Posts by author:

Guest Author

By Byrne Hobart

DST has made big profits—and a bigger splash—by pioneering a new kind of deal. Traditional VC deals create a sort of adversarial relationship: venture capitalists can diversify their portfolios, and lean on LPs for additional capital; founders are expected to have an undiversified portfolio consisting of their initial stake in the company. This keeps founders hungry, and it keeps valuations under control.

DST has completely upended this relationship by writing massive checks to established companies—and by buying stock from founders and early shareholders, rather than just investing directly in the company.

This has had a few surprising effects:

  • It has inevitably raised the value of big social media sites. While Twitter didn’t take an investment from DST, the fact that DST was bidding surely raised the final price of their latest round.
  • It has allowed successful tech companies to stay private longer than they otherwise would have by giving companies (and founders) access to as much capital as they need.
  • It’s funded Facebook and Zynga’s continued expansion. Neither company is hurting for cash, of course, but there’s a big difference between reinvesting your profits and tapping an effectively bottomless well of capital.
  • It may have turned May into “Big Tech IPO Season.” Why? The 500-shareholder rule stipulates that companies with 500 or more shareholders at the end of a given fiscal year have 120 days to start filing financials (which, in almost all cases, means they’ll go public, too). Thanks to DST, big companies don’t need to go public until they reach that threshold. Once they do, they have 120 days to file. Facebook played to these regulations when it launched an offering at the start of the year. That gives them the maximum possible time to enjoy the benefits of 500+ shareholders (i.e. extra capital) without the costs (full disclosure). And Facebook won’t be the last. Thanks to DST, the 500-shareholder rule is the main reason for big, successful companies to go public.

DST and YCombinator are both powerful “second-derivative” forces in the startup ecosystem. They both push change to happen slightly faster, and in a marginally more efficient way. When we’re looking at such an integral part of the broader economy, though, that ends up having a massive end effect.

Of course, YCombinator and DST haven’t had any direct interaction. DST works with the largest of startups (where the limiting variable is scalability). YCombinator aims for the other end: funding startups that otherwise would not have launched, or would not have launched so effectively.

So far, YCombinator’s biggest exit has been Heroku, which was purchased for $212 million. That’s far lower than the valuation that DST is interested in. But YCombinator has a few other tricks up its sleeves—companies like AirBNB and Dropbox are rumored to be on track for higher valuations.

What YCombinator has done is this: it’s created an institution that, more than any other, is reputed to produce successful startups. Per-capita, YC alumni appear to have a better entrepreneurial reputation than alumni from, say, MIT, Stanford, or Google.

That’s why Yuri Milner and SV Angel have partnered together to throw more money at them. The ownership stake is fine, but that part of the deal might as well operate at breakeven. The real result:

  • SV Angel gets information on numerous early-stage startups, which it may choose to invest in.
  • YCombinator can afford to consider startups that need a longer runway—or startups whose idea is so absurd that it could take a while to get funded (with the caveat that, holding investor judgment constant, the more absurd an idea is the more likely it is to produce a massive success if it succeeds at all).
  • Forty of the year’s most promising startups will be able to raise a bigger Series A at a higher valuation—making it that much more likely that they’ll be DST material in a few years.

DST has access to as much capital as it needs. Right now, they need investment opportunities. Yuri Milner has identified the limiting reagent in startup formation: he can’t afford to pick early-stage startups, but he can take a group of pre-selected startups and radically increase their chances of a radical success. In a few years, count on DST doing some big deals with companies that raised their first $150K this way.

{ 1 comment }

Rahim Fazal is the CEO and co-founder of Involver, which provides applications and social marketing tools to over 125,000 brands on Facebook. Last week, Involver launched SML™: The World’s First Markup Language For Social Media.

Recently, in an article about her in Vogue, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg pointed out something very interesting about ad spending and why she believes Facebook is positioned to dominate a market she projects to be over $600 billion a year. While Google concentrates on demand fulfillment, which is the narrow end of the sales funnel and represents only 10 percent of all ad spending, Facebook is concerned with demand generation, the broader end of the funnel, where much more money is spent.


Facebook’s concentration on positive brand affiliation, as opposed to point-of-sale, where Google is focused–is more akin to the way broadcast works and potentially much more lucrative if social media can begin to draw the kinds of advertising dollars that television does. And Facebook has taken huge strides to create an environment where brand affiliation can take place, alongside the multiplicity of social interactions.

