Yelp is Looking For Buyers

In reading the daily update on Stratechery by Ben Thompson, which I highly recommend, he discusses Yelp being on the market.  Yelp is definitely underperforming compared to other social network advertising platforms.  Their revenue is very small, $377 million in 2014 and the growth is not as large as it needs to be for a corporation the size of Yelp.  

What strikes me as interesting in the case of Yelp is their strategy.  Yesterday I commented on an article about strategy and how to assess if your strategy is valid.  I believe Yelp has a strategy that is destined to fail.  Yelp is running the same strategy as the market leaders, which is as an advertising platform.  

The issue I see with their strategy is it is not differentiated.  In fact, their offering is worse than the market leaders when it comes to their ad product.  One may argue their product is differentiated because if a customer is searching for example Mexican Restaurants, then as a Mexican Restaurant it can't get more targeted than an ad for someone looking for that kind of food in a small geographical area.  The problem with this is customers aren't looking for ads on Yelp, they are looking for advice.  An ad is the opposite of what they desire.

 I frequently hear in the tech community that Twitter doesn't understand its product.  They want the product to be something other than what it is.  I fear Yelp may be in the same boat.  Yelp is an aggregator of reviews, they are the trusted source of "where should I eat".  That trust comes from customers reviews.  

elp has the opportunity to differentiate their business.  Their strategy should be the opposite of the strengths of Google and Facebook.  

Loyalty

Yelp has a loyal customer base, however they do not take advantage of this.  Their product has not really changed much since its inception, especially in mobile.  With the advent of technologies, such as beacons, it surprises me that Yelp hasn't taken advantage of its loyal base and struck up deals with local businesses to do a loyalty program with Yelp.  Businesses rely on having great Yelp reviews and this can be parlayed into some kind of loyalty program with a beacon backbone that would identify if a customer was at the business and how much was spent using new location aware technologies.

Recommendation Engine

Because of the amount of data Yelp has it is surprising they haven't developed a more intuitive recommendation engine.  I am always looking for places that I would enjoy and it would be nice if an app told me where I should go and what I should order or what services I should buy.  Yelp is in such a unique position to deliver this.  

I believe they have the ability to enhance their product by allowing customers to rate something without writing a review.  This is something that doesn't have to count to the external rating of the restaurant, but as a means to gather likes of an individual.  This is easy and more customers would rate the businesses in turn.  They can then use this information to have the ultimate "lookalike" recommendation engine.  This is far more powerful than anything Google or Facebook can do.

Targeted Ads and Data

With this lookalike system in place, Yelp can then sell back to the businesses in the form of ads and data.  Since they will have information on all the buyers who are interacting with Yelp, not just the people who take the time to write a review, Yelp can then sell all the information about the customers back to the businesses for a fee.  The ads can then become more targeted because advertisers can get on the home screen of the app with a customer that is highly likely to enjoy the businesses offerings.  As customers see the recommendations are more accurate and they enjoy the businesses experiences, they will end up buying more items through Yelp advertising because of the accuracy.  This will drive higher ad prices for Yelp and bigger returns for the business as they can attract customers that will become more loyal.

I would love the opportunity to innovate at Yelp.  They are in such a unique position to do something different, but they are building the exact same monetary offerings as their competition.  The problem is they don't have the scale.  Just like Twitter, they have to be better and more accurate with their advertising.  This will drive advertising dollars their way because it is more efficient spend and that is what advertisers are looking to achieve.

Additional Thoughts on Twitter

A comment from John Dexter had me thinking even more about the Twitter problem.  I think it is clear to me, more than ever, that owning the platform is more important than owning the interaction when it comes to Twitter.  

In 2012 Twitter decided it was going to be an app company instead of a platform company.  They blew off their third-party developers in hopes to bring all of the eyeballs from the Twitter stream/firehose into their own app and webpage to monetize with advertising.  This essentially laid the groundwork for Twitter not owning just the platform, but owning the entire experience.  In the case of Apple and Facebook, this is good because it is their core competency to own all the widgets.  When looking at Twitter, a big reason they are where they are today is because of innovations by third-parties.  They would not be in mobile if it wasn't for other developers getting there first.  All of the app innovations have been made by third-party developers, so much so that Twitter had to purchase one of them to catch up.

Twitter should take a step back and develop the platform to generate revenue.  If agreements were laid out to developers allowing them to get a piece of the ad revenue generated through their apps, they would be great partners in pushing the ads in new and intuitive ways.  Twitter can then focus on knowing the Twitter customer, the logged in user, better than Facebook knows their customers.  I believe Twitter has an advantage because they know peoples interests better. The people I follow on Twitter align more to my interests than the people am "friends" with on Facebook.  Facebook tends to focus more on real-world relationships and the close knit social graph.  

