[UK] There were some interesting panel discussion today at the NOAH conference – a new event in London aimed at presenting tech companies to the private equity and banking sector – but the plethora of suited and booted attendees were shocked out of their chairs a little when Klaus Hommels, (one of the first angel investors in Skype, QXL and XING and recently a venture partner with Balderton (formerly Benchmark Capital Europe) spoke his mind.
The panel he was on had been beating about the bush on investing in tech startups, until he broke into the discussion to make some salient points:
“Whenever we want to grow we are too reliant on US companies and too reliant again when we want to sell.”
In other words, European companies have to use US platforms and ad networks like Google to ‘get out there’ and US companies to sell to.
In fact, he said:
“Structurally we fucked it up. European tech companies would normally have been picked up by media companies in Europe but they are in such a bad state this is not possible. So before anyone puts money into new companies, we need to ask: who is going to buy all the shit in our existing portfolios?!” (I think he might have meant to say ’stuff’, however…)
He went on: “With B2B companies you run into a wall trying to convince Europe companies to adopt early models. It’s much easier to tack onto a US advertising play than onto a European play – so what keeps me awake is the structural disadvantage we have here. Angel investment is altruism here compared to the US.”
These are pretty heavy words. One of the most respected, experienced Angel investors in Europe is calling it right: the European media industry – even as it now wakes up to how to operate in a digital world – should have thought a lot more like Rupert Murdoch a lot earlier. ITV buying Friends Reunited barely counts. Of course, media companies should not be expected to bail out Angels, or buy their “shit”. But the lack of this kind of eco-system in Europe has created a big structural disadvantage for European startups and does tend to lead to talent and companies moving to the US.
My thinking is that he could have a point!
Source: TechCrunch Europe http://eu.techcrunch.com
The most important commodity in today’s digital market is data. The ability to capture, understand and gain real insight on consumers predictive activity, is the hottest thing in digital media.
Understanding the data that sits behind the view, brings great riches………..
But, Whose data is it anyway?
Does the advertiser have ownership of any data that is obtained from the publishers, based on view, clicks or not until further engagement?
The fact of the matter is there is lots of data in the market. The benefit comes when turning that data into information.
So having the information is not enough, we all have bits of data, but it’s those that can deliver insight that hold the key.
Despite recent economic woes, what with the Lehman Brothers going kaput (come on now though, does anyone out there really feel that sorry for the i-bankers losing their jobs? Alright it must have been tough going to work and then turning around not some 45 minutes later at the same door with no job. Mind, they did have their cases of French vintage wine and mega bank balances to ease their pain…anyway I digress) And with talk of a world wide recession to rival the Great depression, there is a silver lining out there to get excited about.
The EIAA came out recently with research saying that 4 out of 5 advertisers have increased their online ad spend and are expecting it to grow over the next two years. The research also found that 81% of advertisers have seen their allocated online spend grow with a further 73% saying they plan to increase the use of online advertising.
So some good news…..for the online industry at least.
I’ll be at the Ad:Tech conference later today taking part in a panel discussion about behavioural targeting at 12.00. wunderloop also have a stall at the event, No. 254, so please come and say hi if you’re passing!
Following claims that Phorm’s targeted advertising trials with BT were carried out without the consent of users, the European Union demanded an investigation into the legality of the system. The UK government has now come back and said it is legal but warns all future roll-outs of the system must be done with the full consent of those being targeted and that opting-out must be made much easier.
Well, at least consumers are getting some further protection from ISP-based targeting, but has the government really gone far enough? I don’t really see privacy campaigners raising their hands in defeat quite yet, especially in light of the difficulties NebuAd is having the US. The Phorm-storm will continue to rage for some time yet.
Silicon based startup NebuAd has had an extremely bad week. Not only did they lose their CEO, Bob Dykes, but they have also caved into heavy criticism from the US Congress and privacy campaigners and dropped their plans to sell deep packet inspection technology to ISPs. DPI technology enables ISPs to track their customers’ internet behaviour, without their consent, in order to serve more accurately targeted advertising.
Great news for the US who are safe for the time being, but where does this leave the UK? Companies such as Phorm are still attempting to use deep packet inspection technology and, whilst their trials have been delayed yet again, there is still no law preventing it. David Morgan, former CEO of Tacoda, summed up the worries about this type of technology best when he stated the important question to ask was “does it pass the creepy test?”
Are we really comfortable with our internet and telephone providers having access to our personal information – work files, photo’s, family documents, love letters, employment history, medical records? And are we comfortable with them selling that information to the highest bidder?
Yet more bad news in today’s papers for ITV – media buying agencies are predicting they could face their second consecutive month of double-digit percentage decline in advertising revenues in October (as reported in The Guardian earlier this week).
It seems the media can’t stop splashing ITV’s bad fortunate over the business pages but is this really the future for all TV broadcasters? According to Intel there is a way for broadcaster’s to avoid ITV’s fate and that is through the introduction of their new Widget Channel. The joint venture by Intel and Yahoo was announced last week with Intel heralding it as the saviour for TV advertising revenues.
The Widget Channel aims to breakdown the boundaries between TV and the internet and so introduce a new business model to the TV industry. Adding a small internet tool bar to viewers’ TV screens allows people to watch their favourite programmes whilst also surfing the net for the latest news, music, weather etc.
By observing their viewers’ online interests, broadcasters will then be able to tailor advertising to suit the interests of each individual – something previously only available to online advertisers. So, whilst a DIY enthusiast’s ad break in the middle of Coronation Street is full of the latest power tools and laminate flooring, an adrenaline junkie sees ads for skydiving and white water rafting in South America. Sounds good to me – especially if it means I no longer have to watch any more musical ads for Frosties. You all know the one I’m talking about…
We’ve all seen the effects of media fragmentation and it seems to me that we are finally entering a new era where all boundaries between platforms are broken-down and everything becomes united under the ‘digital’ banner – the reunion of the media is fast approaching.
Apple has found itself in trouble with the ASA today – accused of misleading consumers as to the capabilities of the iPhone’s internet connection. Whereas Apple claimed that “all the parts of the internet are available on the iPhone”, the advertising watchdog have ruled that due to the absence of a support for Java and Flash, the iPhone is unable to display standard webpages and so their claim that the entire internet available, in its full glory, is misleading.
Apple have countered this attack by claiming that the webpages are technically available – they just may not look the same due to a lack of standard graphics or flash animation.
As you may know, I’ve had my issues with the iPhone in the past and I do normally like a good rant, but today I’m really struggling to be bothered about this latest development. I just think we’ve all gone a bit too far with this iPhone thing. It may not be the best phone on the market pound for pound, and yes there probably are better phones, with better video and better email and no, maybe you can’t see every bit of every website using the iPhone, but what a toy.
The only thing that I can say on the matter is that, slowly, without me spending much more cash, I know that my friends at Apple are making it right. Look out for the updates and keep the faith.
Having finally managed to register for my brand new Apple iPhone 3G, I woke up this morning like a kid at Christmas only to find that Apple had delivered nothing but frustration. Is my pre-ordered phone (which I already paid cold hard cash for may I add) waiting for me?
No.
It seems Apple didn’t have the foresight to stock the right number of phones despite knowing how much demand there would be. Why else was I made to pre-register….and PAY up front?!
Could it be that a brand who prides itself on building a fanatical customer base, really understands nothing about that very audience? Did they not know that their committed fans would flock to the site to register and did they not consider that as a result they should probably think about building a website that didn’t crash under the sheer volume of demand? From my experience on Monday, apparently not…
I’m getting sick of these arrogant brands that treat their customers with no respect – don’t they know it’s the customer with the power not them?! If they want my money in future they’re going to have to work a lot harder for it. For now, I’m abandoning them.
Are you as disillusioned with Apple as I am?Leave me a post and let me know I’m not the only one!
Following Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube, a court in the US has ordered YouTube owner Google to hand over records detailing the personal viewing habits of millions of its users (front page news in The Guardian). Naturally this has caused outrage amongst privacy campaigners who worry that the ruling is just one more example of personal privacy being invaded on the internet. Working in an industry haunted by this very problem, I can’t help but worry about the possible consequences.
The reason privacy campaigners are worried, as they should be (!), is that Google is being forced to hand over YouTube’s entire log dataset. This contains the computers’ IP addresses, individual identification numbers, videos watched and in some cases even personal login details – information that could easily allow for the identification of the user.
To be fair, Google fought this ruling hard so at least they can see the potentially damaging effects of yet another privacy scare on the online industry. If companies’ have privileged access to personal data they have a duty to safeguard that data and ensure there are no opportunities for individuals to be identified.
People want to know their data is safe and it is up to those of us working online to reassure them that there are safe ways to surf the web. The fact that YouTube did not have a copyright licence for some of the content they were broadcasting is nothing to do with the viewer. Why should they be the ones to suffer in the aftermath of a corporate tug of war between Viacom and Google?!