Right now the dominant context for demand generation is still television, representing close to 50% of all media spending, compared to about 10% for the Wb. http://www.printinthemix.rit.edu/fastfacts/show/350. Many people believe social media holds the potential to challenge and one day supplant television as the dominant medium for advertising. Television remains attractive because the audiences are still large, which means a greater potential for leads, but social media audiences are potentially much more valuable, as brand affiliation is integrated more deeply in the interactions.

What Are the Right Ad Formats for Social?

Let’s look at the two dominant ad formats and their relevancy in the social Wb. When it comes to demand generation, many brands are still using traditional IAB display formats, which have not proved to be very robust for creating leads and certainly have not attracted the kind of spending we’re talking about. The effectiveness of banner ads is measured in click-thoughs, which often take the user away from the experience they were there for, and why people find them annoying. Google Adwords, while more relevant contextually, are also defined by click rate, which is how Google makes its money. What’s missing from both of these formats, especially in the context of social media, is the potential to create engagement. Engagement is the biggest opportunity that social media has to offer brands, and therefore, display and text ad formats are less effective in the social Wb.

Instead of trying to overlay that space with messaging that might not be relevant to the user, it’s important to look at the criteria that have driven the success of social Wb experiences. While a display ad format is typically a jpeg image or rich media Flash animation of certain standard dimensions, a social media ad works better as an application that takes advantage of the social platform’s API set and can exist in several different formats. At Involver, our focus is primarily on the Facebook Fan Page, which is a 520 pixel wide format. But social media ads are about more than pixels, they’re about integrating with the media – the ad is also the experience.

Five Key Attributes of Social Media Ads

What makes Facebook so effective is that it puts the user at the center of the experience. For ads to be successful in this arena, brands need to pay attention to five attributes: personalization, share-ability, content-richness, context, and interactivity. Below these attributes are examined further with some examples:

Personalization – The Wb has moved towards more and more personalization. Platforms like Facebook put the user at the center of the experience, which is one of the most significant reasons people become captivated in social networks. So when brands communicate with customers in a way that creates a personalized (read: richer) experience, customers become more open to sharing their data, and brands can in turn use that data to create even higher levels of engagement and social media ad formats that are even more effective.

A great example is Wrigley’s 5React Gum, which attracted over 100,000 people to participate in a promotion requiring them to share their Facebook information. In exchange, users received access to an exclusive flash game dynamically personalized with the user’s own Facebook photos. People will volunteer their data if they know why they’re doing it and if it makes sense for them to do so. 5React Gum has nearly 4 million Likes on their Facebook page.

Share-ability – Incorporating sharing in the social media ad format can be powerful. Here, we are not referring to simply adding a share button, but rather making sharing part of the experience and tying it into pre-existing user behavior (see Interactivity below). A great example of this is a popular jeans company that created an application where a user can pick from a catalogue of jeans for the winter season. This triggers a personalized poll that can be shared with friends through the Facebook News Feed asking friends to pick which pair of jeans that person should buy.

Content-richness – Behavior on social networks typically involves consuming, interacting with, and sharing content. Content has become such an important part of the social Web that brands are becoming publishers in order to participate in the experience. Social media ad formats aren’t simply static files like their display counterparts, but rather rich and dynamic applications. Therefore, brands are creating whole teams of people in their organization that are responsible for producing and distributing content. This content can then be used to keep applications ever-green and extend the shelf-life of the social media ad format.

Interactivity – Unlike a traditional display banner ad, social media ad formats tend to be highly interactive and mimic the type of actions users are already taking.  Activities such as games or surveys or quizzes have therefore become very popular for brands to use in their campaigns. From a marketer’s perspective, interactivity drives sales, as it allows user to engage with the brand through multiple rungs in the engagement ladder or steps in the sales funnel. One reason social media ad formats are more effective than television ad formats is because they create active participation rather than passive engagement (think YouTube. While an online platform, YouTube is very passive).

Context – Unlike traditional display banner ads, where a marketer can produce one ad and display it on 10 or 20 or 30 different Web sites, the most effective social media ads are contextual to the experience. So while many of the branding assets might be the same, the application that produces the experience will be different on a Facebook Fan Page than it will be on an iPhone application or a Facebook Connect-enabled Website. Each end-point presents a unique opportunity to produce a branded experience, some stronger than others.