Once Twitter can repair the relationships with third party developers and focus on developing the platform to maximize ad placement, they don't have to worry about innovating apps that sit on top of that platform, which they are not particularly good at doing anyway.  This model would bring the most app innovation, while at the same time, allow Twitter to focus on revenue generation for the platform.  The third-party developers would have to share all the data back  and then Twitter can be the master of the customer, which is where the ad revenue will come from.  Focus on being able to deliver the best ad to people consuming the stream.  

Does Twitter Need A New CEO?

Twitter is all over the news after its big misses in Monthly Active Users (MAU) and Revenue.  While this is not a good sign for Twitter, does it really need a new CEO and a revamp of their leadership?  In todays article on Stratechery, Ben Thompson outlines his case for new leadership in the ranks, and I don't disagree with his sentiments.

TWITTER’S FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM

Twitter’s fundamental problem is that their active user growth is simply too small given their current size. Twitter yesterday reported the service had 302 million Monthly Active Users (MAUs), an increase of only 18% year-over-year and 5% quarter-over-quarter (and the company said the current quarter would be worse!). This is a fraction of Facebook, half of Facebook Messenger, fewer than Instagram and not that much bigger than SnapChat; presuming the latter service passes Twitter later this year, Twitter will be only the 5th most popular U.S.-based social networking service looking to monetize through advertising. This distinction — which excludes WhatsApp, at least for now — is a critical one, because the issue with advertisers is most don’t have the time or ability to work with multiple services; it’s likely most digital advertising spending (which I believe is set to expand greatly) will be consolidated onto the biggest networks (along with Google’s properties), with Facebook taking the lion’s share. Were that to happen, it’s easy to see Twitter as the odd network out.2

302 million MAU's is a lot of people, yet it's too small for advertising?  I agree with Thompson here.  Even though I have said before Twitter has enough users to monetize efficiently, they are being dominated by other networks when it comes to size and reach for advertisers.  Without the reach, advertisers will not use Twitter in their bag of tricks, they will opt for the platforms that give them the most return for their time and money.  

This is where I believe the argument for new leadership is warranted.  They need the reach because they are trying to play the same game as all of the other social networks.  The game is garner the most active users and create the reach that advertisers will jump all over.  What if that is not the game Twitter should be playing?  When in a position of weakness, which Twitter clearly seems to be in at this point, the strategy has to change.  By following the lead of Facebook and the like, Twitter can't win.  Facebook will always win in this scenario.  Facebook as the leader can follow competitors, because they are the biggest.   Facebook's competition has to find a different strategy to make the most profit in the social arena.

Instead, Twitter should redouble its efforts to acquire new users even as it redefines what Twitter the company is all about. I wrote about this in What Twitter Might Have Been: 

Alternatively, Twitter could empower third-party developers to build these sorts of applications that feed back information into the Twitter interest graph. An application like Nuzzel, for example, which uses your Twitter graph to create a news app, has much more of a one-way relationship with the social network: Nuzzel is getting all the benefit, and not sending much information back to Twitter. Twitter would be better off retooling their API and developer agreements to ensure they are learning from every application they interact with, and in return sharing their graph along with advertising in the form of their MoPub or Namo Media-derived offerings. The advantage of this approach is that the imagination and ingenuity of a massive developer ecosystem will always be far faster and more innovative than anything any one company can do on its own — just ask Apple.

I really like this strategy.  Third party developers are what made Twitter in the first place.  The firehose which is Twitter is better served as a platform for news and advertising that any third party can reach into and intake.  They just have to intake the advertising to be a part of the program.  I use Tweetbot and I don't see a single ad.  This should never happen for a company like Twitter.  Tweetbot, for the right to make a living off of the Twitter platform, should be required to show me advertising.  

My issue with Twitter is the firehose.  When you start to follow enough people, it is too hard to keep up with everything you want.  Facebook uses their algorithm to eliminate this phenomena, yet it does so in a way that doesn't create a bad experience for the user.  In fact, the user experience is greater because over time the user will see what they want as Facebook learns.  Third Party apps could do wonders with the firehose.  There would be so much innovation with the Twitter platform if Twitter embraced their third party partners.  This I believe would triple the MAU's for Twitter as the third party innovations would bring different ways to interact with the Twitter firehose.

