Thanks for sharing, Fred. You're actually able to embed it: just click 'Share' next to the description and it will display the code
alphanaliste
· 10 months ago
What *didn't* you agree with?
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
I'll go back and watch carefully and let you know
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
watching again now on my living room TV. here's some things i don't entirely agree with:
1) newspapers are not spending 90% of their time on print even though the vast majority of their revenue is still coming from print. i think they might be spending over half their time thinking/working on their online oppty
2) i wouldn't classify amazon as a "magic business". to me Amazon is a testament to Bezos tenacity and execution. that business is a slog not "magic" like google or microsoft.
3) i don't have a "special relationship" with my xbox. my son does, but i don't. i think its a generational difference between Marc and me. and that makes him a better investor than me in the games sector.
4) he uses the word "valley" to talk about the startup sector broadly. that's a mistake that silicon valley insiders make all the time. silicon valley represents less than half (maybe as little as 1/3) of all innovation/startup activity.
but i had to work hard to find stuff i did not agree with. i see the word almost identically to the way marc does.
Merl
· 10 months ago
Time was NOT kind to Marc.
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
That's not true. He's aged well as a person.
Merl
· 10 months ago
Clarification: Physically, time has not been kind to Mark. But as long as you have your health, cheers!
But really, the press needs to stop using that picture from a decade ago.
rkorba
· 10 months ago
Marc's blog is one of the best (along with yours, sir!) and his father in law is a stunningly savvy dude... hope he gets some tips.
stone
· 10 months ago
One thing he said that is plain ridiculous: that Facebook could generate a billion dollars in revenue if they wanted to. Instead, they've decided to struggle raising money and suffer further dilution --- yeah, right! If they could generate a billion dollars my guess is they would. Since they are not doing anything close to these numbers it's safe to think they cannot .
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
They are doing $300-$400mm in annual revs without even trying
If Facebook was being run by a media guy (say Tom Evans of Bankrate and formerly Geocities), they'd be doing $1bn for sure with that kind of audience and engagement
Zuckerberg has no intention or interest in doing that
Some of these young entrepreneurs are capitalists but not exactly rational in the sense that we are
They are betting that by foregoing a dollar today, they'll make two tomorrow
I am not sure that's a good bet, but Marc is sitting on the board watching behavior that I've seen as well
And I think he's right
stone
· 10 months ago
The folks at Microsoft would quibble with the view that no one has tried to monetize Facebook. In fact, they will tell you that the roi is so poor that they hate putting serious advertisers on the site, especially if they expect a decent click-through rate.
The real truth is about PR. They have a massive amount of traffic --- truly amazing --- but cannot find the repeating pattern that will turn that traffic into a massive cash machine like AdWords. So, what do they do? Keep using brute force to drive revenue while making it look like they don't really care. This buys them time --- time with employees, investors and anyone else that cares.
For a company that hasn't tried, they have built multiple ad/targeting products, held parties for NY ad agencies, struck multiple deals with Microsoft, fired Owen Vanatta (for failing to hit revenue numbers), etc., etc., etc.
Fred, you are very smart but you are falling for spin because you believe in Facebook. I will tell you that the picture is a bit murkier.
mdudas
· 10 months ago
In your understanding, are the ROI complaints from Microsoft sellers & their clients true for the social & engagement-type advertising, or more specific to click-through rates on targeted display ads? And how is ROI-being defined by these advertisers (I hope not solely click-through, as Facebook is a social media site - people interact with it very differently than they do Google search results, obviously, so the objectives of the campaigns & the way results are measured should be different).
The biggest challenge is demonstrating and getting advertisers, planners and buyers to agree on value beyond click as well as expanding comfort levels with online brand advertising that goes beyond traditional display. My company, TargetSpot, is working on this from the audio and video side of the business. Much of offline television and radio advertising is driven by branding - the clients understand this, accept it and have seen positive brand lift & awareness that drives measurable offline and online sales for years.