With mobile, for example, a marketer may wish to use location-based services or pull in someone’s contacts from their iPhone app. On a Facebook Fan Page, a marketer may wish to make the ad highly interactive, fun and quick, like a game, because the canvas-size is small.

Addressing the Challenge

The challenge right now to implementing these attributes is that applications leverage disparate technologies and are difficult to produce. What has been missing is the infrastructure to make these formats more accessible. At Involver, our approach has been to try and introduce a standardized set of tools and technologies that can be made available to the developer community to better enable them to produce these social media ad formats.

Social Markup Language, or SML™, democratizes social web development by putting the required tools and infrastructure in the hands of the development community. SML™ makes it simple for front-end developers with CSS/HTML/Javascript experience to build customized applications on platforms such as Facebook in days instead of weeks (similar to how Macromedia enabled developers with Flash for rich media ad formats). SML™  can potentially open up social media to deliver its promise as a mainstream tactic for marketers and accelerate investment in social platforms.

By effectively removing the barriers that have inhibited brands and agencies from entering this market, we believe spending by brands and agencies on digital media in general and applications in particular will continue to grow perhaps even faster than current predictions. http://www.penn-olson.com/2010/07/20/digital-ad-spending-to-grow-by-40-billion-forecast/

To find out more about Involver and SML™ visit http://involver.com/

{ 1 comment }

This post is written by Guest Author Byrne Hobart, a marketing consultant at NYC-based Blue Fountain Media. Blue Fountain Media helps clients with website design & development, online marketing, graphic & logo design and more.

A few months ago, it would have been fair to treat Zynga as a partially-owned subsidiary of Facebook. The big question for investors was how much Facebook ‘owned’. Since Facebook was Zynga’s platform—their sole source for new customers, and the only way existing customers worked with them—Facebook could theoretical “tax” Zynga, demand a change in strategy, or even shut it down. Owning shares of Zynga was a bet that Facebook would ignore them, lose to them, or buy them out (a situation analogous to Paypal before its eBay acquisition).

But in the last few months, that situation has changed completely.

It started in May: Zynga had an all-hands meeting in which they prepared to leave Facebook entirely.

Days later, they announced a settlement: Zynga will use Facebook credits, and Facebook will give them free advertising. This may have been one of the best pieces of corporate Jiu Jitsu in history: in a single deal, Zynga turned Facebook from a company that basically owned them into the company that gave them a torrent of cheap new users. That was the prior status quo.

But at the same time, Zynga was pushing those new users into interactions outside of the site:

  • FarmVille is one of the top 20 game Apps in the iTunes store.
  • Zynga’s poker app remains popular.
  • Zynga.com is the most popular game site on the Internet. According to Compete.com, it gets more traffic than gaming stalwarts like AddictingGames.com, Newgrounds.com, Miniclip.com, Pogo.com, and even games.yahoo.com (based on Alexa’s estimate of Yahoo’s subdomain traffic, and Compete’s estimate of Yahoo’s total traffic). It’s also an engaging site, with a high ratio of visits to unique visitors compared to other gaming sites (only Pogo is higher, and by a small margin).
  • Pogo.com is the second most popular game site; Farmville.com is third.
  • Farmville is marketing itself through 7-11.

And now, Google has invested at least $100mm in Zynga, and is preparing to launch “Google Games”. If there’s one company that can bring in more attention than Facebook, it’s Google (for the moment). As TechCrunch points out, that’s not the only benefit: Zynga will also have an opportunity to use Google Checkout instead of Facebook credits. Suddenly, their ultimatum from May got a lot more effective: it’s not a choice between Facebook and nothing, but a choice between two companies that can provide an almost equal amount of traffic.

The likely outcome: Zynga is too valuable a prize for either of them to risk. Zynga will be able to keep negotiating to keep an aggressive cut of the revenue their games generate, and they will be able to keep adding new online and offline partners. And of course, Zynga continues to learn more about user behavior, more quickly than their competitors.

Zynga’s competitive position has completely changed. For potential partners, they are a way to turn a large number of pageviews into 1) revenue, and 2) more pageviews. This makes them part of a tiny minority of web services that can be plugged into a wide variety of sites in order to make them more profitable. And if the other services—Amazon Associates, Google Adsense, and Paypal—are any indication, the result could be extremely profitable for Zynga.

