Hi, sorry that the blog's been a bit slow, back in book-writing mode, will have more soon.

On a personal note I couldn't be more happy that after pioneering serious blog journalism on the business of media Rafat Ali's ContentNext is being acquired by the Guardian Media Group for north of USD 3o million, according to Dow Jones' All Things Digital blog (and of course it's very appropriate that Dow Jones returns the favor to Rafat after his many scoops on them). Rafat's worked very hard for this moment and had the wisdom to assemble a great team to help him make it happen. The story seems to be that contentNext will remain an independent product with the Guardian helping to provide growth and outlets for its content and events for professionals.

That's the key point to remember about this acquisition: it's not really a "blog acquisition." Rafat Ali started with a relatively simple blog structure but he focused early on broadening the mission of the publication as a source of serious trade journalism and on attracting a global clientele of serious media business people to his content and his events that made it far more like a traditional B2B trade publication with a strong events component than a blog without a magazine. That's hardly a bad thing, but from an acquisitions standpoint this is really about a traditional publishing group broadening its portfolio with a B2B play that just happens to have started life using blogging technology. ContentNext puts together great events, has great industry reporting and was smart enough to do all with from day one useing Web-based publishing and marketing methods. In fact there's no reason why a publication stable like ContentNext couldn't add a print component and be entirely successful - though it's not likely any time soon.

The real question isn't why ContentNext got a fairly healthy multiple for its operations but rather why more B2B publications don't look more aggressively at acquiring born-on-the-web publications that can help them to trim down to similarly responsive and profitable proportions. The worst enemy that B2B trade journalism has is the legacy of born-in-print executives who are trying to find a place to employ their dated skill sets in the digital age - and dragging down the long-term profitability of B2B media in the process. With a core publication family like ContentNext under its belt the Guardian Media Group has a publishing team that's successful in its own right but which can also provide a blueprint for managing B2B media successfully for years to come in other market sectors. Getting a team that does it the right way already may be a better option in many instances to provide existing internal Web operations a model to follow.

In the meantime, congratulations to Rafat and to all of the great people at ContentNext - enjoy every moment of it.

Labels: contentnext, paidcontent.org, rafat ali

Currently I am working on Chapter 6 of Content Nation, which focuses on the impact of social media on politics. It seems only appropriate to be doing this on our nation's Independence Day. Below I share you a video that celebrates how content was such an important part of the story of that fabled day in 1776. For those of you celebrating today, have a great day!

Labels: content, freedom, independence day, politics

LinkedIn's growing success is both admired and feared by many in the content business, but the rap against them for quite some time has been, "Well, yeah, but where's the monetization?" In truth LinkedIn has been growing revenues steadily through traditional brand ads, partnerships and payments for premium services. But with two key moves LinkedIn is raising the bar on its prospects for revenues - and for a potential exit at a more appreciable price.

The fist LinkedIn initative is its new DirectAds service, which enables LinkedIn members with profiles to produce simple text ads on a self-service basis that can appear in other members' profile pages. Similar in overall concept to Facebook's SocialAds program - a link to the advertiser's profile appears in each ad to ensure that marketing is on a conversational basis with a known entitiy - DirectAds has the added benefit of being able to target executive peers in the LinkedIn network with a great deal of granularity - and charges healthy but affordable minimum rates to do so - a $25 minimum for a flight of ads, with impressions based on a variable formula. Filtering options include many of the criteria found in a typical member's profile, including the ability to limit ads to specific geographic regions.

The potential for DirectAds is very strong within LinkedIn itself, but it also has the potential to provide B2B publishers with some real concerns as this evolves. Though there is no announced plan to take DirectAds off-site into other publishing venues, certainly classifieds in B2B journals and Web sites could be easily targeted by LinkedIn with its extensive network of top-shelf executives and salespeople. More importantly, it's not too hard to imagine that a B2B publisher seeking revenues from companies trying to get a message through to very specific executives would jump at the chance to use DirectAds to get rates far higher than classifieds for its very targeted profiling capbilities. In very tightly knit B2B communities DirectAds would play very well in B2B publishing venues. Technologically, it would not be hard to implement at all - it would only take enabling a B2B publishing site with Google's OpenSocial API. With such a combination DirectAds would have a Google AdWords/AdSense revenue combo for on-site/off-site revenues that could be impressive indeed. If done properly - hopefully avoiding Facebook's pratfall with its Beacon program that released private data in a user-unfriendly manner - this has the potential to be to B2B publishing what Google was to consumer publishing, turning advertising into relationship building with one click of the mouse. With its potential for ultra-precise targeting, it could put somewhat of a dent in marketing lists services as well in time.