Twitter also needs to eliminate partners that don't provide it with as much value as they provide.  When Steve Jobs took over he killed many projects and I believe Twitter cannot let other parties use their social graph for nothing in return.  There needs to be an ad platform that is established for this right.  When a partner uses the social graph, they have to use the Twitter ad platform.  

TWITTER’S ABANDONED USERS

The trouble for Twitter is that awareness of the service has long outstripped its usability. And yet, despite the fact that Twitter has struggled with new user growth for years, almost nothing was done to improve the product or on-boarding experience until just the last few months, when the company finally rolled out a new logged-out page meant to entice people with Twitter’s content, as well as an instant timeline that helped people get started. Unfortunately, both efforts seem to be too little too late: Twitter admitted on the earnings call that neither improvement had increased retention.

This isn’t a surprise: Business Insider reported last year that Twitter likely had 697 million abandoned accounts (and that number, presuming it was correct, has certainly grown). The problem is that those 697 million users, having already decided that Twitter isn’t a useful service for them, are much less likely to even experience things like the new logged-out page or instant timeline, even though Twitter @-handles and hashtags continue to be plastered all over TV and the web.

The focus should not be on finding new users to the service.  If these numbers above are correct, it is much easier to communicate and bring back these users ten it is to constantly find new users.  Any new users at this point would be low margin for Twitter at this point anyway.  They are more than likely new to the web, in emerging markets that don't have the income compared to the 697 million users that have already used the platform.

While inactive campaigns are very hard, it is essential to get these inactive users back on the site.  Step one is to find out why they abandoned.  Is there a common theme from inactive users that can be fixed by Twitter or a third party?  Next step is to get the word out on changes.  Twitter needs to jump at making changes to accommodate the inactive users and then let the inactive base know.  They have the emails from all of these users already, unless they spammed them endlessly and they have unsubscribed.  Email is a great tool and Twitter uses it poorly in keeping users active and getting return business.  

While I agree with Thompson that these changes aren't impossible to implement, the current team seems to be focusing on making Twitter, Facebook.  For that reason alone I would let them go.  Twitter should focus on service the customers that it has and providing an ad network that targets users so specifically the returns for advertisers is more compelling than the other networks.  Then the MAU problem goes away.  Easier said than done I know, but they have all the data and information to do it.  Plus they have the platform already built.    

Meerkat is dying – and it’s taking U.S. tech journalism with it

About three days after it received a lavish new funding round, Meerkat died an ugly and embarrassing death. It is hard to decide whether the Great Meerkat Debacle that has unfolded over the past week is a tragedy or a comedy — probably a bit of both.

The mobile streaming app that had whipped U.S. tech journalists into a frenzy announced $14 million in new funding on Thursday. Money poured in from Jared Leto, Greylock Partners and other illustrious sources. On the same day, Twitter launched its rival streaming app called Periscope. Apparently, investors didn’t stop to ponder why Meerkat people rushed to cash in so aggressively only a month after the app had debuted.

When there is talk about another tech bubble, this will be where they point to.  I won't say it's easy to get the attention of many with an app, but we have seen very little staying power with apps.  The demise of Zynga points to their premature purchasing of very basic games that didn't have long staying power.  Meerkat was popular for like a week.  I have been using Periscope for the last few days and it may take a lot more to keep the staying power.  Theres a lot of terrible content on the service.  Twitter will have to solve finding good content.  Otherwise this will be a fad and that will be too bad because I do think it has the opportunity to be amazing.

Twitter’s Dilemma

Good article to follow up on my post about Twitter.  Seems they have a product team that is talking about the right things, focusing on the product experience.  My fear is the "slave to two masters" part.  Should be interesting to see where the product goes in the next two years.

Twitter has a Growth Problem, or Not

Recently Twitter had their earnings call and the big story coming from the numbers was a slowing in the growth of Twitter's monthly active users (MAU).  There was plenty of commentary on the doom approaching for Twitter, as the MAU slow, so does the opportunities for Twitter.  

So I was looking at the number of MAU for Twitter.  That number has slowed to 288 million users. Let me say that again out loud, 288 million users.  These are mind boggling numbers.  Twitter made $479 million in revenue, which comes to a paltry $1.66 per MAU.  Now this number has doubled revenue, so that number seem to be growing.  

MAU is not the problem for Twitter.  If Twitter doubles the MAU, which is not going to happen, then revenue is still under $1 billion per quarter. The problem is the $1.66 per MAU.  This can also be attributed to Facebook having 7X the engagement over Twitter.  Twitters problem is their 288 million users do not spend enough time on the service.