{ 1 comment }

Playdom has raised $43 million to date and made six acquisitions, including Acclaim Games, and has just announced their intentions to expand into Europe. They plan to create localized versions of their game titles such as Mobsters, Tiki Resorts and Big City Life in French, Italian, German and Spanish by the end of this year.

The first game to be localized is Bola, the 41st most popular application on Facebook according to analytics firm AppData. In aggregate, Playdom has more than 38 million monthly active users (MAU) and is headquarters down the street from Google in Mountain View, with studios in Francisco, Calif.; Seattle, Wash.; Eugene, Ore.; Chapel Hill, NC; Buenos Aires, Argentina and in South Asia.

Zynga has 50 games with over 8 games with 1 million or more daily active users (DAU) and 11 ames with 1 million or more MAU. By comparison, Playdom only has 22 games and 1 game with 1 million or more DAU and 9 games with 1 million or more MAU. So putting an emphasis on European and international users may be the right strategy to grow their reach and compete with Zynga.

Here’s an interesting point, in the last 29 days Zynga lost 7 million DAU according to AppData, which is more than 8x the size of Playdom’s total DAU. So the question is, how much of an impact can this expansion into Europe really have for Playdom?  We’ll see.

{ 0 comments }

This post is written by Guest Author Byrne Hobart, a marketing consultant at NYC-based Blue Fountain Media. Blue Fountain Media helps clients with website design & development, online marketing, graphic & logo design and more.  In this post, Hobart explains in detail the metrics driving social gaming companies like Zynga and Playfish.
Traditional investment analysis tries to boil a company’s value down to some simple numbers, like earnings or free cash flow. On a slightly more advanced level, some industries have particular ratios that give a more detailed picture of a firm’s operations—in insurance, for example, the “combined ratio” measures a company’s operating efficiency; in trading, income divided by Value at Risk shows whether or not a firm is making safe bets.

In social gaming, the relevant number is different ratio: the company’s churn rate compared to their viral coefficient.

Churn rates are familiar to anyone who has analyzed a subscription-based business like cable television or phones: the churn rate is the percentage of customers who will stop using the product in a given month. In social gaming, that means the percentage of users who will stop playing a given game in a month. From the analyst’s perspective, every new customer is a rapidly ticking time-bomb; they’ll get bored fast, and move on to another game. Some social games have churn rates of 50% per month, or more; if their revenue per user is $5, and the churn rate is 50%, the expected value of each new user is $10 ($5 + $2.50 + $1.25… technically, you would discount these future values based the time-value of money, but since the relevant numbers are in the first few months, it’s not worth it).

The viral coefficient is in some ways the opposite of the churn rate: it’s average organic growth rate in users in a given month. If 100 Farmville users are likely to cause five of their friends to join in a given month, that’s a viral coefficient of 1.05.

Combine these two numbers, and you have the “Expected user-months per new user”—for each user, the total number of months you expect to be played by that user, plus the people they recruit.

In the case of a 50% churn rate and a viral coefficient of 1.05, this means each new player is expected to generate 2.10 months of play time. At a viral coefficient of 1.10, that number jumps to 2.22. At a churn rate of 40% instead of 50%, and a coefficient of 1.1, the number of player-months per new player is 2.92. Keep in mind that these increases can be multiplied by the game’s average monthly revenue per active user. In other words, a bump in player-months per new player adds directly to revenue, at a gross margin of basically 100%.

One thing this illustrates is the strong economies of scale in the social gaming industry. Zynga can afford to invest millions of dollars in making Treasure Isle marginally more addictive; going from 2.10 months of play to 2.92 months of play on a userbase in the millions will more than pay for itself. And the techniques a company develops in one game can be easily applied to others (while the biggest games are months or years old, the biggest launches are more recent).

Finally, quantifying this number can also show a company when it makes sense to start spending money to acquire new users. There’s a reason Zynga can afford to blanket Facebook in ads—once they’ve figured out the average value of buying one new user, they can fine-tune their bids to maximize profitability.

A more robust model would also consider the total size of the market. Even a massively popular game like Farmville can eventually reach all the people it’s able to reach; while it might take several Farmville requests before a given user signs up, but after a certain point they’ll be desensitized. Thus, a site with high virality and high churn will peak faster and fall faster than a site with low virality and low churn, simply because it will be seen, used, and then discarded by more of its total audience.

