Tag Archives: Reality checks

The Buying Opportunity

A large investor sold a big block of Apple shares this morning and that was a big enough deal that it made my news stream. He feels that the stock is overvalued and that Apple is having some product issues as well as being too dependent on China. It’s on the heels of Carl Ichan dumping his huge stake in the company a couple of weeks ago. That could be although it’s not really our topic this morning. Instead, think about how the stock market works. You can’t sell a stock unless someone wishes to purchase it from you (or the company decides to buy back its own shares). The real question at that point is price, although there are other factors at play as well.

When I got out of college I was fortunate enough to have an older friend who was a very smart investor. He told me to read the Graham and Dodd classic book called Security Analysis and to live by what the book said when it came to investing. As it turns out, Warren Buffett was giving out the same advice (he’s done pretty well by its principles, wouldn’t you say?). I have this on my mind because I spend a lot of time consulting with start-up companies, most of whom are out trying to raise investment. Graham differentiated between investment and speculation, the former “promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.” Part of what I work on with these companies is helping them become the former – good investments – and not speculative, although it’s fair to say that most start-ups contain some elements of speculation since they don’t really have long track records.

Back to Apple.  No one would consider Apple a speculative investment and yet someone who is supposed to be sophisticated in the ways of the market has determined that it no longer meets his valuation and that this was the time to sell before the value declined further. Another investor decided that the price is low enough to purchase shares worth over a $1 billion. That’s our point today.  First, whatever we do in business must be able to be seen through the lens of value.  Second, we shouldn’t allow one person’s assessment of the value – expressed as what they’re willing to pay for your product or service – be thought of as gospel.  For every seller – every person who thinks you’re overpriced – there is probably a buyer – someone who sees the value in what you’re doing as well as the upside at the same price.  That applies not just to buying a stake in your company but in purchasing your products or services  as well.  Make sense?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Girl Talk

As our girls were growing up, I tried very hard not to speak in gender-specific terms. There were no “firemen” or “policemen” or even “postmen.” In part, I guess I wanted to send a subtle message that anyone can do anything – boys or girls, men or women. The other part was just a feeling that taking on a tone of talking to girls in a language more specific to girls (which I have no clue about) was silly.

English: Gender neutral toilet sign at departm...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I bring this up because I was reminded both of that and of David Ogilvy‘s famous quote this morning as I read about some research from the Fluent people. Ogilvy is known for reminding us that “The customer is not a moron. She is your wife.” You can get the full report here, but the Fluent research talks about how many of us are speaking to our female target audiences and how they want us to do so:

Women overwhelmingly prefer gender-neutral ads. 73% of women say they sometimes receive marketing messages directed specifically to women…74% say they prefer marketing messages to be gender-neutral.

Fluent surveyed 1,443 US female internet users ages 18 and older to come up with that number and the study was designed to better understand the impact of online and offline marketing channels on their purchasing decisions and how engagement varies across different age groups.  So while only 26% of respondents said they preferred marketing messages directed specifically to women, almost three-quarters of female internet users said they prefer marketing messages to be gender neutral. A little out of touch, no?

Smart marketing these days isn’t about selling anything.  We need to understand our customers and the problem they have which our product or service solves.  Explaining that you’re there to help with that – being a resource – is like talking to your friends and not to a mark. Speaking in clear, gender-neutral language is generally how I speak with my friends.  You?

Leave a comment

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks

The End Is Nigh?

Walk around any big city and inevitably you’ll come across some person wearing or carrying a sign proclaiming that the end is nigh.  They’re warning about an impending apocalypse.  While they’re generally seen as a little odd (a polite way of saying nuts), I suppose at some point they’re going to be right.  Hopefully, that time isn’t close.

With that preface, and with the recognition that my timing might be off, I think we’re seeing signs that the end is nigh for the TV industry in which I grew up as a businessperson.  If you’ve been paying any attention to the media landscape over the last decade, you’ve seen some changes in what I’ll call Big TV (cable and broadcast).  To a certain extent, TV has adapted and their basic revenue model hasn’t changed a whole lot.  Sure, broadcast TV has done a good job of mirroring the cable model of dual revenue streams by gaining carriage fees, but the ad model – dollars for eyeballs – is pretty much the same as when I sold, even though the demographics are a bit more precise as the industry adopts additional data sources.

So why is the end nigh?  Let me offer a quote from YouTube’s CEO as presented at their “newfront” and quoted by Cynopsis:

 

To make her case, CEO Susan Wojcicki rattled off a startling statistic: “YouTube now reaches more 18–49-year-olds than any network ­ broadcast or cable,” she said. “In fact, we reach more 18–49-year-olds during primetime than the top 10 TV shows combined.” Her assertion is backed up by a Nielsen study of US viewers that Google commissioned. Wojcicki also confirmed news that broke earlier in the week: Between 2016 and 2017, Magna Global,Interpublic’s ad-buying unit, has committed to spending at least $250 million on YouTube instead of TV.

It’s a truism in media that dollars follow eyeballs (eventually).  Other than live sports and breaking news, those eyeballs have been departing the BigTV guys for a while, at least in the traditional form via the traditional channels (we program, you watch when we offer a show). While the digital dollars have been increasing (and will pass TV spending this year), very few marketers admit to cutting TV for digital.  Magna has because according to them, 18- to 49-year-olds watch an average 26 hours of linear TV per week, down from 32 hours in 2009.  Dollars follow eyeballs. As Adweek reported:

Magna Global’s $250 million investment in YouTube advertising will come straight from its TV budget. The $250 million investment is four to five times Magna Global’s typical YouTube budget. As a result, the firm will spend less on traditional marketing overall this year as TV ratings dip.

So you tell me – is the end really nigh for Big TV or am I just another nut carrying a sign around?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media