Updated at the bottom: We have short memories in Silicon Valley, which is both a blessing and a curse. We forget the bad times as quickly as we forget the good times.
At the turn of the century, everything went to hell with the dot-com bust. Then the pendulum started to swing the other way; the pessimism that once reigned supreme was being replaced by wild-eyed optimism. Now Silicon Valley is in for a long-overdue reality check, one that should worry one and all. Why? Because the news coming out of advertising-focused companies is not good.
Yesterday ValueClick, a display advertising network, said it now expects its second-quarter revenues to range from $162 million to $164 million, lower than the previously forecasted $170 million. The company also cut its full-year 2008 sales guidance by about 10 percent, to between $655 million and $675 million. It blamed weakness in its display and comparison advertising business, and flatness even in its lead-generation business.
Time Warner’s Platform-A advertising division isn’t doing so well either, according to some of my sources. The company is instituting wide-scale belt-tightening measures, including freezing travel budgets. Pali Capital in a blog post today forecast, “AOL’s display advertising revenues down about 8% in Q2 (Q1 ‘08 was down about 10% organically), with the back-half down mid-single digits.”
Microsoft, in its fourth-quarter 2008 earnings call today, also admitted that online advertising was tough. “The one proviso to that is in the online advertising space…it was weak in the fourth quarter. There is a direct impact and we’re not immune in the online space, ” Microsoft CFO Chris Liddel said in a conference call with analysts. “The online advertising area is part of the business that we think is most challenging…the online advertising area is very difficult at the moment.”
And if that wasn’t enough, Google just announced spectacular growth in its second-quarter revenues — about 39 percent over the same period lat year — but fell short of Wall Street’s profit expectations. Between The Lines blog notes that Google CEO Eric Schmidt, in his company’s conference call with investors, said they would survive the downturn because there will be a flight to quality, and that they will provide a better return on investment. Maybe! Larry Dignan hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
“Color me skeptical. Anyone that lived through the dot-com bust has heard these lines before and no company is immune if there’s a recession.”
Like him, the skeptical me went straight to the traffic acquisition costs (TAC), which is where I think the real story lies. If you look at the image below you’ll see that Google’s traffic acquisition costs have declined rapidly while its revenues have ballooned. TAC in general and AdSense specifically are like a black box – no one quite knows how much Google gives out. Sometimes it feels like Google can use this “black box” to come up with pretty much any numbers it wants to.

We’ll get a better sense of the overall health of the market when Yahoo reports its latest numbers, but the way I see it, things are sort of troubling. We wrote about this nagging problem back in May. I think that as we go forward things are only going to get worse — and even Silicon Valley can’t ignore what’s been going on in the overall economy.
The housing crisis is being replaced by a much scarier problem: the personal credit crunch. In a recent report, American Express noted that it has started to see a sharp increase in late card payments. Now folks, this is American Express, whose customers skew towards the affluent, especially compared to those of its competitors. The company has boosted loss provisions for its U.S. card business, profits have declined, and defaults are up.
Will these problems escalate? Probably. Consumers struggling with the housing crisis and rising fuel costs — and thus higher basic living expenses — will be forced to cut back on other spending, which will lead to slower sales and in turn, less money for advertising.
We know the housing and financial sector-related ads have already declined drastically, now we’re going to start to see other sectors cut back on advertising, too — and that is going to have a negative impact on everyone from large social networks to ad networks to Yahoo and Google to small startups, including weblogs like ours. I guess Provigil sales are going to take a nosedive in the Valley as we stay up all night worrying about everything.
Update: And there’s more bad news today. The Wall Street Journal reports that General Motors is going to sharply cut back on advertising. GM is one of the big spenders in U.S. — last year the company spent about 32 percent of its $2.3 billion dollar ad budget on newspapers and 11 percent on television networks — but it looks like those expenditures are going to get hacked. It’s not clear from the report how this move will impact Internet advertising.
Photo courtesy of ZDNet