The other interesting new program at LinkedIn is the LinkedIn Research Network, which leverages some of the concepts that it employed in LinkedIn Answers to provide a tool that can enable executives to conduct peer-to-peer industry research. As in LinkedIn Answers members of LinkedIn can pose questions to peers in the LinkedIn network, using LinkedIn's extensive structured and unstructured member profile data to zero in on just the right people to target for questions. The Research Network provides its users with a workbench to monitor responses to questions and to in effect build research panel who can be contacted for additional questions.

The revenue hook in Linked in Research Network is its use of LinkedIn's private InMail network to contact members. Members may use InMail for contacting up to 20 people at a time, presumably to cut down on "spam" research requests and presumably to make it easier to meter the pricing to a reasonable block of minimum requests. Of course, one can sign up for InMail at any number of premium levels, so the real hook is to promote InMail premium subscription revenues as much as possible. Given that the demo video was intent on saying that this product was targeted primarily at financial industry analysts trying to contact experts in companies and market sectors, perhaps their initial expectations for its use are limited. But clearly its ability to combine the art of research into the art of marketing will make this a popular option for many over time.

With both of these options LinkedIn is taking a relatively low-key approach to product development, moving relatively slowly to ensure that their most valuable asset - the trust and security that the LinkedIn system of opt-in relationships has protected through its development - will not be tainted or abused. Executives are a conservative bunch when it comes to dealing with their personal reputations, but LinkedIn has proved to more than 20 million professionals so far that it is by and large a very trustworthy environment. With that trust as a primary asset, it's likely that LinkedIn has set the stage for some solid revenue development that is likely to upend a few B2B applecarts in the long run. For the time being, though LinkedIn is just at the begininning of what promises to be a long battle for the rights to what professionals value most in carrying out their business - trusted relationships that can yield revenues.

Labels: advertising, financial information, LinkedIn, Monetization, Research

It seems like only a few weeks ago that I was blogging about semantic search startup Powerset's soft-launch beta. In fact, it WAS only six weeks ago that we were covering Poweret's soft launch of new semantic search technology. But in that six weeks Barney Pell's crew got in a ton of good PR and a few meetings that have already resulted in a USD 100 million exit into the hands of Microsoft, according to VentureBeat. It wasn't so many years ago that Barney was a part of the bumpy exit of WhizBang Labs and its Web mining technologies. This time around his team was well ahead of the burn rate and blessed with both a good idea and good timing. With tons of cash on hand after their war chest for a Yahoo acquisition Microsoft was ready to vent by spending some large (or, for them, small) at the deals mall to pump up its search for more advertising revenues.

Given Powerset's ability to parse natural language questions as well as to provide "factz" topic clusters that could draw in related content, the target for Microsoft has to be the revived Ask.com portal as much as Google's leading search engine. Already Microsoft's Live.com search engine provides rich search results that emulate Ask's more user-friendly approach to search-driven content aggregation, but Ask still manages more meaningful responses based on natural language queries. Better front-end parsing and clustering of results terms from Powerset's technologies would certainly help Live to get more relevant and rich results that could help to build a larger audience, though how Powerset's technology will fare in absorbing Web content lacking the encyclopedic style of it's trial Wikipedia content remains to be seen. On most test queries using natural language questions one finds Google to be at least or more relevant in its results than existing major search engines, so even with new semantic technology Microsoft has its work cut out for them.

A better match for Powerset might be found on the enterprise side of Microsoft's offerings, where its recently acquired FAST enterprise search technology may benefit from some extra semantic search and clustering mojo - and find somewhat more structured content sources against which to apply semantic algorithms. That's not to say that Powerset won't succeed with open Web content, but in general semantic search technologies are most easily tuned when they're digesting documents with relatively similar styles. It would seem that this would be easier to tune to an individual enterprise's needs overall than to a world of Web content that could be in any shape at any time.

A better question might be why Microsoft hasn't considered purchasing Answers.com if they are so interested in natural language queries. With millions of pre-formed questions already in its WikiAnswers database many natural language questions map very neatly to its answer sets. In other words, sometimes the best answer to a full-sentence is a person who understood the question in all of its semantic details and has already provided the answer. This is far from a goof-proof solution to semantic search, but it's an approach worth considering as a valuable supplement to semantic document parsing.

In any event the Powerset set now finds itself in the enviable position of having sold their ship before it ever went down the launching track into the waters. That's certainly more than a few publishing portals can say these days. Congratulations to Barney and all of the other rocket scientists at Powerset - it pays to have a technology that solves a problem that companies with deep pockets are ready to get their hands on.

