Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘FaceBook’

Article from NYTimes.

“What if you threw a $41 million party and nobody came? A start-up company called Color knows how that feels.

In March, Color unveiled its photo-sharing cellphone application — and revealed that it had raised $41 million from investors before the app had a single user. Despite the company’s riches, the app landed with a thud, attracting few users and many complaints from those who did try it.

“It would be pointless even if I managed to understand how it works,” one reviewer wrote in the Apple App Store.

Since then, Color has become a warning sign for investors, entrepreneurs and analysts who fear there is a bubble in start-up investing. They say it shows that venture capitalists, desperate to invest in the next Facebook or LinkedIn, are blindly throwing money at start-ups that have not shown they can build something useful, much less a business that can provide decent returns on investment.

Color, which says it is overhauling its app, is just one of the start-ups that have set tongues wagging about bubbly excess in Silicon Valley. The Melt plans to sell grilled-cheese sandwiches and soup that people can order from their mobile phones. It raised about $15 million from Sequoia Capital, which also invested in Color.

Airbnb, which helps people rent rooms in their homes, is raising venture capital that would value it at a billion dollars. Scoopon, a kind of Groupon for Australians, raised $80 million; Juice in the City, a Groupon for mothers, raised $6 million; and Scvngr, which started a Groupon for gamers, raised $15 million. These could, of course, turn out to be successful businesses. The worry, investors say, is the prices.

They say they have paid two to three times more for their stakes in such start-ups over the past year. According to the National Venture Capital Association, venture capitalists invested $5.9 billion in the first three months of the year, up 14 percent from the period a year earlier, but they invested in 51 fewer companies, indicating they were funneling more money into fewer start-ups.

“The big success stories — Facebook, Zynga and Twitter — are leading to investing in ideas on a napkin, because no one wants to miss out on the next big thing,” said Eric Lefkofsky, a founder of Groupon who also runs Lightbank, a Chicago-based venture fund with a $100 million coffer.

A decade ago, in the first surge of Internet investing, it was not unusual for tech start-ups to raise tens of millions of dollars before they had revenue, a product or users. But venture capitalists became more cautious after the bubble burst and the 2008 recession paralyzed Silicon Valley.

Meanwhile, it now costs less than ever to build a Web site or mobile app. So this time around the general philosophy has been to start small.

“By starting out lean, you have the chance to know if you’re on to something,” said Mark Suster, a managing director at GRP Partners. “If you start fat and the product concept doesn’t work, inherently the company will lose a lot of money.”

Two of Color’s photo-sharing competitors, Instagram and PicPlz, exemplify the lean start-up ethos. They started with $500,000 and $350,000, respectively, and teams of just a few people. As they have introduced successful products and attracted users, they have slowly raised more money and hired engineers.

Color, meanwhile, spent $350,000 to buy the Web address color.com, and an additional $75,000 to buy colour.com. It rents a cavernous office in downtown Palo Alto, where 38 employees work in a space with room for 160, amid beanbag chairs, tents for napping and a hand-built half-pipe skateboard ramp.

Bill Nguyen, Color’s always-smiling founder, has hired a team of expensive engineers, like D. J. Patil, a former chief scientist at LinkedIn.

“If I knew a better way of doing it, I would, but that’s what my cost structure is,” Mr. Nguyen said in an interview last week.

Michael Krupka, a managing director at Bain Capital Ventures and one of Color’s investors, said Color needed to raise a lot of money because it planned to do much more than photo-sharing.”

Read complete article here.

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

“The lofty language in Groupon’s initial public offering filing is prompting comparisons to Google’s highly anticipated premier seven years ago, as are the lofty valuations.

Various sources have pegged Groupon’s implied worth at $20 billion to $30 billion, dropping it squarely in the neighborhood of Google’s $27 billion at the time of its 2004 IPO.

Groupon is a fast-growing business, luring 83 million subscribers to its daily deal e-mails in 2 1/2 years. And it might end up a perfectly solid one. But for one simple reason and a lot of complicated ones, Groupon is no Google.

Here’s the simple one: Google reinvented an industry. Groupon tweaked one.

There are limits on how transformative a force the Chicago company can ever be, at least pursuing its current business model.

Why?

Strip away all the hope and hype surrounding Groupon and you’re left with this: It’s a coupon company. Its major innovation was to distribute them through e-mail instead of the Sunday paper.

Granted, Groupon does this very well, with a colorful corporate culture that has deservedly won it plenty of fans and attention. Andrew Mason is one of the most refreshing, entertaining and straightforward CEOs in the last decade. His letter in the IPO filing last week carried loud echoes of the “Don’t Be Evil” sentiment in Google’s S-1.

“We want the time people spend with Groupon to be memorable,” he wrote. “Life is too short to be a boring company.”

He added that the business is “better positioned than any company in history to reshape local commerce.”

But coupons have long had limited appeal among retailers and consumers for very specific reasons, and thus restricted sway over the larger retail market.

Small fraction used

In 2010, marketers distributed $485 billion worth of consumer packaged goods coupons, according to a report by NCH Marketing Services. But only about 1 percent of coupons are actually redeemed.

Everyone will occasionally take advantage of a deal that lands in their lap (or inbox), or wait for a sale on a high-priced item. But it’s a limited subset of people who routinely start their shopping by thinking, what can I buy, do or eat that’s on sale. Most people, most of the time know the brand, model or service they want and go from there. There’s no particularly compelling evidence that this is changing.

Here then is a key difference with Google: Thanks to the query you enter into its search engine, Google knows what you’re interested in at the precise point you’re ready to buy, and serves up ads to match.

Even its worst critics acknowledge this revolutionized advertising, bringing to the marketplace a level of scale and targeting never before seen. It unleashed a tectonic shift in how businesses spent their marketing dollars.

Since then, the Internet giant has plowed its huge profits into cutting edge research and development, pushing ahead the fields of information retrieval, language translation, image recognition, satellite imagery, self-driving cars and much, much more. There’s simply an order of magnitude difference in the respective levels of imagination and innovation on display at the two companies.

Reticent retailers

Groupon does remove some of the traditional friction surrounding discounts, by directly delivering deals that are increasingly personalized, while also – not incidentally – eliminating the stigma and hassle of clipping coupons. But the real sandpaper remains on the retail side.

Coupons are typically loss leaders, the discount a business is willing to swallow in order to get new customers in the door. By definition, such marketing tactics can only ever represent a sliver of the retail pie.”

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

“As rumors of a pending Facebook/Spotify deal swirled, Mark Zuckerberg took the stage at the e-G8 Forum in Paris Wednesday and reasserted that he has no plans to become the CEO of an entertainment company.

“We don’t have the DNA to be a music company or a movie company,” Zuckerberg said in an onstage one-on-one with Publicis CEO Maurice Lévy.

The comments come just as Facebook is reported to have deepened its partnership with Sweden-based startup Spotify to roll out a more fully integrated music-streaming service within the social networking site, according to a Forbes report published Wednesday citing anonymous sources. The report claims the feature will be called either “Facebook Music” or “Spotify on Facebook.” The new service will reportedly not be available in the United States, as Spotify has not yet cleared regulations to be used in the US.

However, a source familiar with Spotify denied the deeper integration when reached by GigaOM. The company already has a “Spotify on Facebook” feature that allows Facebook users to share links to Spotify songs on their profile pages. A Facebook spokesperson responded similarly, telling me “there’s nothing new to announce” and pointing to the existing integration between the two companies. “Many of the most popular music services around the world are integrated with Facebook and we’re constantly talking to our partners about ways to improve these integrations,” the spokesperson said. Both Facebook and Spotify have separately raised funding from telecom mogul, Li Ka-Shing.

Whether the Spotify/Facebook rumor du jour is true or not, Facebook is clearly keen to get more immersed in the media and entertainment industries. At e-G8, Zuckerberg noted that while Facebook had no ambitions to move the company from Silicon Valley to Hollywood, entertainment companies could do well to take advantage of all that social networking has to offer. “I hope that we can play a part in enabling… the companies that are out there producing this great content to become more social,” he said. “We’re going to see a lot of the transformation in these industries over the next three, five years.””

