RSS

Monthly Archives: April 2007

Technology Giveth, Technology Taketh Away

Few industries have benefited more from technological advances than the music industry. What, you say, nothing could be further from the truth! The music industry is reeling – CDs sales are dropping 20% per year and record chains are closing by the thousands – mostly thanks to consumers who continue to use the Internet (technology) to download music for free, despite the industry’s best legal efforts to stop them.

Well, yes, this is all true, but to understand the relationship between technology and the music industry, you have to step back and take a longer viewpoint.

Consider the industry in, say, 1870. At that time, there were only two ways to hear music – go to a concert hall, or play it yourself. Realistically, to hear professional musicians, you had to travel to a major city – probably in Europe but perhaps occasionally in New York as well – to see an opera or a great symphony. Of course, few people outside of these world capitals would ever dream of making such a trip. and 99% of the people who lived nearby couldn’t afford the price of admission anyway.

Then, in 1877, Thomas Edison invented the record player. Suddenly, you could hear the London Philharmonic in Detroit – in your own home no less. Of course, only those who could afford a record player could take advantage of such technology, but this single invention certainly expanded the listening audience for music massively.

Only a few years later, around 1900, Nikola Tesla (who later formed a popular hair-band in the 1980s), invented the radio. Suddenly, musicians had three options for plying their wares – concert halls, records, and radio.

In 1927, the Jazz Singer was released, the first “talkie”, or movie with sound. The first car radio was commercially available in 1930 (though not until the 1950s with FM). Early television broadcasts began in 1935. By the 1950s, department stores and elevators were filled with 24 hour a day with Muzak. In the late 1970s, cassette tapes made it possible to listen to recorded music in your car or even while walking around (the invention of the walkman). By the 1990s, however, cassettes and records had been replaced by compact discs.

Now think for a moment about the impact of all of these inventions. In 1870, the only ways to profit from the music industry were to either play it (a local and therefore limited business opportunity) or to publish it (sheet music). By 1990, technology had broadened the reach of the music industry immensely: records, cassettes, CDs, radio, car radio, tv, movies, and even elevators made the music industry ubiquitous an also highly profitable.

So you would expect that any head of a music label in 1990 would have been feeling pretty good about the future (if for no other reason than the fact that consumers were trading in their records and cassettes for CDs, or basically buying the same music all over again. Brilliant).

But what’s happened 17 years on? Well, in a word, technology killed the video star. Recordable CDs, peer-to-peer file sharing (like Napster), and Digital Rights Management (DRM) hacks, have enabled consumers to get whatever music they want, for free, with little danger of being caught by the music industry.

As a result, records stores are closing fast, sales are down, concert tickets are down, and suddenly the music industry is on its heels. Technology quickly gave birth to a myriad of opportunities for the music industry, but (as Moore’s Law would predict) even more quickly drove it to destruction.

Insofar as this is a blog about online advertising, let me know try to tie this to our beloved industry. Right now, we online advertisers generally feel rather high and mighty as we think of the “offline advertising world.” The old guard of marketing – yellow pages, Madison Avenue branding, newspapers – are all struggling as us 20 and 30-something newbies basically eat their lunch.

Companies like Google (and, in theory, Yahoo) are on top of the world. So much so that the old guard is starting to panic, with copyright infringement suits and allegations of anti-trust violations. And let’s keep in mind that online advertising was really only born around 1996, and didn’t hit its hay day until maybe 2003. So we’re talking about an industry that is at most 11 years old and has already become a multi-billion dollar business.

Which begs the question – is today our 1930, with years or new uses for online advertising ahead of us, or are we at 1990, at the precipice of a decline that we could never see coming, usurped by technology that somehow makes all of us obsolete?

Technology giveth, technology taketh away. Rest on your laurels at your own peril.

 

Ad Tech SF Observations

I cruised the exhibit hall this afternoon. After some good conversations with SEMers, VCs, and former colleagues, here are some of the more interesting snippets from the day:

1. “We paid for our booth in the first two hours” – A paid search bid management company.
2. “Most people who come up to us are asking ‘what do you do’.” – one of the top three Web analytics companies.
3. “We were outnumbered by Google employees 5 to 1” – An attendee at the Google party.
4. “MSN AdCenter is the best” – Me, after winning Office 2007 and Vista Ultimate at the MSN Party!
5. “The demographics of this conference are different than the Oil and Gas conference I was at last week” – a well-travelled friend.
6. “Where did all these lead generation companies come from anyway?” – A fellow recovering lead gen worker.
7. “They wouldn’t let me in without a company name, so I chose Megatopia” – a friend explaining the name on her badge.

Overall, I was impressed by the sheer size of the exhibit hall but underwhelmed by the number of interesting new companies I had never heard of.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 26, 2007 in ad-tech, adtech

 

None Too Timely Thoughts on Google-DoubleClick

Lots of people have been asking for my opinion on this one, so what better topic to (hopefully) get back into the rhythm of regular blogging.

Without further ado, six thoughts about this acquisition.

1. If MSN had paid $3B for DoubleClick . . . people would have laughed. But because Google bought them, this is a brilliant acquisition.

2. The “A” Word. I’m amazed that only now are competitors starting to band about the “anti-trust” word when it comes to Google. As has been oft-discussed in this blog, Google’s discriminatory pricing and product bundling could have brought up this issue many months ago.

3. Oil and Water. M&A experts will tell you that “culture clash” is often one of the hardest hurdles to overcome for a successful acquisition. This one is no exception. DoubleClick is a people-intensive company, Google is a technology-intensive company. No doubt Google will want to run DoubleClick it’s way. There is going to be some friction initially, trust me.

4. If I was a DoubleClick employee . . . I’d be pretty happy today, as my options are suddenly worth a lot more than they were a month ago. I’d also start polishing up my resume. Google employs computers, not people. There will be big layoffs at DoubleClick.

5. Google must buy their way into traditional markets. There was a time – say two years ago – where Google thought that all they needed to do was come up with cool technology and they would quickly conquer whatever market they were going after. No more. This acquisition (along with deals with TV companies, newspapers, etc) signals that Google recognizes that the old guard isn’t going to just accept Google as their new overlord. Fine, says Google, we have a lot of cash on hand, we’ll just buy our way in. Very smart.

6. Isn’t it a commodity? One thing I don’t understand about this deal is the actual value of DoubleClick technology. To me, ad serving seems to almost be a commodity these days – I’ve looked at this stuff a few times and I have a hard time telling Zedo, 24/7 and DoubleClick apart. In fact, the best argument I’ve ever heard for choosing DoubleClick was “we’re the industry leader.” It’s kind of like acquiring C&H Sugar for their refining process.

7. Overall score card. Overall, I like the acquisition. It just shows that Google is still hungry and that they have no intention of resting on their laurels. Frankly, whenever your company starts to get accused of violating anti-trust laws, you know that your competitors are really worried, and for good reason.