Labels: Deals Partnerships and Sales, Microsoft, powerset, Semantic Web, Wikianswers

The New York Stock Exchange has been careful through the years to keep feeds of trading data released to public media outlets hobbled with a fifteen-minute delay - in part to protect its revenues from financial institutions being charged for real-time data and in part to offer their member firms an information advantage that would help them have an upper hand with retail investors. But with most of NYSE's competitors being far more lax about releasing real-time trade reports and the definition of "real-time" having changed with powerful new low-latency trading systems for professional traders NYSE has re-evaluated its position on real-time trade reports for the public. Today NYSE Euronext launched its "Realtime Stock Prices" product for media, allowing unlimited distribution of real-time quotes to the public without tracking individual use. The product requires a distributor to pay an undisclosed bulk fee for the rights to public data distribution.

With NYSE's share of securities trading slipping and it's reputation as a market friendly to small investors slipping along with it real-time quotes from the public should have been a default position years ago, as we've argued oftentimes in ContentBlogger. Today's retail investors have more options than ever for making money in the markets, with NYSE's stumbling "blue chip" stocks being far from the most attractive alternatives for many. Forcing people to pay for real-time trade reports was only discouraging further participation in NYSE equities markets by retail investors - especially when other exchanges seeking market share were more than glad to use market data as a lure to new traders.

CNBC has long been a leader in public market data - I led the development and installation of their first delayed data system years ago for Quotron - so it's expected that they've opted to be on the edge of NYSE's release of this product. But the other announced client - Google - is one that was expected also but one that couldn't have come at a worse time for Yahoo. Real-time quotes from NYSE have been available from Yahoo at a premium for many years, so in a time when they have been trying to look plump to acquirers it's not surprising that they didn't opt to give up their NYSE quote revenues ("back door" real-time quotes from private electronic markets on Yahoo aren't strongly representative of the full market). So by default the go-ahead went to Google, whose Google Finance portal has become a very strong content offering. If nothing else the public knowledge that full NYSE real-time quotes are available at Google will provide some needed publicity for Google Finance at a time when Yahoo is slow to give up existing revenues.

I would hardly be alone in chastising NYSE for dragging their heels on releasing real-time quotes to the public, but it's sad that it has taken this long to get NYSE to make this move. It is, unfortunately, a familiar refrain in the content industry: major institution covets proprietary content revenues, squeezes them out for as long as possible while the markets move to find both acceptable substitutes and better ways of doing business. Publishing is in essence a very conservative business, so it's not surprising that NYSE would try to keep this formula going for so long. But in an era when the buyers of securities have and demand information at least as good as most selling institutions failing to serve the buy side in financial markets effectively is to ignore the fundamental shift in the content industry that empowers people with independent access to content from around the world. Your content may seem safe as a proprietary asset, but if it's not driving your clients' profits in its most valuable user-defined contexts it is far from a safe bet in today's content markets.

Labels: CNBC, financial information, Google, new york stock exchange, NYSE, stocks, Yahoo

The mobile phone world was a-twitter with word that Nokia has purchased mobile software maker Symbian and will make the core of its software an open source resource some time later this year via a new Symbian Foundation, with other open-source assets to follow. Engadget notes that the Symbian foundation will include many of the mobile industry's biggest names and will include technology donated from both Nokia and many others, including Motorola, Sony Ericsson and NTT DoCoM. Other members will include Texas Instruments, Vodafone, Samsung, LG, and, interestingly, AT&T, which has had great success as of late with the proprietary Apple iPhone platform.

Clearly the impending launch of Google's open source Andriod mobile platform, delayed in launch until the fall but looming nevertheless, has forced the hand of mobile equipment providers and network operators to consider the potential impact of having their highly proprietary approaches to mobile technologies "googled" away to the demand for more common mobile standards for software to power more content services development. By creating a common core of technologies based on a company with which it's had a long-standing relationship Nokia gets to expand the value of their knowledge of the platform in a way that may transform their business model over time from one of manufacturing to one of enabling systems development. Given the demand for mobile services in developing nations this will enable companies like Nokia to have a hand in those markets without having to bear the full cost of either hardware or software development through the Foundation's partner network.