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

Article by Middleberg Communications and The Society for New Communications Research (SNCR) released the Third Annual Survey of Media in the Wired World, a study detailing journalists’ use of social media.

Don Middleberg is a member of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital.

Journalists’ Use Of Facebook, Twitter, Blogs And Company Websites To Assist In Reporting Surges From 2009/2010 Study.

New York, NY – May 6, 2011 – Today, the Society of New Communications Research (SNCR) and Middleberg Communications announced the results of the 3rd Annual Survey of the Media in the Wired World led by SNCR Senior Fellow Don Middleberg and Jen McClure, president of the Society for New Communications Research. The study, supported by quantitative data gathered from 200 journalists, examined the effects and impact of social media, new media and communication technologies on modern journalism.

The study was released in a keynote address given today by Ms. McClure and Mr. Middleberg before the PRSA Digital Impact Conference.

The goals of the study were to:

– Determine how and why journalists use new media and communications tools

– Examine the frequency of use, preference for, and assess the value journalists place on these new tools and technologies

– Measure the impact new media and communications tools have on the way journalists work and solicit feedback on the perceptions journalists hold regarding the current trends in journalism

Of the 200 journalists surveyed, 90% were based in the U.S., 67% identified themselves to be either reporters or editors and most journalists’ surveyed worked in one of the following outlets: newspaper, radio, or television.

Key findings include:

– 75% of journalists use Facebook as a tool to assist in reporting, a 6% increase from 2010 study.

– 69% of journalists use Twitter as a tool to assist in reporting, a 21% increase from 2010 study.

– 68% of journalists believe that reliance on social media has increased significantly.

– 95% of journalists believe that social media can be a reliable tool for sourcing stories.

– 69% of journalists use mobile technology to search, use social networking apps, and capture videos and pictures for reporting.

Another goal of the study was to provide insights as to how public relations professional can understand these growing changes in modern journalism and how they can provide more value to the journalistic community.

Although social media is changing the profession of journalism by giving journalists new tools to assist with reporting, many journalists still prefer traditional communication and relationship building: 53% still prefer receiving emails and 34% still prefer receiving information via phone. Conversely, one 1% of respondents stated that they would like to be contacted via Twitter or a direct message via a social network.

According to one survey respondent, “New media aren’t ending journalism, but they are changing it. Journalists should no longer expect to be the sole source of information, but rather a guide and curator of content from multiple sources. Journalists will need to develop skills to tend stories long after the ‘deadline’ has passed, since updates are ongoing . . .”

“This year’s study shows that journalists are increasingly using social media in their research, story development and reporting,” stated Jen McClure. “Social media tools and technologies are being used by journalists to monitor issues, stories and content even after a story has been published. The publication of the story is no longer the end result. Today, media organizations and journalists also must serve as curators of content, are looked to to drive conversations, and expected to provide information to keep the conversation going even after the story has been published.”

“This study provided some very important findings for those of us in public relations,” Don Middleberg adds. “It is interesting to see that mobile technology is used as a tool to aid reporting and that journalists are using it to help generate content on the go. Twitter usage is also increasing dramatically.
What it all boils down to is that journalists are communicating in a variety of channels. It is incumbent upon those of us in public relations to know each channel intimately so that we have increased communications enhanced by technology and social media.”

For full survey results, visit http://www.slideshare.net/sncr/how-are-media-journalism-evolving or see the PDF on the Middleberg Communications homepage.

About Middleberg Communications

Middleberg Communications is a full-service, independently owned public relations agency with specialized expertise in the consumer, corporate and financial services, media, and technology markets. The agency focuses on delivering tangible results that help clients grow their businesses. Hallmarks of the firm are smart, creative strategic thinking; targeted media relations; and unbridled enthusiasm for clients’ business goals, all supported by good old-fashioned hard work.