Update: The buzz on Sand Hill Road these days is all about online advertising plays. Never mind the fact that most of the “online ad” business is living on scraps compared with the Godzilla-like Google (GOOG). The latest testimony to this craze: $23 million in new funding for AdBrite, a company started by Phil “Pud” Kaplan, well-known for his escapades and his iconic site, F–kedCompany.
PE Hub reports that the three-year-old AdBrite got cash from Sequoia Capital and their quasi-affiliate hedge fund, Artis Management. With this new infusion, the company has raised a total of $35 million. We suspect there may be more cash coming their way, as this round might not be closed just yet.
Adbrite issued a press release that lists DAG Ventures and Mitsui Ventures as new investors. BritePic, Full Page Ad, and Facebook App Channel – have fueled AdBrite’s rapid growth, Ignacio Fanlo, CEO of AdBrite said and claimed that company was the third largest ad-network behind Google and Advertising.com. The round the company says is closed at $23 million.
This being the week of ad:tech, news of online advertising has dominated the conversation: from MySpace’s hyper- targeted ads to Facebook’s new ad system to broadband advertising systems introduced by companies such as AnchorFree. The advertising, of course, is becoming social, mobile, and behavioral.
If you take all this into account, and juxtapose it against the recent eMarketer’s forecast — U.S. online advertising nearly doubling from $21.4 billion in 2007 to $42 billion in 2011, representing about 13 percent of the total ad-spend — what you get is a pretty decent context for the ongoing battle amongst Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo (YHOO), phone & cable companies, wireless carriers, Facebook, MySpace (NWS) and countless other startups.
Of course, it also means that advertising (or marketing messages) are going to be in-your-face, every time you turn around. What is the theoretical limit to our ability to absorb these messages? I just wonder, when, as people-being-marketed-to will we say: Enough! Stop! Or will we?
Google’s (GOOG) long-rumored, game-focused advertising initiative is going to come to life later this month, according to sources familiar with the Mountain View, Calif-based company’s plans. Google, which bought in-gaming advertising company, AdScape, earlier this year for about $23 million, will unveil its game-focused strategy in two steps, these sources tell me.
First, Google will launch a beta test with Redwood City, Calif.-based casual gaming startup Bunchball Games. As part of this test, Google is going to embed 15-second, “video-type” pre-roll and mid-roll ads in some of Bunchball’s casual games. Bunchball in recent months has started offering casual games as Facebook apps. Google is likely to announce this sometime next week, I’m told. Both Bunchball and Google declined to comment.
The second step in Google’s game-focused advertising strategy will take place in December, when the company will, I’m told, will offer an ad-supported version of the PC game Psychonauts. This will be a downloadable game and will have 30-second pre- and mid-roll video ads, according to my sources.
Our esteemed gaming duo, Jane Pinkcard and Wagner James Au, have been tracking Google and its game-related advertising plans for a while now.
As Wagner notes, Psychonauts is not a casual game but an award-winning, story-heavy, cult hit. This “gamer’s game” from veteran adventure game designer Tim Schaefer and co-written by Erik “Old Man Murray” Wolpaw is now “out of print” and can only be downloaded via Valve’s Steam network. As he put it: “Google launching with Psychonauts as a trial platform is like a new cable network launching with a Coen Brothers movie.”
Google’s pending launch comes at a time when the interest in casual gaming and in-game advertising is on an upswing. Google’s initiatives should give many start-ups building game-related advertising networks a pause.
Google (GOOG) announced its OpenSocial strategy last week, starting with some of the smaller (albeit fast-growing) social networks, and quickly ensnaring MySpace (NWS), Bebo and a bunch of other companies to join its efforts. Nick O’Neill, the brilliant young man who writes the AllFacebook blog, described it as a coalition of the willing.
On the surface, it seems like a laudable effort to create a common social platform in which widgets are written once for multiple platforms, allowing for the leverage of data across the web in a seamless manner. It’s being pitched as an open social graph. What it really is, however, is the first defensive move by Google, a company whose only strategy – until now — has been to stay on the offensive.
The Palo Alto, Calif.-based upstart has been upstaging Google and stealing its talent, a good enough reason to get any company steaming mad. Remember the public search feature Facebook launched — in hindsight it seems like a move to grab traffic from Google and boost its own user base. But that was penny ante stuff.
There is clearly no love lost between the two companies. The scorched earth strategy adopted by Google with OpenSocial reflects the fact that Facebook threatens to run away with what may be a huge new market for social networking-oriented advertising and as such, doing what until now had been the unthinkable: putting a hand in Google’s till.
In the 12-odd years since Netscape launched the consumer browser and made the Internet part of our daily lives, the web has been all about public information. There has been an information explosion, and since 1997, Google has been making sense of all that public information, collating it — search is just the tool — and tacking ads right next to it. A friend described it best when he said, “Google took the entire Internet and indexed it with keywords instead of URLs.”
And then along comes Mark Zuckerberg with his fun little social network, Facebook. The network keeps growing and has millions of users. Most of them are college students, (looking to hook-up) and the information is kept private – only Facebook knows everything they are doing. Google’s spiders are rebuffed and sent away. Then Facebook announces a new strategy and millions rush into this private club, sharing their likes, dislikes and everything in between. And still, Google is kept out. It’s a scary proposition for a company whose very existence depends on open access to all information.

This seemingly public yet private Internet starts to grow at an unprecedented rate. According to ComScore data, while Google saw its page views double in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, Facebook saw its traffic zoom five-fold (see data). This trend of hypergrowth for semi-public/private pageviews is going to continue, while the open web that Google is used to indexing is beginning to show signs of fatigue.

The difference in the two companies’ web strategies — open vs. private — is going to be reflected in their diverse advertising strategies. Google tries to personalize ads based on the content of the pages you are viewing. Facebook, on the other hand, knows a lot more about us — who our friends are, what we like, what groups we belong to, and even when we like to use its service. So what can Facebook do with all that information?
It can develop and deliver highly contextual and personalized ads — the ultimate goal for Google. Unlike Facebook, where people gladly share their personal information mostly due to an illusion of privacy, Google has to give away web services for free in order to get the right data sets needed to deliver more focused advertising. (Venturebeat has some insights about the soon-to-be-announced Facebook advertising platform.)
Nevertheless, Facebook has a lot to prove — anecdotal evidence suggests pretty dismal returns on advertising thus far — and needs to deliver an advertising platform that is exponentially better than Google’s keyword-based systems. When given the option of a more effective advertising channel, online advertisers are happy to shift their loyalties.
That said, OpenSocial is a pretty clever idea, especially for Google. The Mountain View, Calif.-based search giant doesn’t need to own the No. 1 social network, or even operate a social network at all. All it has to do is give application providers a way to monetize their applications.
In other words, with OpenSocial Google has extended the life expectancy of its AdSense. It still remains to be seen if OpenSocial partners end up using Google’s advertising platform. In fact, a lot about OpenSocial remains unknown at this point, but one thing is clear: It’s giving Facebook a reason to pause and do a quick reality check.
This open vs. private battle is going to occupy the headlines for some time. In the meantime, wait for Facebook to make its next move.
Firefox: del.icio.us/tag/firefox
Security
Firefox
Google
internet
technology
advertising
ariana