Gary is right on with his analysis here...as usual he's forward thinking when it comes to thinking about online media space. Kudos.
Matt
Joseph Manna
· 5 months ago
I know I go against the grain here; I disagree. I respect where Gary is coming from, but I don't think the company is poised to be successful simply by launching and acquiring series of niche blogs and communities.
AOL has historically, repeatedly and arrogantly burned their brand and affiliated brands voluntarily by not adhering to AG/FTC mandates in the past and by ignoring the woes of the Internet. If all they would do is heed the suggestions and feedback from their loyal customers, they would have very successful platform.
All it would take to have a premium kick-ass (monetized) content area is a little innovation and resources from TimeWarner Cable to license content to AOL and open up advertising venues on their cable network to attract more customers to their content. As Jeffery Bewkes exclaimed, "Synergies are bullshit!" and this is the fundamental reason why AOL failed miserably at delivering valuable syndicated content.
The company doesn't have the attitude within them to respect their audience. They are in a very tough time to be able to meet the ad sales numbers quarter after quarter (declining strongly).
I knew AOL would get addicted to the page views once they acquired Weblogs Inc. It was a very lucrative asset, but it still wasn't their creation. They had to taint it slapping on their branding on the blogs. (Then again, why not? They just paid $25M to Calacanis). This syndrome of simply moving to the next shiny object, the next niche, the next source of page views and neglecting their homegrown communities within is why they aren't able to retain loyal users to the brand.
Don't get me wrong -- operating a blog network is quite attractive for advertisers and is a valuable asset. But AOL is the wrong company to do so. Their products have been whittled down to an email and IM client, no more unique than Google Talk and GMail.
What happens when the ad revenue slows too much, or they internally combust with another mass layoff? Do all these communities cease? Then what will happen to their brand? It's not sustainable. From my perspective, user experience is the absolute bottom of their concern and selling ads is their top priority. There's not any passion in it, it's simply a business to them.
AOL is a serial product, service and community killer: UnCut Video, AOL Video, AIM Today, AOL Pictures, AIM Photos, AOL Hometown, AOL Journals, AOL FDO Chat, X-Drive, AOL OpenRide, AOL Communicator, AIM Phoneline, AOL Parenting, AIM Profiles and Ficlets. Call it dead weight... I call it mismanagement and poor experience at delivering tailored services and partnerships to users.
This isn't innovation. It's coercion. Because they have failed at delivering quality entertainment products for their audience, they are forced to hide their brand in shame and operate niche blogs. It's smoke and mirrors if you ask me.
I have no idea why TWX would bring on an NBC-Universal exec (Falco) to operate a new media company (AOL)... which ultimately resulted in the imminent drop in brand equity, innovation and user experience.
Then again, it's entirely plausible that AOL is in long-term transition to a better, leaner and stronger brand. I don't know much about Tim Armstrong, it does sound like he more or less understands the pains that AOL had suffered due to mismanagement and is out to turn the ship around in high tides.
--Joe
garyvaynerchuk
· 5 months ago
leaner !
Joseph Manna
· 5 months ago
I imagine as a community curator (CB), you might see where I'm coming from. But then again, my inane and tangential comment may have left you no option except to agree with me. ;-)
~Joe
strive4impact
· 5 months ago
That clapping (live audience) was kind of odd. Nifty though.
Thanks for posting. This was very interesting, and I agree. Gary is right. (And I do think AOL is not cool, but I've seen them coming from nowhere to where they're growing to.) Good advice to Microsoft, Yahoo, and NYT.
P.S. Gary is crazy. That's why he's gotten to where he is.
garyvaynerchuk
· 5 months ago
u think? Crazy? I have a feeling when we meet u will se otherwise ;) good parenting has crazy beat by 99%
strive4impact
· 5 months ago
Fantastic that you came around and posted on the site here!
You really are crazy. in a good way... like crazy wicked smart.
Like doing all the things other people think are totally crazy, which are actually the things that lead to success.
Making a video every day and posting it on the Internet (when no one else is doing it)? That's just crazy! And the video is about wine? That's just crazy!
I look forward to having the opportunity to buy you dinner sometime. Your dedication and leading by example has made a big difference in my life and in the lives of some people I am good friends with.