(It’s likely that the narrower a game’s target audience is, the lower its virality and churn rate are. Tens of millions of people play Farmville, Zynga Poker, and Treasure Isle, and they get bored of it quickly. But a niche game like Fashion Wars will not get shared as aggressively, but will provide deeper interactions between the friends who do play together.)

There is a wide range of actual values that can make a game a winner, for example:

  • A game that spends $5 to acquire a user with a 50% churn rate, a viral coefficient of 1.05, and revenue per user of $5 will earn about $5.52 in profit per user acquired.
  • A viral site with the same revenue per user, but a viral coefficient of 1.2 and a churn rate of 20% would earn $51 in revenue for each new user acquired (this kind of math explains why Groupon can spend so much on Adwords and Facebook ads).
  • A site with revenue per active user of $5 and a churn rate of 40% with no viral characteristics will lose money paying $13 per new user.
  • A more traditional subscription-based business with a lower churn rate and a very modest viral coefficient is also worth considering. For example, TheStreet.com’s monthly churn rateis 3.8%. If their viral coefficient is 1.005, and their monthly subscription averages out to $80, their expected revenue per subscriber is $856—in the first year alone. But viral effects account for only $23.15 of this, meaning that TheStreet won’t significantly benefit from enhanced viral effects.

When social media companies start to go public, I believe that investors should call for them to prominently disclose these numbers. Giving investors an idea of how viral a product is, and how high its churn is, can tell them how quickly to expect it to grow, how soon it will peak, and whether or not they should expect the company to lose money early on in a race to acquire customers. In the case of a viral, low-churn game, it’s irresponsible not to run at a loss early on in order to acquire players. But once a game starts to peak, and the churn rate increases while the viral coefficient approaches 1, paying for growth becomes a similarly poor decision.

Social gaming companies have shortened the fuse and narrowed the range of outcomes for subscription-based businesses. Someone operating an online game can use simple measurements like viral coefficients and churn rates to determine exactly where they’ll earn the most money. A traditional game company (not to mention a phone or cable company) could spend years trying to determine the average value of their customers; for Zynga and the rest of the industry, knowing this information is almost automatic. For their shareholders, disclosing this data will make it easy to tell whether the company’s growth represents free cash flow in the future, or merely an impressive number of users in the short term.

{ 4 comments }

This post is written by Guest Author Hussein Fazal, CEO at AdParlor Inc.  AdParlor is a performance based applications advertising network focused on CPI (cost per installation).  In this post, Hussein highlights some of the points in AdParlor’s recent white paper that discusses the marketing challenges application developers face as Facebook continues to remove viral channels.  You can read the full white paper by downloading it here.

As SecondShares has previously discussed, many application developers have seen a recent decline in user growth as Facebook cuts back on viral channels.  Application developers must now allocate larger marketing spends to purchasing installs.  It has been estimated that a $3 million budget would be required to launch a successful game to 1 million DAU’s.

Purchasing application installs is becoming increasingly competitive.  Understanding the different types of installs available for purchase is just the beginning.  Really understanding deep user targeting, market conditions, application saturation and other variables can have a very significant effect on the ROI an application developer receives on their spend.  Efficiently purchasing Facebook installs can bring savings of up to 40% per user! For many developers, this is the difference between having a profitable application, and company, or not.

Today, AdParlor has released a white paper intending to educate application developers on purchasing Facebook application installs. Some highlights include:

- In terms of user retention, engagement, and monetization:

  • 1 Facebook Ads install =
  • 3 Banner Ads Installs =
  • 30 Incentivized Ads Installs

- Click Through Rate (CTR) and Conversion Rate (CVR) are the two golden metrics that contribute to the Cost Per Install (CPI) equation. Your CPI can vary up to 400% based on how well you can control them.

  • The top 6 factors which influence CPI pricing on Facebook Ads are:
  • Country Targeting
  • Creative
  • Target Market
  • Flow from Click to Conversion
  • Application Saturation
  • Market Conditions

Read more here:  http://www.secondshares.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Purchasing-Facebook-Application-Installs-Everything-you-need-to-know.pdf

{ 1 comment }

 
 
 
© 2010 SecondShares