About the Society for New Communications Research (SNCR)

The Society for New Communications Research is a global nonprofit 501(c)(3) research and education foundation and think tank dedicated to the advanced study of new communications tools, technologies and emerging modes of communication, and their effect on traditional media, professional communications, business, culture and society. For more information about the Society for New Communications Research, visit http://www.sncr.org.

Read original post here.


Read Full Post »

Article from SF Gate.

“Facebook tapped a major public relations firm to plant negative stories about archrival Google’s competing services, the social-networking giant acknowledged after being effectively caught red-handed by an online news site.

The episode highlights the increasing friction between two of the most prominent companies in Silicon Valley as they battle over talent, acquisition targets and now public perception. It also underscores the growing importance of strategic communications in the competitive arsenal for information companies, whose success depends on winning the trust of users.

But largely, it’s an embarrassing backfire for Facebook, as the clumsy PR stunt has grabbed attention instead of the issue the company was hoping to spotlight.

“This allows Google to appear to be the good guys and Facebook the bad guys,” said Carl Howe, analyst with the Yankee Group.

In recent weeks, public relations firm Burson-Marsteller reportedly shopped around stories that raised privacy concerns about Google’s Social Circle service to influential voices, including USA Today reporters and privacy blogger Christopher Soghoian.

The plan began to unravel after Soghoian posted the pitch online, revealing that Burson had offered to help write and place an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Politico and elsewhere. USA Today followed up with a story suggesting the firm was engaged in a “whisper campaign” to spread negative news about Google and concluded that the claims were “largely untrue.”

The mystery remained about which client was behind the PR effort until the Daily Beast reported that Facebook, when confronted with evidence, had fessed up.

Facebook mostly defended its actions Thursday, saying no “smear” campaign was “authorized or intended.”

“Instead, we wanted third parties to verify that people did not approve of the collection and use of information from their accounts on Facebook and other services for inclusion in Google Social Circles,” the statement read. “We engaged Burson-Marsteller to focus attention on this issue, using publicly available information that could be independently verified by any media organization or analyst. The issues are serious and we should have presented them in a serious and transparent way.”

Social features

Google has increasingly been weaving social features into its services, notably adding “social search results” that include things like the public Twitter updates from a person’s connections that might be relevant to a given query. Google pays Twitter for that information feed.

The initial pitch from Burson claimed that Google is also scraping data from sites like Facebook, MySpace and Yahoo, and revealing secondary connections – say, the friends of your friends – without the permission of users. Google didn’t respond to inquiries from The Chronicle.

Facebook has been on the receiving end of plenty of privacy criticism itself for, among other things, increasing the amount of information that is accessible without asking permission from members.

Burson both defended and apologized for its role in the incident. The company said it was raising fair questions, but acknowledged that the approach “was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined.”

The fact that one tech company was pitching negative stories about another comes as little surprise to many journalists, but for the general public, it sheds a glaring and unflattering light on how parts of the industry operate. Big-league public relations is often a bare-knuckle affair, focused as much on bashing rivals as lauding oneself or clients.

Not uncommon

Different companies operate according to different standards, but it’s not uncommon for major businesses to attempt to draw the eyes of journalists to the questionable practices of rivals, by highlighting issues they might not have noticed or sharing damning documents.

“It is a staple of the political and public relations world to not only tell the attributes of your own client, but to voice the demerits of one’s opposition,” said Sam Singer, president of Singer Associates Inc., a crisis PR firm in San Francisco.

The major reason this incident became big news is that Burson didn’t disclose the client it was working for, a violation of standard industry practice, he said. The ethics policies of the Public Relations Society of America state that members shall: “Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.”

Journalists readily take the off-the-record bait, often without disclosing the source of the information, because the information helps them produce scoops or uncover new angles.

Reporters shouldn’t dismiss such information out of hand, because sometimes it’s the only way it can be obtained, but they shouldn’t simply run with it either, said Joe Skeel, executive director of the Society of Professional Journalists.

“It’s like any tip you get anywhere,” he said. “It’s incumbent on every journalist to check out the facts and make sure it’s credible before going forward.”

Read original here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »