destinysm8o: People Making Money Online

After a week of on-and-off rumors about Google making an offer for Groupon, there are now multiple reports that the web giant is close to paying as much as $6 billion for the social-shopping service, which has been growing faster than just about any tech-related company in recent memory — including Google. If true, the deal would be almost twice the size of the search company’s largest acquisition ever (the $3.1-billion purchase of DoubleClick in 2007), and would be a gigantic bet on two trends that Google has so far failed to really take advantage of: namely, the movement of local advertising onto the web, and the rise of social behavior online.

Google’s $1.65-billion acquisition of YouTube in 2006 makes a good comparison for its apparent interest in Groupon: At the time, online video — and just as important, the sharing and embedding of that video — was clearly the future of the web, but Google was a tiny player in that market and wanted to get big quickly. So it paid what seemed like a massive amount of money at the time for the startup, and has spent the past few years trying to figure out how to monetize that content.

The nice part about Groupon is, while YouTube was located more towards the social end of the spectrum and less the monetization end, the group-buying service is a monetization machine — although one that is also socially oriented, since it takes advantage of consumers’ desire to trigger discounts by forming a group. Clearly one of the big attractions for any acquirer is the fact that Groupon is bringing in an estimated $50 million in revenue a month, and expects to close the year with more than half a billion dollars in sales. That’s after less than two years in existence.

Why has Groupon been able to grow so quickly? As I outline in my latest GigaOM Pro report (subscription required), the startup’s rapid success is a sign of how explosive the power of social media can be when applied to a revenue-generating idea like coupons. As co-founder and angel investor Eric Lefkofsky described in a recent interview about Groupon, the company (which was originally called The Point, and focused on connecting people around social issues and activism) didn’t really take off as a business until it married the viral nature of a group-buying offer with the desire by local retailers to reach out to potential customers. Email is the company’s primary method, but it’s also fueled by social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

More than anything, Groupon has been riding the social-advertising wave, which is something Google desperately wants to own. In many ways, it’s the next step beyond AdWords and AdSense: While those products involve advertising keywords that sit next to searches and capture surfers who are looking for information about specific topics, Groupon reaches out to people who may not even know they want the item yet. The company’s DoubleClick acquisition gave it control of banner advertising, but banners are the past; social advertising is the future. As Macquarie Research analyst Ben Schachter said in a research note this morning, the purchase “is about much more than Google generating revenue from emailed coupons — it’s about Google’s ability to potentially access and utilize the social graph for eCommerce.”

The other important aspect of the deal is that it is primarily focused on local or regional businesses. Groupon has also started promoting national deals of the kind it did with The Gap, but the company’s real power is in helping small and medium-sized retailers, restaurants and other merchants connect with customers directly, and boost demand for their services and products. That’s a market Google hasn’t been able to really capitalize on, despite attempts to do so through its Places feature. That was the rationale behind the web giant’s reported interest in buying Yelp — a deal which didn’t go forward, for unknown reasons — and it is driving its interest in Groupon as well.

What would web advertising look like if Google were to acquire Groupon? Instead of just keyword ads targeted to what you searched for, you could start to see offers directed specifically at your location, or based on things you have searched for in Google Places, or places you have checked in at through Google Latitude, or services you have rated via the web giant’s new and somewhat underwhelming Hotpot recommendation service. Google’s knowledge of algorithms could provide better matching and sorting of those deals, and the search company could also use the knowledge that it gains from Groupon’s millions of users and advertisers to fine-tune some of its other locally focused services.

In a recent interview, Don Rainey of Grotech Ventures — an investor in Groupon’s largest competitor, LivingSocial — talked about a future in which consumers and local businesses could participate in a kind of real-time auction-style marketplace for deals on products and services, so people looking for deals on dinner tonight could survey the offers from local restaurants and pick the ones they wanted, and merchants could fine-tune their offers based on real-time demand. That is one future that Google desperately wants to be part of, and $6 billion probably seems like a small price to pay for a seat at that table. For more on Groupon, please see my GigaOM Pro report.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

Why Google Should Fear the Social Web

Lessons From Twitter: How to Play Nice With Ecosystem Partners

What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s Open Platform

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Groupon and TechCrunch

It’s that magical time of the year when brand preferences are being lodged in the consumer psyche by any means necessary, be it free online shipping offers or conventional “doorbuster” style shopper stampedes. (Plus, in an admirable show of advance conditioning, there are those sidebar Four Loko-fueled parking lot brawls.)

But the romance of the brand is a notoriously ephemeral thing, as any casual survey of thrift-store Tickle-Me Elmo and Tamagotchi displays will promptly demonstrate. To do the job right, in this as in so many other realms, we would do well to heed the example of the Germans. As Bloomberg’s Chris Reiter reports, Deutschland’s Big Three automakers—BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (now a Volkswagen property)—have long been locked into a battle for the overtaxed attention spans of the youth market.

