Expedia Inc. said Monday it is slashing the number of shares in its planned buyback by 80% due to a lack of acceptable funding, sending shares down 8.3% to $26.90 in early trading.
YouTube under Google has been one long disappointment since the acquisition was announced last October. Where is the innovation, a better video converter and upload process, kick ass search, integration with other Google services?
Google seems to have been more concerned with copyright takedowns than creating a service that raises the bar for compelling content and integration of video into other services. And let’s face it, the takedowns are getting more outlandish as time goes on, from the 15 year old kid in Australia sending a fake takedown request to Universal demanding a woman’s video of her toddler dancing to a Prince song be taken down. Bottom line on the takedowns is that they are redefining fair use out of copyright law and it’s killing the service.
The video quality (as in technical quality as opposed to quality of content) is lagging on YouTube when compared to other services, such as MotionBox and DailyMotion, and that’s not even taking into account the remixing tools available on that service. Much of the video is itself poor quality and there’s not much they can do to improve it, but shouldn’t mean the technical capabilities only rise to the level of the lowest quality.
YouTube Streams is pretty cool but I’d really like to see this on top of a presentation service but that’s nowhere to be seen. SlideShare is a new service that does this and much more, and does it with a UI that beats the pants of anything YouTube is doing.
The social features that YouTube provides are stuck in 2004 with comments becoming unmanageable after a few dozen and a ratings system ridiculously easy to game. The search features, which should be a slam dunk for Google, are primitive and don’t facilitate effective video search.
The copyright takedowns alone are killing this service and with Google having such deep pockets to plunder it’s no surprise that we’re seeing this become the most popular new feature in the service. Personally, I’d like Google to stand up and assert fair use but I’m not optimistic we’ll see that happen.
PS- The CNN*YouTube debates were lame. In fact, the YouTube preoccupation with politics is lame…
I was invited to a workshop at SAP’s Global Marketing office in NYC this week, the topic was social media strategy. This was a good opportunity to think about the topic at a high level.
I would break down social media into four major areas:
The blogging part is not the slam dunk that a lot of companies think it is. There are many demands for blogging channels coming from product groups, executive leadership, thought leaders, and "positive rogue" employees. Of all these the executive leadership blogs are least useful yet most often identified with corporate blogging initiatives. The product group and thought leaders categories are most productive in brand building and genuine information dissemination.
My suggestion to companies is that they skip the "CEO blog" for a couple of reasons, if for no other reason than people don’t trust CEOs to talk openly and honestly about a company. It’s been my experience that CEOs make terrible bloggers anyway because they talk in message points and not conversationally, are unwilling to address negative issues and problems, and most importantly, have little awareness of what is happening at lower levels in the company.
If your company is exploring adding blogs to the mix, focus attention on exposing product and customer support groups as a first priority. Among executives, the most interesting group to recruit are direct reports to senior executives as they are ambitious and engaged in day-to-day activities, which means that they have a lot to say that is interesting.
Don’t tell people they need to blog, instead recruit people who have a "voice" and are willing to commit the time over the duration as opposed to doing it for the first couple of weeks and then tapering off. Blogs don’t develop a readership immediately, it takes time and commitment from the people writing them.
Don’t mix personal and professional blogs on a company sponsored site. There are many low cost, or free, blogging platforms that anyone can simply sign up for and start blogging. Personal blogs on a company’s URL have several limitations, the most significant being potential embarassment to the company because of what the employee blogs about, but also becuase of the fact that a company branded personal blog is not transferable.
If that person develops a readership and following and then leaves the company they will lose that blog just as they would their company email address. A personal blog that an employee publishes on a company-sponsored domain imposes unreasonable risks with no corresponding return. Build recognition about product, marketplace, service, or program blogs.
The other half of the coin for blogging is what companies should do to promote third party blogs that center on a specific company or industry segment. Blogger outreach is not easy becuase it requires that a company let go of the notion of message control and focus on relationship building. Responding to comments in a non-marketing speak manner is key.
Twitter, and Pownce, offer some interesting new possibilities for corporate communication, and while in the early stages, there is still an opportunity for a company to get a foot in the door with little risk or exposure. These micro-blogging platforms allow for quick "snippets" of information to be published, indeed Twitter’s 140 character limit puts quite a test on linguistic creativity!
I think at a minimum companies should be looking at Twitter for conferences and events, as well as building awareness for new initiatives. If Microsoft had a Twitter profile they used to notify me of new initiatives, updates, and links to interesting content, well I would start following it.
Virtual worlds, such as Second Life, are established technologies at this point and comnpanies are finding that these worlds offering opportunities for positive interactions with everyone from employees to customers to influencers with low cost and rich interaction.
Facebook and Myspace have emerged as the dominant social networking platforms, however there are many to choose from and each offers a different attractor. Linkedin is a dominant professional network, Netvibes Universes appeals heavily to media companies because of the ability to prepackage content feeds (modules) and themes.
I’m really liking the social networks because of their inherent ability to spread information virally. Facebook groups are a great way to build a following around something not by tricking someone on clicking a link and providing information about themselves, but because someone say "hey, I actually want to make myself part of this".
We’re still in the early stages but companies like SAP are figuring out how to make these social media components a part of their bigger brand and marketing strategies. The most important observation I have is that these are the things people are doing because they are a good idea as opposed to being a salient business plan. The cost of experimenting with blogs, Twitter, and Facebook are so insignificant that it’s hard to argue that such initiatives actually merit a high degree of planning, and at any rate, overly slick facades absent of good intentions and meaningful content won’t really go over well anyway.
I lost a lot of money on Qwest, which I wrongly believed at the time was more insulated over the long term from the telecom meltdown than other providers. Part of the reason I believed that is because CEO Nacchio forcefully made that argument, of course in the end he was more concerned about one shareholder, himself, than the rest of us.
The fact that he has shown little remorse for the billions of lost shareholder dollars under his watch, and remains unrepentant about his significant part in it, well let’s just say I’m enjoying the news today.
It’s a sad thing when a man like Nacchio sees not only his career wash away, but a significant chunk of his wealth, and then puts on his family the humiliation that he alone should be burdened with. Sadder still is the thought that I, and many others, think he is getting what he deserves.
A federal judge today sentenced former Qwest Communications chief executive Joe Nacchio to six years in prison for insider trading.
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham also ordered Nacchio to forfeit $52 million in assets he gained in illegal stock sales, imposed a maximum $19 million fine and ordered him to serve two years’ probation after serving his sentence.