If you're in Colorado before October 1, drop me a line. I'd welcome the opportunity.
Interesting and in a way it does make sense. You could compare it to the FMCG market. Take for instance Unilever that has hundreds of products and focused all their marketing actions on these brands, and purposely kept the main brand in the shadows.
A couple of years ago they created a new logo for the company, a huge "U" built from the logos of many of their brands. The idea was to make their brand more attractive and leverage the reputation of their existing brands. It is a good way to attract better employees and invest in brand engagement. Most FMCG products are owned by but a few gigantic companies and marketing is therefore very important. Look at Danone and Nestle as examples.
The same thing applies to the press. We know the papers and magazines, but do we always know the owners? Is such a strategy enough in the information business? Can it improve a brand perception, can it increase revenue and trust? We're talking here about monetization through ads, and I'm not sure it's sustainable.
On the other hand, Google an Yahoo have many satelite services, does it always bring value? Personally, I believe that the keyword for the coming years is Synergy and not consolidation. It's not about AOL linking their blogs to their main brand, but rather about developing valuable information flows and connecting the right dots. And it seems to me Microsoft is getting the point with their new Bing Approach...
L.
justinmwhitaker
· 5 months ago
Really like this idea. Wondering if this is applicable to any sized business or enterprise.
If you are branching out as a startup blogerprise or community biz, is it smart to branch out early and basically hedge your bets, or should you crush your main focus, and branch out later?
Food for thought.
Jeff Donald
· 5 months ago
Yes, niche media is where the future is at. Yes, AOL is smart from a business perspective to be developing and cultivating all these niche communities. No, AOL should not be tying them all back to their mother brand.
Niche media is on the rise because of social networking. I'd be surprised if many people these days get their news and info by visiting a mother-ship website. Between Twitter, RSS, Facebook, blogs and the like, I couldn't tell you the last time I visited my.yahoo.com, NYTimes.com or any of the others. By simply aggregating all the sites onto a mother page, what value does AOL bring to the niche publication brands?
If I'm an AOL shareholder, I look to the Unilever model Laurent mentioned. People use and feel passionate about many of the brands Unilever owns and they never know (or don't care) that Unilever is the parent company. AOL should stay in the background and let these niche brands do what they do well and continue to profit from them. They could use their data, muscle and prowess behind the scenes to drive traffic across their different platforms, but simply creating a bunch of little sites and turning them into sections on a main page is so 1998.
Jim "Genuine" Turner
· 5 months ago
This falls right in line Chris with your idea of outposts.
ChrisDonaldson
· 5 months ago
We all knew the deal was upside down when TimeWarner merged with AOL in Web 1.0. That may have been the same day GE didn't earn as much as forecast and the stock went down, while Amazon didn't LOSE as much and the stock went up. Crazy. And I don't think that Gary is arguing this will save the company. What he is looking at is the long-tail and finding true niches that can be dug into a little deeper to gain audience. It's recognizing that quality isn't about being all things to all people.
All Comments
Matt
AOL has historically, repeatedly and arrogantly burned their brand and affiliated brands voluntarily by not adhering to AG/FTC mandates in the past and by ignoring the woes of the Internet. If all they would do is heed the suggestions and feedback from their loyal customers, they would have very successful platform.
All it would take to have a premium kick-ass (monetized) content area is a little innovation and resources from TimeWarner Cable to license content to AOL and open up advertising venues on their cable network to attract more customers to their content. As Jeffery Bewkes exclaimed, "Synergies are bullshit!" and this is the fundamental reason why AOL failed miserably at delivering valuable syndicated content.
The company doesn't have the attitude within them to respect their audience. They are in a very tough time to be able to meet the ad sales numbers quarter after quarter (declining strongly).
I knew AOL would get addicted to the page views once they acquired Weblogs Inc. It was a very lucrative asset, but it still wasn't their creation. They had to taint it slapping on their branding on the blogs. (Then again, why not? They just paid $25M to Calacanis). This syndrome of simply moving to the next shiny object, the next niche, the next source of page views and neglecting their homegrown communities within is why they aren't able to retain loyal users to the brand.
Don't get me wrong -- operating a blog network is quite attractive for advertisers and is a valuable asset. But AOL is the wrong company to do so. Their products have been whittled down to an email and IM client, no more unique than Google Talk and GMail.