Average time per MAU and revenue per MAU should be the main metrics for Twitter.  Twitter makes money on advertising.  Many say this is why MAU is the most important metric, I mean look at Facebook, they have 1.39 billion MAU and look at the money they make.  Twitter will never have the MAU of Facebook and it shouldn't worry about that number.  Twitter needs to have laser focus on making the Twitter experience the most engaging as possible.  288 million users is more than enough to have an amazing business.  I think 99.9% of the worlds businesses would kill for 288 million users.  

Recently Apple CEO Tim Cook made a comment that really resonated with me and I don't know if Twitter, or most companies for that matter, looks at their business in this way.  Tim Cook said "We're not focused on the numbers, we're focused on the things that produce the numbers."  Twitter needs to focus on what produces the numbers.  The product of Twitter.  The more their extremely large base of users engage with the platform, the more money Twitter makes.  It sounds so simple, but it isn't.  I feel Twitter doesn't spend enough time on making the platform the most engaging it can be.  

I don't have the answers on what will make Twitter more engaging.  I do believe that all of their focus should be on increasing the time each user spends on Twitter.  Make the platform more sticky.  If the focus is on the platform, then profits will follow.  Change the conversation to investors and make sure the organization is focused on the singular goal.  

I love Twitter.  I spend most of the time on my phone using Twitter, however I still find it hard to find new things to see.  I love using an app called Zite, that learns what I like by simple thumbs up and thumbs down and then shows me articles that I would like to read based on the input.  If Twitter could incorporate ease of use like Zite, I believe the platform would be so sticky.  Good luck Twitter and stay focused!   

Social Media Study: E-Mail 40 times more Effective than Facebook and Twitter

So, after all the excitement about Facebook and Twitter as communities and marketing panaceas, a recent study by McKinsey & Company reports something counter-intuitive: good, “old fashioned” e-mails prove to be 40 times more effective than Facebook and Twitter combined.

That is, if your goal is to acquire customers, and not just share the latest family news or travel experience.

I don't really understand why they say this is "counter-intuitive".  I have believed for a long time that social media was not a good channel for businesses.  It costs a lot of money to be in those channels because of the immediacy that customers expect, but more importantly these channels are not targeted whatsoever.  When posting on Twitter or Facebook, everyone gets to see what is being posted.  Whether those are the customers you are trying to target or not.  It is an even worse channel when it comes to current customers.

It’s a lot of work, but the the research sighted Williams-Sonoma which reported a 10% improvement in response rates by personalizing their e-mails, based on the customer’s on-site and catalog shopping preferences.

Another interesting comment.  Of course there is better response when the emails are targeted to customer behavior.  When customers get offers that are tailored to their behavior they spend more, it is just a simple fact.  When email is used as a simple newsletter channel, they will get lost.  Don't over communicate and keep the offers tailored.  Those are the keys to effective email marketing.

Getting a bit creepy

It’s hard to describe what’s the tipping point, the point where things turn from useful/entertaining to creepy. To me those two examples did cross the line. And I wish I could put my finger on exactly what makes it creepy, but it’s hard.

Perhaps it’s when the application or service makes it blatantly clear that they can read your messages, that they actually have unlimited access to all the names and numbers in your address book. That they do track where you access the site from regularly. And not only do they have this information and access, they feel that it’s ok for them to use it rather openly. And they do make it personal. It’s not some trending data aggregated over millions of customers. It’s my data, extracted and pinpointed to be used on (or as it feels, against) me.

I’m trusting you with my data. I realise there are risks involved, but please treat my data with respect. Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. And don’t be a creep.

Instagram and Youtube

People aren’t using Instagram for photos, WhatsApp for text, Line for stickers... they’re using everything for everything.

Seems to be dominated by the younger audience.  I look at my younger cousins and see their behavior with the apps.  They post and interact with many different social networks.  Not my cup of tea as much, but I use Twitter for most of my social network interaction, I post photos on both Instagram and Facebook so the family can see what's going on.  I use Linked In for business.

Is FB going to buy Whatsapp, Snapchat, Line, Kakao and the next ten that emerge as well? Sure, some of those will disappear, but it doesn't look like FB will crush the competitors the way it did on the desktop. On mobile, FB will be just one of many. 

I think this is the interesting thing about mobile also.  It is much harder to dominate like the desktop.  Moving between apps is so much easier than going back and forth between websites.  I think this is why the Chromebook is a flawed strategy.

Is Twitter the ‘end of the civilized world’

I love sensational headlines.  Of course it's not the "end of the civilized world".  I believe it is a changing of the way we consume news and information.  People who are in control of those industries are scared, not because of Twitter can do to the world, but because of what Twitter can do to their livelihoods.