But more importantly for the content industry this puts at least as much pressure on providers Microsoft, Palm, Apple and Research in Motion to recognize that there is ever more pressure on proprietary operating system solutions to justify their ways. With speed wireless broadband network services opening up the Web to mobile devices the ability to deliver platform-specific content services will become icing on the cake for those who want new status toys but for the bread-and-butter corprorate worker or mobile entrepreneurs and family members it may take more than just a few proprietary services and a delightful interface to keep people locked into a proprietary platform. For content suppliers looking for new "choke points" via proprietary platforms the short-term news via suppliers like Microsoft, RIM and Apple looks good, but the picture over the horizon is likely to look vastly different in less than a year. Be it via the Symbian Foundation or Android platforms, publishers need to stop looking again and again for new ways to activate old business models via mobile platforms and look far more aggressively at how they will survive and thrive in a world enabled with open and universal access to Web-enabled content sources.

Labels: Android, AT+T, Google, mobile, nokia, open source, RIM

A day that highlights world financial giant Citigroup's layoff of about ten percent of its workforce is a somewhat odd time to be running a profile of Thomson Reuters, but The New York Times has done just that. The article is entitled "The New Fight for Financial News," but of course the battle between Bloomberg and its perennial rivals now combined into a single company is fought on may levels well beyond the news front. Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer likens Bloomberg in the article to the equivalent of Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic airline shaking up the marketplace for transatlantic flights in the 1990s, an apt analogy on at least two levels. It's apt in the sense that Bloomberg forced its competition into many radical and painful changes to keep up with its growing market share - the new combined Thomson Reuters entity is just about toe-to-toe with Bloomberg for its piece of the financial information marketplace - but also apt in the sense that there's a new generation of competition that's putting both the financial information marketplace and the airlines on alert.

That new generation is not necessarily of the same type and heritage as either Thomson Reuters or Bloomberg. What impressed me most at the recent SIFMA conference and expo in New York was how the traditional financial information vendors are receding into the background as the technologists are coming to the fore. The exhibition floors were chockablock with networking technologies this year, both for low-latency automated trading services and for more general information and trade execution network services from vendors such as BT Radianz. Cloud computing was also on display at the SIFMA show from Salesforce.com, with a more aggressive and extensive display of its capabilities to support brokerage marketing operations. Also noteworthy was SDS Financial Technologies' moves to support more automated crossing networks for commodities and futures trading, helping to reduce execution costs and liquidity problems for a marketplace still tied to many face-to-face trading pits.

So while companies like Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg are going to continue to try to dominate on the desktops of investment bankers and portfolio managers for the foreseeable future, a lot of the action in financial information is taking place well away from the desktop and in the bowels of computer networks that support securities trading and sales. Not all of these stories are about the dominance of the Web as the cloud of choice - the financial marketplace has many specialized networks that support its sophisticated information-driven marketplaces - but certainly the concept of cloud computing popularized by the Web in which desktop technology is just an interface to sophisticated services from potentially any network providing information and execution services. Certainly the robust trading floor technologies developed in the past few decades will continue to be a part of this mix but with today's cutbacks by Citigroup serves as a reminder that we may be nearing the end of the era of big investment bank trading floors as the driver for measuring the success of financial information services.

With more and more workflows in securities trading having become fully automated in recent years it's not clear that the desktop-oriented services of companies like Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg are going to work out in the long run for high-growth information services. Instead, it's far more likely that more and more network-oriented "cloud computing" services are going to subsume more and more profitable parts of securities transaction support while information suppliers find an increasingly narrow range of clientele ready to spend handsomely on major desktop integration services. While the hedge fund trading of recent years hit speed bumps in recent months much as programmed trading caused hiccups in the 1987 crash, the ability of a small team of hedge fund managers to build dominant positions in a marketplace by mining information aggressively from alternative information sources not provided by traditional vendors should be a wakeup call to Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg that anyone can extract useful content from any cloud very quickly and effectively.

Major financial information vendors have had similar challenges in the past and have responded with valuable services to rebuild their position in the marketplace, but it's not clear to me that we're on another full-blown cycle towards that goal right now. I think that we're more likely to see cloud computing services gaining more and more power as they provide well-integrated information services to ever more concentrated and sophistated trading operations. I don't think that this means that Lehman Brothers will be moving back to its old South William Street HQ any time soon (now a cozy inn) but I think that we will be seeing the financial information industry looking more like it did in the 1950s than it did in the 1990s over the next ten years - with fewer and fewer direct product presences on trading floors and more and more integration into cloud computing services. There are opportunities there for Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg as well, of course, but perhaps not the types of opportunities that are driving their organizations today. In the meantime, congratulations to Tom for a great profile article.

Labels: Bloomberg, cloud computing, financial information, Salesforce.com, thomson reuters, tom glocer