Note that much of what works in radio & local TV includes custom components such as station promotions, contests, on-air talent reads, etc. Online media companies are getting better at putting these packages together for advertisers, so I would expect the picture to get much less murky over the next few years.
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
Good point mike
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
Good points, all of them
I'm thinking hard about all of this and appreciate the diverging viewpoints
Saul
· 10 months ago
It is absolutely wrong for him to use that headshot. Might as well use a baby pic.
RexDixon
· 10 months ago
totally agree and said so on my tumblr stroll (rexdixon.tumblr.com) about 5 hours ago. :)
ibankerinSValley
· 10 months ago
Excuse me Fred, but whats VCs overall ROI over the past 5 years and how does that compare w the S&P500?
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
S&P is down 30% over the past five years
Thomson/Reuters says that the 5 yr VC return is 8.6%
So VC has outperformed S&P500 by almost 40% in the past five years
alanp
· 10 months ago
I completely agree with Stone. There is no doubt that Facebook can and will generate a certain amount of ad revenue because of their sheer size and massive inventory. Unfortunately for them, they are a communications site (like Yahoo Mail, AIM) and the value of ads on these sites is low for 2 reasons. First people move from page to page very quickly so the ads are often never seen by the user. second, users are engaged with other people, not the web sites or its content, so it is difficult to move the user from this mindset to an engagement with an advertiser. Adwords is a platform that works for the obvious reasons - consumers are LOOKING for an advertisers product or service. Facebook, while it may open up many opprotunites to leverage the word of mouth benefits of the site for its advertises, will probably never be able to monetize this with a universal platform. they will have to create one new ad concept/strategy after another with advertisers to drive success for advertisers. while they may hit some marketing homeruns as one-offs, it is not a scalable platform that will bring in the masses of advertisers they will need to make FB into the kind of succcess Google has generated. i just can't envision any platform that they can create for advertisers that will deliver the accountable and obvious value that advertisers need. I am a FB fan (as a user) but I rarely buy ads for my clients on this site becuase they don't work (from a direct response perspective).
I equate their problem to the telephone. While it might be a fantastic communication tool that everybody uses, the only ad revenue genreated by the telephone is from telemarketing - a nice business but it doesnt drive anywhere near the ad revenue that television does.
Maybe Facebook can't ever be monetized at the level we are all hoping?
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
What if the telephone had a recorder that advertisers could listen to and then display ads on your TV while you are watching later that match the stuff you talked about earlier?
alphanaliste
· 10 months ago
Wow, that would be creepy.
alanp
· 10 months ago
that will be coming to TV ads soon as related to your online actions even with the recent beat downs of nebu ads and phorm. probably why google abandoned radio and print but still has hopes for tv.
kidmercury
· 10 months ago
IMO the key to social networking monetization is in enabling influencers on social networks to make money. which is why i think ning and niche social networking in general is a better bet than facebook and the other mass social networks. with that said facebook is undeniably a juggernaut and now has more options than simply being a social networking destination, as evidenced by facebook connect, so perhaps there are new revenue opportunities that are not dependent upon facebook as destination as well.
and the alleged supermodels participating in this discussion may wish to upload their own pic to disqus before hatin' on marc's appearance. yes marc has more success and intelligence in his toe nail than the youngsters bringin' the hate will ever have in their entire existence, though being a jealous hater knockin' the dude's appearance is not the way to cope with that.
fredwilson
· 10 months ago
Nice one Kid. Love the supermodels line!
markslater
· 10 months ago
the value is surely contexting against the flow on facebook. you make a god point here, as does another commenter above. people are connecting on facebook - they dont spend much time on a page.
There have to be more opportunities beyond the site associated with what we are socially doing or what we socially choose to share with our network. Twitter i guess is a step towards this, but there surely is a more dynamic location aware way to leave your social jestream using facebook to connect.
EntrepreneurDude
· 10 months ago
I thought that was Dr Evil....
