What Does a Deleted Blog Post Tell Us About NBC’s Social Networking Strategy?
Michael Arrington
33 comments »
We’ve said this before - it’s always the deleted blog posts that get the most attention. In this case it’s a blog post by Sab Kanaujia, VP of Digital Innovation at NBC Digital Media. On December 26, 2006 he wrote a long post on his blog outlining NBC’s vision for social networking. Sometime After January 9 the post was removed, although a cached version is here (and a copy of the text is below).
NBC is clearly trying to find their direction in the social networking space, and they need to make their move soon. They almost acquired Tribe last year, although the deal eventually fell through, apparently over scaling issues.
Kanaujia’s post was surprisingly (and refreshingly) blunt. He says “We know we’re already late” and “Instead of buying an existing social networking destination…the decision was made to internally build the platform grounds up.”
The key strategic decision they made, suggests Kanaujia, was to have a distributed social network instead of one large central property. He says they will build “official communities/fan sites around all our TV shows and movies” for example, and “the current valuations…[of large social networks] do not provide an attractive cost/benefit proposition for ownership.”
Whether this is still their strategy (it’s only been a few weeks since it was originally posted) or they’ve changed it isn’t clear, nor is the reason Kanaujia chose to delete the post. Perhaps they just made a decision that having their go forward social networking strategy out there for the world to see wasn’t good for competitive reasons. Or perhaps they finally acquired another social network, something Kanaujia discusses in the last paragraph of the post. Either way, he just guaranteed that far more people will now read the post than if he just left it up on his blog.
The full text of the blog post is below.
NBC Universal’s approach on social networking
It won’t surprise anyone that my team at NBC Universal Digital Media is currently leading a major social networking initiative. I guess every online media firm is doing something in this area. We know we’re already late. But unlike Fox, our approach has been different.
Instead of buying an existing social networking destination (Digital Media evaluated some candidates back in the summer before I joined the team), the decision was made to internally build the platform grounds up - we do have a few 3rd party partners to give us a jump start. The decision not to buy was mainly due to integration challenges and the inability of most of 3rd party social networking destinations to scale, a key aspect for a large media firm like ours.
Social networking became a platform long back (it started as a product), in which several products can be plugged in to enhance the overall functionality and user experience.
NBCU is building a core social networking platform that will provide various tools and functionality on all our major properties to enable users to self-express and find, interact and share with other like-minded users. We’re not launching separate stand-alone destination(s), ala MySpace, Facebook, etc. We’ll have the first launch on one of our biggest properties early next year, and then roll-out on all remaining major properties (over 12) in a phased manner before the end of Q3.
The underlying communities and how to make/keep them vibrant on all NBCU properties will be our primary focus. Creating official communities/fan sites around all our TV shows and movies will be part of it. There is no reason why users should go to/create The Office community on MySpace when NBCU has the competitive advantage and the ability to provide a differentiated experience on NBC.com (e.g., get cast members involved, exclusive content, etc). We’ll also work on creatively linking 3rd party communities for NBCU shows/movies to our official communities.
Recently I had an interesting lunch conversation with a GP of a major VC firm. He argued that instead of building social networking features on existing properties, it’s more important for NBCU, and any other major content firm, to own a highly popular, stand alone social networking destination from distribution perspective. I do not disagree with the distribution/promotion potential of highly popular social networking destinations, both in the U.S. and globally, and NBCU is already leveraging these channels. The current valuations, however, do not provide an attractive cost/benefit proposition for ownership. It’s not surprising that my lunch partner is also pitching NBCU to acquire their social networking portfolio firm.
who cares?
i think the main issue for the post’s removal was the last paragraph. the mention of the possible purchase of the VC’s SN portfolio firm could be fodder for speculation. never mind now that such speculation could gain even more attention with their post deletion. i wonder if NBCU will reply to a post that was not supposed to exist.
Or it might have been the NBC PR strategy from the beginning.
Bjorn - if he had simply deleted that paragraph people may not have noticed the change…
These old media companies still have the “top-down” mentality in an era where the “bottom-up” websites such as YouTube and MySpace are the kings, for the simple reason that the broadband-empowered populace do not want the suits to tell them how and where to worship celebrities manufactured by them.
Whereas CBS execs have recognized this trend and decided to do business with YouTube, the NBC/Universal execs are apparently (as evidenced by the deleted blog post) still debating among themselves, using fancy terms like “social-networking strategy”. Using plain English, NBC/Universal execs are horrified that the fans of their icons like Matt Lauer are congregating over at MySpace and YouTube, instead of over at their slick, boisterous, Flash-enabled corporate designated sites.
The deletion of the post tells us that NBC/Universal leadership has no social-networking strategy and their internal report is telling them that building their own YouTube/MySpace knockoff is a waste of money. My advice for these fine gentlemen is to shed their Wolfgang-Puck-fed egos and give Chad Hurley a call.
NBC is definitely late to the game. Trouble is, they are choosing to release products with nearly no traction and probably spending a bit too much on development.
Might be a better strategy to acquire tested SN’s with a bit of traction that they can get much cheaper.
What are the odds that he knows this, he wanted more people to read the post, and he’s playing you like a fiddle?
Har, har.
It says “Do much evil”
It is always good to diversify into fringe Businesses, NoBody Knows when it may grow into a money spinner cash cow or growth engine of your organisation.
http://blogs.ibibo.com/TechnicalJournal
It’s definitely too late to join the game for NBC.
Who would care about another new social network site. People have already settled in their preferred network.. Moving to another network is a pain in the ass…
It’s a wag of my fingers to NBC…
This is going right in the crap news thread.
I suggest they buy mediarati and build a community around writer’s, blogger’s and the media generally so that they can promote, discuss and share their stuff.
I find it interesting that they choose to delete this post. Big companies struggle with transparency and think once they delete the post it is gone. The big companies should take a lesson from this.
Deleting a post only calls attention to it.
The interesting aspect of the SN game is that whenever a major new player joins, the game changes.
Constant evolution is what it’s all about.
@Ricko - people will only be “settled in” for as long as there is nowhere better to move to. Once another shiny object comes along, with more to offer at a lower price, or still for free, the masses will move in and settle there. Rinse. Repeat.
NBC is definitely late to the social networking game but do not underestimate the power of these old media dinosaurs. By waiting NBC now has a better understanding of what works and more importantly what doesn’t work; especially with regard to business models.
This, coupled with the fact that they are the first destination for much of the source information on their shows, can help them create a very powerful social solution that can help tie together their different properties (the shows and their corresponding web sites) and increasing cross pollination across their different TV show audiences (similar to the way weak shows follow after popular shows in the hopes of drawing in/over the audience).
The bottoms up approach used by YouTube et al initially worked because of the novelty/uniqueness of creating a generic all encompassing site led to a few sites getting a first mover advantage. In the end however people only have the mental bandwith for monitoring 5-10 web sites on a regular basis (closer to 5 sites). For social networking sites, we are quickly moving into the age of ‘can you retain your eyeballs?’ as the old guard starts to mobilize it’s forces in response.
Collective knowledge, wisdom of crowds etc are all powering the value of social networking but the doors in, the way of getting there, also have a lot of influence. Sites that own extensive source content can create compelling doorways for people have to socialize about something and the shorter the ‘distance’ between the content and the people the better as the ‘one click away’ rules them all.
NBC certainly has the money to do so, the incentive to do it right and likely need to hire some web 2.0-ish media-ish people and some upstart innovatators/entrepreneurs. More importantly, they know they need to change and that in of itself is the most dramatic change in recent years. The purchase/power of YouTube in particular has awoken these dragons and given them something concrete to rally around. I for one would not discount NBC just yet.
Ben Watson
VP, Collaboration - Thomson NETg
ben.watson@thomson.com
Ben - I make a living out of underestimating old media dinosaurs.
Mike, just something to point out is that YouTube broke into the collective mind on a copyrighted NBC property, SNL. Nevermind things like Comedy Central etc. MySpace and YouTube are the stars right now, but the audience is fickle and with low switching cost. When NBC decides to enter this space with whatever product they do, all they have to do is to promote their product inside of a show like “The Office” or Scrubs and I see them getting a massive following overnight. Old Media still has substantial strategic advantages in leveraging their existing audience.
The traffic numbers web sites deal with pale in comparison to how many millions of viewers NBC can pack into a one hour show. That number is declining, but it’s still there.
I thought Ben Watson’s post was pretty interesting, but I also wanted to point out some things on it. They’re just my opinions.
NBC is definitely late to the social networking game but do not underestimate the power of these old media dinosaurs. By waiting NBC now has a better understanding of what works and more importantly what doesn’t work; especially with regard to business models.
I don’t know that anyone’s really saying this old media model doesn’t have power. It does. The thing is, though, just like television changed the way we view radio; the Internet is changing the way we view television (and radio). I think NBC and other major media players will handle social networking well enough–for the reasons you stated–but it won’t save them from the ultimate losses (no matter how soon or how far off those losses may be). Social networking isn’t going to save some parts of their business, no matter how well they understand it or implement it.
This, coupled with the fact that they are the first destination for much of the source information on their shows, can help them create a very powerful social solution that can help tie together their different properties (the shows and their corresponding web sites) and increasing cross pollination across their different TV show audiences (similar to the way weak shows follow after popular shows in the hopes of drawing in/over the audience).
This is interesting, and at times I feel inclined to believe this way as well. The alternative to this, though, is that more people begin renting seasons on DVD or download them or watch clips on YouTube, read blogs (or similar items) for news. If this occurs, yeah, sure, you might still have activity on shows’ websites, but it won’t mean much to the industry whose main bread and butter is the 15 to 17 minutes of ads you’re getting per the hour. It will be hard for them to bring together their network if no one is going directly to it for the content. I know that’s what they’re trying to fix now, but I honestly don’t think it will work in the end.
I know I’m an extreme exception to the rule, but at age 19, I do not own a television, nor do I plan to. I rent seasons now (if I care to watch anything at all), because I’m sick of being force-fed advertising. I am not the passive sponge that companies would like for me to be. I go to YouTube for clips. I go to IMDB and other movie sites to see only movies rated at 6.5/10 or above. The media I take in is how I want it, when I want it. That’s what the Internet helps facilitate, and that’s something that television, at least currently, cannot cater to. I don’t think the television networks are ready to fully enter the web; they see too much risk (and rightfully so), but their slowness is just hurting them in another way. I don’t think they’re going to be fast enough, free enough or willing enough to salvage the bulk of what they’ve had for decades. People my age and younger really aren’t going to wait around, either.
No one should discount any media element entirely, of course, but I don’t think the “old media dinosaurs” are flexible enough in many ways to cater to an active people with unreliable schedules and very diverse tastes. We want it in our own time, minus ads and highly fluid (available on multiple platforms: online, downloadable, on our video players, rights to burn, rights to embed the content on other sites, etc., etc.). Social networking may give NBC and others a temporary boost, but it won’t give them the courage to break free and let people handle the [real] media (e.g., the shows) in their own personal ways, which is what I think most people want.
Only time will tell how it really goes, though.
Lelia,
Something to point out on your post is that NBC does still own, control and benefits from legal distribution channels of their video, whether you rent seasons, watch on iTunes, etc. They have less benefit from you watching their content on YouTube, and if they feel it’s against their interest to support YouTube with their content they can have it removed. In the end NBC controls NBC’s content. YouTube is largely supported by other people’s content, so they do not have as much power over NBC as you would think.
Adam,
Here is the evidence that NBC needs YouTube more than YouTube needs NBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA
It’s the famous uncensored video clip (viewed more than 10 million times) of Justin Timberlake’s “Dick in a Box”, and it was uploaded to YouTube by, you guessed it, NBC.
That doesn’t demonstrate need on NBC’s part, That’s just NBC taking advantage of YouTube for free viral marketing. That Clip is a “giveaway” clip they’re putting on all the video sharing networks to virally promote themselves. For example, third clip down.
http://phylo.video.nbbc.com/mm.....rId=vidiac
They could just easily embed a preroll ad in that video to promote their social networking service…. which could be strategically dangerous for YouTube. I think the fact that clip got ten million views shows that YoTube needs top tier content to maintain views. Sure there are exceptions to that rule as there is some great UGC, but far and away the top viewed content on YouTube is stuff of questionable copyright.
FYI: Just to set the record straight, NBC did not pass on purchasing Tribe.net “because of scale issues.” As an executive at Tribe at the time I would have known. Scalability was one of the things Tribe got right. While I’m not certain why they passed on us, most insiders would agree that the technology was superior to anyone else in the space. I’m guessing it had more to do with our lack of size (compared to Myspace/Facebook/Youtube) and the nature of our audience which was urban, older and maybe too alternative.
Nbc is not nice
they should sit in time out
or you should read litrature instead of let the news dictate your soul
http://mbcpoetry.wordpress.com
In reply to Adam.
Something to point out on your post is that NBC does still own, control and benefits from legal distribution channels of their video, whether you rent seasons, watch on iTunes, etc.
But they aren’t nearly as concerned about having their seasonal DVDs rented as they are having you watch the premieres, on television, on their time schedule, so their faulty Nielsen ratings will make them (and their paying advertisers) feel better. If networks like NBC were not worried about the affects of the Internet, they wouldn’t be trying nearly as hard (and often failing) at fitting themselves into the online world.
They don’t like the online world, because for once they’re at the mercy of viewers and how they handle content, rather than vice versa. (Just look at the industry’s feelings toward TiVo.)
I’m not saying they’re scared of any one particular product that’s out there today. I’m saying they’re scared more of the changing mentality of viewers: the thought that we should have a right over the content we let into our lives and when we let it in. In the past networks have prided themselves on saying “we give the viewers what they want”, but that’s obviously changing. As I said in my other comment, they just simply can’t cater to the ever-changing lives and schedules of the modern world, not to mention the niches that many of us are more interested in anyway.
And I think there is a growing number of people like me, who frankly only have one or two shows that they really enjoy to watch–and even those aren’t “have to watch” shows. There are other things to do, both online and off.
Don’t get me wrong television won’t die out, just like radio didn’t die out. We still listen to radio; still enjoy it. We just do it differently. That will be what happens, I think.
Blah. *effects
Lelia,
Oh I agree with you in many ways television is going to get surpassed by Internet, and they are feeling the pinch, but just to put things in perspective, NBC-Universal did $14.7 Billion in revenues in 2005. That’s a lot compared to YouTube’s revenues of…..oh nevermind. Even Google, the big kid on the Block is still pretty small in terms of real earnings to some of the traditional media companies.
This reminds me a lot of the Telecommunications Industry. AT&T had a cash cow in legacy long distance voice business that every year paid less and less. There were predictions that Wireless carriers and Data Carriers would surpass the Bells. While AT&T and the rest did worse and worse every year, they simply had too much marketshare momentum to outright loose and have since done a fiar job of recovering.
The Internet is disruptive to legacy Media companies and they understand it needs to be part of their strategy, but from their perspective we’re all still pretty small time here. Personally I don’t think any of them (including Fox) have shown us what their final online media strategy is going to be, but I do believe they are run by very smart people, it’s just they do not have the flexibility to adapt and move as fast as us small companies do. When they do finally move it’s going to be interesting to see.
While NBC does a lot of things right, I think they still battle under a couple of huge disadvantages.
First, NBCU still seems to be locked into this GE mindset of project management. Every project seems to have about 50% too many people attached to it, and the number of people that have to sign off on major digital projects makes “Brazil” seem like a recruitment film for NBCU.
Secondly, they still seem to see digital as just a brand extension, not an entirely new form of entertainment. For proof of that, watch iVillage Live, which is the most gawdawful piece of crap I’ve ever seen.
This is in reply to the comment #7 by “Sab Kanaujia” (doubt he’s the real one)
—————–
January 14th, 2007 at 9:41 pm, “Sab Kanaujia” wrote
Either way, he just guaranteed that far more people will now read the post than if he just left it up on his blog.
What are the odds that he knows this, he wanted more people to read the post, and he’s playing you like a fiddle?
Har, har.
———-
How to prove who’s the real “Sab Kanaujia” among the two of us? :-))
Nice Post.
That was well said. Always appreciate your indepth views. Keep up the great work!
John
To Sab Kanaujia #28: Use OpenID!