Content Decoded

I’ve been MIA for a while but am slowing shifting gears and getting back into action. I haven’t yet had time to chew over the significance of these news but I wanted to capture these thoughts before I forget them.

Print off-shoots of popular digital properties become the new low-cost revenue channel for publishers:

A few years ago the conversations in publishing buzzed around creating and optimizing web properties for print magazines. While this is still a primary focus, Meredith and Hearst have taken to using print offshoots to market their web properties. Case in point: magazines for Delish.com MixingBowl.com and Realbeauty.com

The content on mixingbowl.com and realbeauty.com is largely user-generated and there is some amount of  gratification and reward to a community than seeing their recipe in print.  Popular blogs (think the sartorialist, chocolateandzucchini.com etc) have resulted into books, so its only natural that popular web properties have their own print versions. But where do we go from here ?

Digital is so fragmented that new devices and platforms are constantly changing the dynamic between the content producers and the readers. I am curious to see how the content producers innovate to serve up this new audience.

Tying this post to my previous post about the iPad – instead of a print version of the mixingbowl or delish – would  an iPad application for recipes be more useful than a print magazine ? Just a thought.

Social media is evolving from an engagement platform to an ecommerce platform.

With the year ending, I’ve been thinking a lot about where I was and what I was doing around this time last year. In December 2008, I was presenting to all my clients a Twitter 101 deck and giving them a practical, logical reasoning of  why they should consider jumping on Twitter. Fastforward 12 months and my agency is not only running and growing over 10 Twitter feeds for our clients, but we’ve gathered a rich  historical database of our results.

I want to try and imagine now, how the next 12 months are going to surprise me and knock the breath out of me. Social media and it’s evolution excites me. And for 2010, I’m putting my stake in the ground for E-commerce.

We are going to witness a major shift in how we approach social media. 2010 is going to demand stronger measuring tactics and more importantly, tangible results. Brand building, awareness, buzz and fan activation are important goals but clients and agencies alike will now push for more tangible goals: sales. A direct increase in revenue.

Dell just announced today that it credits about $6.5 million of its revenues to Twitter. Dell’s aggregate presence on social media (Facebook & Twitter) and its own community sites (Direct2Dell and IdeaStorm) has 3.5 Million + fans and followers that have collectively contributed to the $6.5 Mil rev. achieved.

What’s important to consider is the astounding growth (more than double!) in just three months following Dell’s announcement in June at having reached a 3 Mil revenue mark. Will the numbers reach 12 Million+ by 2010 ?

Granted $6.5 Million is a tiny piece of Dell’s $60 Billion revenues – but the unparalleled (100%+)  growth in just three months alone is worth noting.

We are just beginning to see the potential of driving sales through social media.

Another point to consider:

As financial and human-resources investment in social media continues to grow, it will only get more time-intensive and expensive for a brand to push their audiences to three different web-based destinations: 1) It’s own website 2) It’s Facebook profile and 3) It’s Twitter page.

I think by late 2010, it will be fair to expect brands to start prioritizing their investment and efforts, and arguably giving first preference to its social media destinations. I know it sounds far-fetched. The idea that a brand’s website can be completely cannibalized by its social media presences seems preposterous, but it just makes sense to me logically.

If I can grow the impact of my brand and my revenues ten times faster on the social web than via my website – why wouldn’t I just put more resources into my Facebook page?

Also, it is a LOT to ask a customer to fan you, follow you and also sign up for your email newsletter. Ecommerce needs to get streamlined – content needs to get streamlined.

Signs are already pointting in this direction. Earlier this year, 1800-Flowers quietly opened an E-commerce store on its Facebook fan page.

On it Facebook page, 1800 Flowers accepts payments with all major credit cards and will soon implement Facebook’s proprietary payment platform. (Although the company only has about 8000 fans on its page (and not much fan activity – but that you can attribute to the fact that 1800 Flowers it not exactly what you’d call a passion brand.)