Aruni
· 10 months ago
That's great. It's always good to have people who have built businesses investing in other businesses. I've found that a successful entrepreneur turned investor tends to add a lot more value to the companies they invest in...at least within the first 5 to 7 years they start doing it full time.
FairlyPrice
· 10 months ago
It is absolutely wrong for him to use that headshot. Might as well use a baby pic.
booger
· 9 months ago
small wonder marc's going the vc route -- ning's not likely to make him rich again.
All Comments
1) newspapers are not spending 90% of their time on print even though the vast majority of their revenue is still coming from print. i think they might be spending over half their time thinking/working on their online oppty
2) i wouldn't classify amazon as a "magic business". to me Amazon is a testament to Bezos tenacity and execution. that business is a slog not "magic" like google or microsoft.
3) i don't have a "special relationship" with my xbox. my son does, but i don't. i think its a generational difference between Marc and me. and that makes him a better investor than me in the games sector.
4) he uses the word "valley" to talk about the startup sector broadly. that's a mistake that silicon valley insiders make all the time. silicon valley represents less than half (maybe as little as 1/3) of all innovation/startup activity.
but i had to work hard to find stuff i did not agree with. i see the word almost identically to the way marc does.
But really, the press needs to stop using that picture from a decade ago.
If Facebook was being run by a media guy (say Tom Evans of Bankrate and
formerly Geocities), they'd be doing $1bn for sure with that kind of
audience and engagement
Zuckerberg has no intention or interest in doing that
Some of these young entrepreneurs are capitalists but not exactly rational
in the sense that we are
They are betting that by foregoing a dollar today, they'll make two tomorrow
I am not sure that's a good bet, but Marc is sitting on the board watching
behavior that I've seen as well
And I think he's right
The real truth is about PR. They have a massive amount of traffic --- truly amazing --- but cannot find the repeating pattern that will turn that traffic into a massive cash machine like AdWords. So, what do they do? Keep using brute force to drive revenue while making it look like they don't really care. This buys them time --- time with employees, investors and anyone else that cares.
For a company that hasn't tried, they have built multiple ad/targeting products, held parties for NY ad agencies, struck multiple deals with Microsoft, fired Owen Vanatta (for failing to hit revenue numbers), etc., etc., etc.
Fred, you are very smart but you are falling for spin because you believe in Facebook. I will tell you that the picture is a bit murkier.
The biggest challenge is demonstrating and getting advertisers, planners and buyers to agree on value beyond click as well as expanding comfort levels with online brand advertising that goes beyond traditional display. My company, TargetSpot, is working on this from the audio and video side of the business. Much of offline television and radio advertising is driven by branding - the clients understand this, accept it and have seen positive brand lift & awareness that drives measurable offline and online sales for years.
Note that much of what works in radio & local TV includes custom components such as station promotions, contests, on-air talent reads, etc. Online media companies are getting better at putting these packages together for advertisers, so I would expect the picture to get much less murky over the next few years.
I'm thinking hard about all of this and appreciate the diverging viewpoints
Thomson/Reuters says that the 5 yr VC return is 8.6%
So VC has outperformed S&P500 by almost 40% in the past five years
I equate their problem to the telephone. While it might be a fantastic communication tool that everybody uses, the only ad revenue genreated by the telephone is from telemarketing - a nice business but it doesnt drive anywhere near the ad revenue that television does.
Maybe Facebook can't ever be monetized at the level we are all hoping?
then display ads on your TV while you are watching later that match the
stuff you talked about earlier?
and the alleged supermodels participating in this discussion may wish to upload their own pic to disqus before hatin' on marc's appearance. yes marc has more success and intelligence in his toe nail than the youngsters bringin' the hate will ever have in their entire existence, though being a jealous hater knockin' the dude's appearance is not the way to cope with that.
There have to be more opportunities beyond the site associated with what we are socially doing or what we socially choose to share with our network. Twitter i guess is a step towards this, but there surely is a more dynamic location aware way to leave your social jestream using facebook to connect.