BloggingStocks

Google's growth pitted against offline media industry growth

Brian White — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:29:00 EST

Filed under: Competitive Strategy, Google (GOOG)

Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) continues to have the ambition of becoming the largest advertising company in the world. Well, at least that's the thought I have held for over two years now. Is it a coincidence that Google's online revenue growth in 2007 was larger than the combined advertising revenue of the 17 top offline media companies? No.

Henry Blodget, who couldn't be trusted as a Wall Street analyst (which is why he isn't one any longer), runs Silicon Alley Insider and contrasted Google's growth with media powerhouses Viacom, CBS and Clear Channel (among others). He came to the conclusion that Google is pounding up hard on the media landscape as it comes to taking ad revenue share from just about anyone in the business.

Blodget says: "A single media property, Google.com grew by $2 billion. All the offline media properties owned by the 13 offline media companies -- all of them -- grew by about $1 billion." After looking at the 13 other companies, it's not hard to imagine that Google beat them all -- combined. This isn't a surprise to me at all -- Google's foray into advertising isn't a mistake and the way it's taking market share is also not a mistake. In the U.S. alone, Google's ad revenue totaled about $8.7 billion for 2007 -- up 44% from 2006 revenue. That's 5.7% of $153.7 billion spent on advertising in the U.S. last year.

Google's growth pitted against offline media industry growth originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Radiohead denies December release with major label

Richard Driver — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:01:00 EST

Filed under: Rumors, Media World

Following the excitement and intrigue surrounding English band Radiohead's announcement earlier this week about the quick release of their seventh studio album In Rainbows next week, the band's spokesman is now denying that it will also be released via a major label in December. According to the Billboard report, British retailer HMV had listed a pre-order for a CD version of the album on its website with EMI Group PLC label Parlophone for December 3, the same date the self-released "discbox" will be released to fans who pre-ordered on the band's website.

Radiohead was previously signed to EMI with their first six albums distributed by Parlophone in the UK and Capitol Records in the United States, but that deal ended after the release of their 2003 album Hail to the Thief. The band's spokesman reported to Billboard that "the band had not re-signed to Parlophone, EMI or any other label" for the new album, emphasizing that any release would not be ready by the December 3 date on HMV. The spokesman did affirm that the band is talking to music labels about releasing the album, but that would come after the new year.

The announcement earlier this week spurred a storm of internet blogging, including BloggingStocks, and a spokesperson for HMV commented that the listing was due to "an over-enthusiastic member of staff" but it would be modified to remove the label and the date. The biggest development of the announcement was that fans could set their own price for the download version next week, but some bloggers found that there was a limit of £99.99 (about $205), but most fans are likely to go for much lower prices. Many are already calling the tactic of removing the labels from distribution a success, but it is too early to speculate whether any other band will follow Radiohead's lead. Maybe the labels will catch on and work with artists in the future for the benefit of fans, but that is just too wishful.

Radiohead denies December release with major label originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Option update: Baidu (BIDU) volatility flat on reports of BIDU TV

Paul Foster — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:55:00 EST

Filed under: Options

Baidu (NASDAQ: BIDU) volatility flat on reports of BIDU TV.

www.Baidu.com, a Chinese language internet search provider, closed at $203.21. SBSH has a $250 price target on BIDU. Smith Barney says that "according to article on www.Tech163.com and it www.sohu.com, BIDU has started to test its BIDU TV advertising display on its union sites on 8/21." BIDU September option implied volatility of 50 is near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting non-directional risks.

SINA Corp (NASDAQ: SINA) option implied volatility flat at 42.

www.SINA.com, a leading online media company and value added information service provider for Chinese communities, closed at $40.30. CIBC World said on 8/7 "SINA maintains a solid market leadership position in branded advertising, supported by stable traffic growth and solid relationships with larger advertisers." SINA overall option implied volatility of 42 is above its 26-week average of 39 according to Track Data, suggesting non-directional risk.

Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

Option update: Baidu (BIDU) volatility flat on reports of BIDU TV originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:55:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Should the Wall Street Journal Online be set free?

Michael Fowlkes — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:30:00 EST

Filed under: Management, Industry, Consumer Experience, Newspapers, Competitive Strategy, Marketing and Advertising, Dow Jones and Co (DJ)

Most online news services give their readers access to their daily news stories for free, the main exception to that rule being Wall Street Journal Online, which charges users a annual fee to access all its content. This, however, may change shortly as the soon to be owner, Rupert Murdoch, appears to be toying with the idea of opening up the site's content to anyone wishing to see it.

This brings up an interesting discussion, and one that could have major consequences. Unlike most sites that have tried (and failed) to charge annual subscription fees, Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ)'s Wall Street Journal Online has proved able to successfully do just that. The site pulls in $79 for an annual subscription from its estimated 1 million users. That's a nice little chunk of change that Mr. Murdoch is considering throwing away.

But would he really be throwing away anything? That is where the debate comes into play. How many internet users would start to use Wall Street Journal Online for their primary news service if they were allowed unlimited free access? My opinion is that the number would be large, much larger than its current numbers, and as we all know... visitors equal revenues. In this case, visitors would equal huge advertising revenues.

Continue reading Should the Wall Street Journal Online be set free?

Should the Wall Street Journal Online be set free? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments