual property Google has been the only leading company to focus almost exclusively from its beginnings on creating and owning contexts for content. While Yahoo is excelling in amassing content from both users and publishers it dropped the ball on search technologies many times and is only now beginning to mount a serious challenge to Google's ad technologies and partnerships. Microsoft has had extremely ample time to develop competitive challenges to Google but has chosen instead to develop a very split strategy that tries to placate status quo-sensitive enterprises and publishers while also trying to develop improving but underdeveloped search and ad technologies.

So to my ears I hear some people saying, "Hey, that's not fair, Google figured out what the leading value proposition for online content would be for the next few decades before we did." Is Google aggressive? You bet. Does some of the "don't be evil" charm wear a little thin at times these days? Certainly. Dominance can easily turn into unfair practices, so it would not be right to give Google a complete clean bill of health for all time in their acquisition plans. But for the most part the ball is in the courts of Google's competitors to build a better mousetrap. And that's the way that it should be, we're told.

Labels: advertising, aggregation, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Doubleclick, Google

ZDNet reports on Salesforce.com's recent acquisition of Koral, a small content management company that focuses on bringing together unstructured content from enterprises into Salesforce.com's ASP-based sales management platform. Koral makes it easy for people to leverage SF.com's content synchronization capabilities to simplify the storage, sharing, searching and synchronization of office documents and emails - the very type of content that enterprise search engines and business information vendors are coveting increasingly for their own product plans. While SF.com enjoys support from many business information providers integrating subscription database content via its AppExchange online services store unstructured content offers another level of content value generation that trumps both I.T.-oriented office automation and search engine plays and publishers trying to define their own frameworks to organize user content as a business resource.

Business Information 3.0 is about creating value out of whatever content is available wherever it is made available - and creating more value in moments of fresh content discovered in time to make a difference to the top line of today's enterprises. Like Google Salesforce.com is approaching the content business from the perspective of a software-as-a-service vendor that make every business information resource accessible in a framework that makes an immediate and tangible difference to people's lives. Many publishers don't quite grasp the concept that any content that helps to move business processes forward is business information worthy of their attention - leaving huge opportunities for content technology vendors to define the framework in which they develop their services.

Today we see many vendors such as Hoover's, OneSource and Factiva integrating their business information into SF.com via AppExchange. With the Koral acquisition SF.com is laying down the gauntlet that challenges both publishers and I.T. companies to provide more combined content value than their highly cost-effective sales automation services. Increasingly this means mining content value from non-traditional sources such as corporate Web sites and delivering it as real-time updates to business information users. In the battle for business information desktops sometimes perhaps it pays to leave the desktop behind altogether...

Labels: Business Information, Deals Partnerships and Sales, Koral, Salesforce.com, Trends

Business information services are thriving as they gain sophisticated features to add value to their databases but they also face increasing competition on all fronts from web-sourced content and more specialized service providers. Chalk up a good score by Hoover's to fend off commoditization in its announced acquisition of First Research, a business intelligence service that serves up industry and state profiles aimed at sales professionals. First Research Call Prep Sheets are industry briefings designed to arm sales professionals with the right industry talking points before they walk out the door to accounts. State Profiles provide quarterly coverage of local issues impacting businesses in U.S. states for sales pros on the go across broad geographies.

All of this helps Hoover's to add a new layer of value-add content aimed at the sales professionals who are increasingly the core audience for many business information services. With more corporations providing an abundance of information online that can be mined easily by any number of services mere company profiles and sales contacts are not going to be sufficient for a business information provider to give their clients an industry edge. By focusing on the real-world situational needs of sales professionals via its First Research acquisition Hoover's is positioning itself more as a business intelligence solutions service that can provide complete briefings for sales professionals who need to know about not just individual accounts but as well the environment in which they play. Expect more plays like this from business information services providers - and more vendors positioning both technology and publishing services against business intelligence services in general.

Labels: Business Information, Business Intelligence, Deals Partnerships and Sales, First Research, Hoover's

Why do so many news and entertainment clips show up on services such as YouTube? Well, in part because many content producers make it so doggone hard to extract content through legitimate channels. Voxant is aiming to change that by leveraging users as distribution agents for legitimately licensed news and entertainment content from traditional outlets. The latest announced partner is McClatchy-Tribune Information Services, which will provide news stories, photos and graphics via Voxant's TheNewsRoom portal. TheNewsRoom allows one to search news text, audio, video and graphics by major categories or search terms and then to extract code for embedding the content into a Web page. The embedded object (example below) includes a "Mash" button that will allow others to copy the embedding code. The content is ad-supported, with a portion of revenues from ads going to the person registered with Voxant for initiating mashups.

While TheNewsRoom portal is still a fairly raw work in progress the overall concept shows some promise. By adapting a Weedshare-style revenue-sharing scheme that enables clip copiers to benefit from ad revenues content can move from one context to another in a revenue-generating licensed digital object that observes copyright and still allows for a great viral effect in news distribution. A currently inactive tab in TheNewsRoom's "Mash" display is labeled "licensing," presumably a placekeeper for other ways to redistribute a given item under license such as via reprints, CD-ROM or other media. This may wind up paralleling or incorporating services of this kind from CCC, iCopyright or other online licensing services.

While weblogs and other social media sites are obvious targets for this kind of service the question becomes why this type of feature does not become a standard offering in any site that's displaying a piece of syndicated content, much as many sites use embedded reprinting services today. TheNewsRoom is not likely to be a destination site that will attract social media mavens: they're more likely to find content in context elsewhere and want to take it immediately. So perhaps Voxant becomes a service that can manage "mashup" requests centrally for all of the media sites that take in licensed feeds already. These are important details to work out in the long run but for now Voxant has assembled a compelling model for providing legitimate viral distribution of news and entertainment content that deserves to be studied carefully.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Licensing, McClatchy, News, Social Media, Voxant