Back in February, Audi made a dramatic bid for high-end kiddie allegiance with a $13,300 model of a 1930s roadster, evidently calculating that a Weimar-era collectible is the perfect bridge to the true sturm-und-drang of a privileged adolescence. The model comes replete with “an aluminum frame, hydraulic brakes, seven speeds, leather-clad steering wheel, and oak dashboard,” and nearly sold out of its initial 500-unit manufacturing run, Reiter notes.

The idea behind such lush toy marketing, of course, is to instill intense brand-loyalty among the market’s littlest thought leaders. "Merchandising is important not because you can make huge money with it,” Audi sales chief Peter Schwarzenbauer tells Reiter, “but because it's another means of positioning your brand.” That means that Audi isn’t confining its initiatives to pint-sized drive trains, but is branching out to other durable badges of status, such as a $17,000-plus table soccer game—the idea here, evidently, being not so much to cultivate hooligan-style soccer fandom in the plutocratic young, but rather to inculcate the more genteel and respectable habit of full-scale team ownership.

It’s true that Audi isn’t neglecting more downmarket kiddie consumers in its push, with a $60 branded teddy bear and a $400 red-plastic version of the roadster; here, the functional array of model accessories include “an adjustable rollover bar, hand brake, over-sized tires with Audi-style rims, and padded seats.” But the main event is clearly the scrum for top-line market cachet, which is why Audi’s rivals are stepping up their game. Mercedes, for instance, is planning a spring rollout for “the foot-powered SLS Bobby-Benz, featuring headlights, grill, and rear end similar to those of the company's $183,000 SLS sportscar. The toy SLS features quiet-running tires, an Ackermann steering system with tight cornering for living-room maneuverability, and a steering wheel that absorbs impact to prevent injury in the event of a collision.” The model will boast a comparatively modest $120 asking price—but that loss-leader price point is a small sacrifice when you’re grooming future six-figure auto customers. "All the products have to live up to Mercedes' standards for quality and safety—especially our toys, which are all-time favorites with the next generation of Mercedes-Benz customers," reports Christian Boucke, who heads up the Benz accessories division.

BMW, meanwhile, appears to be the most horizontally minded lifestyle competitor in the luxe-branded market, brandishing a wide panoply of gear from a $460 kid-scale version of its M3 GT2 race car to a pair of $50 rain boots. The Beamer accessories division also turns a healthy 7 percentish profit—even though its brand-keepers, too, stress their real stake is in the longer-term loyalty game. “We are first and foremost a marketing initiative, and the main objectives are to broaden the brand's presence and strengthen loyalty," says Thomas Goerdt, who directs BMW’s distinctly un-German-sounding merchandising and lifestyle unit.

Still, the great risk of too-rampant accessory branding is market saturation—which is why Michel Gabriel, a branding specialist who has advised past Audi projectS, draws the line at underwear, even though “a lot of money can be made from a product” aimed at the intimate end of the brand market.

We can’t help thinking, though, that the Grosse Drei auto barons are selling short tomorrow’s financial titans with mere miniature knockoffs of luxury rides—and not just because their British competitor, Aston Martin, still owns the highest tip of the market with a Volante Junior model fetching a cool $24,000 with a devoted consumer base of young royals—who have duly gone on to modify their fullscale Astons to run on wine.

After all, the lesson of branding the world over is that a truly consummate brand eventually eclipses its mere material referent—hence the power of the glyphlike Nike swoosh (which only cost the firm $35 when design student Carolyn Davidson submitted in in 1971), or the “i”-themed Mac brand interface. Likewise, the business model for Mercedes has involved coaxing lavish multimillion-dollar subsidies from U.S. lawmakers at the same time it’s presented itself as an above-the-fray survivor of the 2008 global auto downturn.

Likewise, BMW has briskly seen to it that influential state congressional delegations have placed its own export interests ahead of the bailed-out U.S. auto industry—while Audi’s corporate parent Volkswagen has at least been candid in soliciting U.S. bailout funds, while also putting in for homeland funds to shore up its rickety loan operation. (Needless to say, this corporate pursuit of public-sector handouts doesn’t seem to have softened VW’s stand on American union drives, since like other foreign automakers, it’s expanded operations in anti-union right-to-work states to evade higher labor costs at home.) All of which is to say that, if doting plutocratic parents are looking to instill formative brand preferences this holiday season, nothing says “heed daddy’s example” like a simple, influence-subsidized government check. And Lord knows that for the properly connected family or industry, a good government kickback is about as hard to obtain as a pair BMW rain boots.

You, valued and valuable reader, are invited to join Chris Lehmann and your other fellow rich people to celebrate the publication of Rich People Things, this Thursday, December 2nd, at Le Poisson Rouge in New York City, from 7 to 9 p.m. There will even be a brief chit-chat with Thomas Frank and Maureen "Moe" Tkacik.

eric seiger do

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

People Making Money Online

No comments:

Post a Comment