What happens when the ad revenue slows too much, or they internally combust with another mass layoff? Do all these communities cease? Then what will happen to their brand? It's not sustainable. From my perspective, user experience is the absolute bottom of their concern and selling ads is their top priority. There's not any passion in it, it's simply a business to them.
AOL is a serial product, service and community killer: UnCut Video, AOL Video, AIM Today, AOL Pictures, AIM Photos, AOL Hometown, AOL Journals, AOL FDO Chat, X-Drive, AOL OpenRide, AOL Communicator, AIM Phoneline, AOL Parenting, AIM Profiles and Ficlets. Call it dead weight... I call it mismanagement and poor experience at delivering tailored services and partnerships to users.
This isn't innovation. It's coercion. Because they have failed at delivering quality entertainment products for their audience, they are forced to hide their brand in shame and operate niche blogs. It's smoke and mirrors if you ask me.
I have no idea why TWX would bring on an NBC-Universal exec (Falco) to operate a new media company (AOL)... which ultimately resulted in the imminent drop in brand equity, innovation and user experience.
Then again, it's entirely plausible that AOL is in long-term transition to a better, leaner and stronger brand. I don't know much about Tim Armstrong, it does sound like he more or less understands the pains that AOL had suffered due to mismanagement and is out to turn the ship around in high tides.
--Joe
~Joe
Thanks for posting. This was very interesting, and I agree. Gary is right. (And I do think AOL is not cool, but I've seen them coming from nowhere to where they're growing to.) Good advice to Microsoft, Yahoo, and NYT.
Warmest,
Jonathan
http://www.ThreeMoneyMethods.com
P.S. Gary is crazy. That's why he's gotten to where he is.
You really are crazy. in a good way... like crazy wicked smart.
Like doing all the things other people think are totally crazy, which are actually the things that lead to success.
Making a video every day and posting it on the Internet (when no one else is doing it)? That's just crazy! And the video is about wine? That's just crazy!
I look forward to having the opportunity to buy you dinner sometime. Your dedication and leading by example has made a big difference in my life and in the lives of some people I am good friends with.
If you're in Colorado before October 1, drop me a line. I'd welcome the opportunity.
Warmest,
Jonathan
http://www.ThreeMoneyMethods.com
A couple of years ago they created a new logo for the company, a huge "U" built from the logos of many of their brands. The idea was to make their brand more attractive and leverage the reputation of their existing brands. It is a good way to attract better employees and invest in brand engagement. Most FMCG products are owned by but a few gigantic companies and marketing is therefore very important. Look at Danone and Nestle as examples.
The same thing applies to the press. We know the papers and magazines, but do we always know the owners?
Is such a strategy enough in the information business? Can it improve a brand perception, can it increase revenue and trust?
We're talking here about monetization through ads, and I'm not sure it's sustainable.
On the other hand, Google an Yahoo have many satelite services, does it always bring value?
Personally, I believe that the keyword for the coming years is Synergy and not consolidation. It's not about AOL linking their blogs to their main brand, but rather about developing valuable information flows and connecting the right dots.
And it seems to me Microsoft is getting the point with their new Bing Approach...
L.
If you are branching out as a startup blogerprise or community biz, is it smart to branch out early and basically hedge your bets, or should you crush your main focus, and branch out later?
Food for thought.
Niche media is on the rise because of social networking. I'd be surprised if many people these days get their news and info by visiting a mother-ship website. Between Twitter, RSS, Facebook, blogs and the like, I couldn't tell you the last time I visited my.yahoo.com, NYTimes.com or any of the others. By simply aggregating all the sites onto a mother page, what value does AOL bring to the niche publication brands?
If I'm an AOL shareholder, I look to the Unilever model Laurent mentioned. People use and feel passionate about many of the brands Unilever owns and they never know (or don't care) that Unilever is the parent company. AOL should stay in the background and let these niche brands do what they do well and continue to profit from them. They could use their data, muscle and prowess behind the scenes to drive traffic across their different platforms, but simply creating a bunch of little sites and turning them into sections on a main page is so 1998.
I mean - talk about niche: http://www.asylum.com/2009/07/22/man-breaks-rec...