Chris Dixon

Google is fighting battles on almost every front:  social networking, mobile operating systems, web browsers, office apps, and so on.  Much of this makes sense, inasmuch as it is strategic for them to dominate or commoditize each layer that stands between human beings and online ads.  But while they are doing this, they are leaving their core business vulnerable, particularly to Amazon.

When legendary VC John Doerr quit Amazon’s board a few months ago, savvy industry observers like TechCrunch speculated that Google might begin directly competing with Amazon:

[Google] competes with Amazon in a number of areas, particularly web services and big data. And down the road, Google may compete directly in other ways as well. Froogle was a flop, but don’t think Google doesn’t want a bigger chunk of ecommerce revenue from people who begin their product searches on their search engine.*

In fact, Google and Amazon’s are already direct competitors in their core businesses. Like Amazon, Google makes the vast majority of its revenue from users who are looking to make an online purchase. Other query types – searches related to news, blog posts, funny videos, etc. – are mostly a loss leaders for Google.

The key risk for Google is that they are heavily dependent on online purchasing being a two-stage process:  the user does a search on Google, and then clicks on an ad to buy something on another site. As long as the e-commerce world is sufficiently fragmented, users will prefer an intermediary like Google to help them find the right product or merchant. But as Amazon increasingly dominates the e-commerce market, this fragmentation could go away along with users’ need for an intermediary.**

Moreover, Google’s algorithmic results for product searches are generally poor. (Try using Google to decide what dishwasher to buy). These poor results might actually lead to short term revenue increases since the sponsored links are superior to the unsponsored ones.  But long term if Google continues producing poor product search results and Amazon continues consolidating the e-commerce market, Google’s core business is at serious risk.

—

* Froogle (and Google Products) have been unsuccessful most likely because Google has had no incentive to make them better: they make plenty of money on these queries already on a CPC basis, and would likely make less if they moved to a CPA model.

** Most Amazon Prime customers probably already do skip Google and go directly to Amazon.  I know I do.

It is customary to divide online advertising into two categories: direct response and brand advertising. I prefer instead to divide it according to the mindset of users: whether or not they are actively looking to purchase something (i.e. they have purchasing intent).*

When users are actively looking to purchase something, they typically go to search engines or e-commerce sites. Through advertising or direct sales, these sites harvest intent. Google and Amazon are the biggest financial beneficiaries of intent harvesting.

When the user is not actively looking to buy something, the goal of an online ad is to generate intent. The intent generation market is still fairly fragmented and will grow rapidly over the next few years as brand advertising increasingly moves online. P&G – which alone spends almost $4B/year on brand advertising – needs to convince the next generation of consumers that Crest is better than Colgate. This is why Google paid such a premium for Doubleclick, Yahoo for Right Media, and Microsoft for aQuantive (MS’s biggest acquisition ever).

In 2003, Google introduced AdSense, a program to syndicate their intent harvesting text ads beyond Google’s main property Google.com.  The playbook they followed was: use their popular website to build a critical mass of advertisers; then use that critical mass to run an off-property network that offers the highest payouts to publishers. AdSense became so dominant that competitors like Yahoo quit the syndicated ad business altogether. Today, Google has such a powerful position that they don’t disclose percentage revenue splits to publishers and extract the vast majority of the profits.

It is widely believed that Facebook will soon follow the AdSense playbook by introducing an off-property ad network. They’ll try to use their strong base of advertisers to dominate intent generating ads the way AdSense dominated intent harvesting ads.

But to win the intent generation ad battle, data is as important as a critical mass of advertisers. For intent harvesting, users simply type what they are looking for into a search box. For intent generating ads, you need to use data to make inferences about what might influence the user.

This is what the introduction of the Facebook Like button is all about.  Intent generating ads – which mostly means displays ads – have notoriously low click through rates (well below 1%). Attempts to improve these numbers through demographics have basically failed. Many startups are having success using social data to target ads today. But the holy grail for targeting intent generating ads is taste data – which basically means what the user likes. Knowing, for example, that a user liked Avatar is an incredibly useful datapoint for targeting an Avatar 2 ad.

Publishers who adopt Facebook’s Like feature may get more traffic and perhaps a better user experience as a result.  But they should hope the intent generation ad market doesn’t end up like the intent harvesting ad market – with one dominant player commanding the lion’s share of the profits.