A friend of mine who works at a luxury fashion brand informed me that her company is “definitely” selling products on Facebook starting 2010. Facebook is one of their strongest focus for next year.

These are just my top level thoughts on a topic that is going to become very important and talked about next year. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. If you are a brand, I want to know more about how you are looking at measuring success in social media. Let’s keep this discussion going!

A few days back I wrote my thoughts on how Hulu plans to start charging for content in 2010. This month’s Fast Company magazine in its story on Jason Kilar (CEO, Hulu) further broaches the subject of monetization on Hulu.com

As Kilar builds on Hulu’s vision to become the online authority on TV video, advertiers have responded well. In two years alone, Hulu’s revenues have shot from zero to about $120 Million (250 adveritsers). It is still a pittance of what broadcast networks make from adverising, but, atleast there are revenues.

Kilar is smart to point out however that any one model is not going to solve Hulu’s monatization issues.

ilar calmly explained that he wanted Hulu to be the online authority on TV video, just as Amazon is the expert site for books. If people are looking for a particular show — any show — Hulu should help them find it. As Kilar sees it, shows are the brands users care about, not the networks that air them. Fast Company provides some indiciation of what future models to expect from Hulu.

“We don’t think any one consumer model is the answer,” says Kilar. (Hulu is also exploring international expansion and, according to analysts, an iPhone app). The most likely option is adding a subscription service alongside free content. Think of it as Hulu Premium — an online version of what HBO did to distinguish itself from standard cable service. For a monthly fee, VideoNuze’s Richmond suggests, members would get ad-free content on Hulu, early access to programs, and more comprehensive archives. For a share of the fee, companies would make more shows available. Most important, Hulu could offer those subscribers Boxee-style access to TV, giving the networks a long-awaited convergence strategy with a steady revenue stream.

2010 should reveal these new undertakings at Hulu. I will be following closely.

News Corp Deputy Chariman Chase Carey discussed the possibility of a subscription / paid content model for Hulu in 2010. (via @rosiesiman and @faris)

I’m not surprised by this. My immediate reaction was – aha. High time.

Let me tell you why.

At the end of the day, Hulu.com is like most other content sites. Like NYT and WSJ, it makes available the most “Recent” content online for free viewing. In Hulu language, this means:  featuring – six trailing episodes of this season’s TV shows online. Since Hulu is more of a content aggregator (not so much a content producer) it has little leverage on what it can offer. Most networks have also made “recent” content available on their websites for free viewing. So how does Hulu ensure that it’s partners don’t cannabilize it’s core “product” ? Additionally, advertising alone hasn’t been a sustainable revenue stream with broadcasting content online. (We’ve learned this from watching other media companies struggle with this. Hulu is no different)

So having created enough momentum in the market, Hulu is moving on to the next stage of figuring out where it goes from here.

With content we know one thing: Any extreme (paid-only or free) is not a scalable model. If paid-only was scalable, iTunes would have won that game for videos a long time ago.

Even with Hulu.com, I don’t think we’ll wake up in 2010 to find all content behind a paid-wall. But perhaps Hulu.com will charge a viewing fee for the older/ archived episodes of current shows or exclusive content. Which is fair because NYT and WSJ, both do the same. Or a Netflix.com like model where a flat subscription fee/month will earn users access to all of walled content on Hulu.com (or mobile content as Carey suggests)

Hulu has created a need in the market so even if it introduces a paid model, the need isn’t going to disappear. My only qualm with media companies is that once they set an expectation of “free”, they run the risk of upsetting their core audiences/ fans by introducing paid or walled content.

Hulu’s announcement is still pretty amorphous right now – we’ll have to wait and see how Hulu responds and if it is able to keep its core fans happy and engaged even with a paid model. From what we’ve seen from the company so far, I’m certain its fans won’t be disappointed. As an open and transparent media company, Hulu’s CEO has built trust and gained the respect of his fans and customers. I think if the paid/ subscription model is fair, Hulu fans will embrace it.

Just my two cents! Would love to hear your thoughts.