* Most text ads are about intent harvesting and most display ads are about intent generation, but they are not coreferential distinctions. For example, with techniques like “search retargeting” (you do a Google search for washing machines and the later on another site see a display ad for washing machines), sometimes intent harvesting is delivered through display ads.

The brewing fight between Facebook and Zynga is what is known in economic strategy circles as “buyer-supplier hold up.” The classic framework for analyzing a firm’s strategic position is Michael Porter’s Five Forces. In Porter’s framework, Zynga’s strategic weakness is extreme supplier concentration – they get almost all their traffic from Facebook.

It is in Facebook’s economic interest to extract most of Zynga’s profits, leaving them just enough to keep investing in games and advertising. Last year’s reduced notification change seemed like one move in this direction as it forced game makers to buy more ads instead of getting traffic organically. This probably hurt Zynga’s profitability but also helped them fend off less well-capitalized rivals. Facebook could also hold up Zynga by entering the games business itself, but this seemed unlikely since thus far Facebook has kept its features limited to things that are “utility like.”

The way Facebook now seems to be holding up Zynga – requiring Zynga to use their payments system –  is particularly clever.  First, payments are still very much a “utility like” feature, and arguably one that benefits the platform, so it doesn’t come across as flagrant hold up. It is also clever because – assuming Facebook has insight into Zynga’s profitability – Facebook can charge whatever percentage gets them an optimal share of Zynga’s profits.

The risk for Zynga is obvious — if they don’t diversify their traffic sources very soon, they are left with a choice between losing profits and losing their entire business.  But there is a risk for Facebook as well. If buyers of traffic (e.g. app makers) fear future hold up, they are less likely to make investments in the platform. The biggest mistake platforms make isn’t charging fees (Facebook) or competing with complements (Twitter), it’s being inconsistent.  Apple also charges 30% fees but they’ve been mostly consistent about it. App makers feel comfortable investing in the Apple platform and even having most of their business depend on them in a way they don’t on Facebook or Twitter.

If the U.S. economy were a company, the VC industry would be the R&D department. The financing for the VC industry comes from so-called LPs (Limited Partners) – mostly university endowments, pension funds, family funds, and funds-of-funds.

These LPs wield tremendous power, yet very few of them understand how startups or venture capital actually works. I was reminded of this recently when I saw this quote from a prominent fund-of-funds, justifying their investment in a 30-year old venture firm:

“As the amount of money raised by venture firms shrinks, older firms that were around before the dot-com bubble will benefit,” said Michael Taylor, a managing director at HarbourVest. “These firms have track records, brand names and knowledge about how to avoid making mistakes that younger firms do not necessarily have,” he said.

These older firms do often have track records – they’ve survived precisely because at one point they delivered good returns.  But it’s a mistake to assume that — because VC brands and institutional knowledge persist – past returns will predict future returns.  Here’s why.

VC brand names do not persist.  From the perspective of VCs and entrepreneurs, VC brands rise and fall very quickly. Given the excess supply of venture dollars, top tier entrepreneurs are frequently selecting their investors, not vice versa.  The VCs most sought after are mostly new firms:  big firms like Andreeson Horowitz, Union Square Ventures, and First Round, and micro-VCs like Floodgate (fka Maples), Betaworks, and Ron Conway.

VC firms don’t accrue institutional knowledge. VC returns are driven by partners, not firms. Studies have shown this, as will a quick perusal of the big exits at prominent VC firms. When key partners switch firms or become less active, VC firms retain very little residual value.  Some service firms — for example consulting firms like McKinsey — invest heavily in accruing institutional knowledge by developing proprietary methodologies and employee apprenticeship programs.  VCs develop no real IP and rarely have serious apprenticeship programs.

There is an old saying among big company CIOs that “no one gets fired for buying IBM.”  It’s much easier for a fund-of-fund partner to defend investments based on a VC’s track records. It’s a safe but bad strategy.

To intelligently invest in VC firms, you need to roll up your sleeves and dive deep into the startup world.  You need to learn about the startups themselves, assess the entrepreneurs, use their products, analyze market dynamics – all things that good VCs and entrepreneurs do. If you want to understand a VCs brand and abilities don’t look at their track record in the 90s – ask today’s entrepreneurs.  The answer will likely surprise you.

Unfortunately, very few LPs do this.  As a result, a massive amount of R&D capital is being misallocated.