Groupon’s Biggest Threats Won’t Come from the Web

Image representing YellowPages as depicted in ...
Image via CrunchBase

Now that Groupon has closed “Like, a Billion Dollars” it’s time for the company to get down to business. Mathew Ingram notes on GigaOm, that “now comes the hard part” for the company. And he’s right, now that you have the money it’s time to go out an execute and build a business that can provide a return on that level of investment. They’ve got competition and more and more wannabe’s are popping up with deal offers left and right. But the threat’s to be worried about won’t come from the Web companies. The threat’s to be wary of come from the yellow page directories themselves.

Ingram writes:

On top of Google presenting a competitive threat, there is also Facebook, which has experimented with Groupon-style discounts via Facebook Places, and could quite easily leverage its 600-million-user reach to compete with the company if it wanted to. And then there are competitors such as LivingSocial, the second-largest group-buying player, which recently got a $175-million investment from Amazon — another company that has the deep pockets and the reach to compete with Groupon — and Tippr, which has a white-label platform that allows merchants and website publishers to run their own Groupon offers, with Tippr handling all of the back-end and support.

And while, sure, Google and Facebook and LivingSocial pose legitimate threats from the online world, the fiercest competition is going to come from companies like AT&T YellowPages and Yellowbook. Because I believe that Groupon is going to go after the SMB business that is the lifeblood to those companies. I wrote earlier, when the $950 million news broke:

Groupon knows that without people pounding the pavement, pounding on doors and pounding the phone, they won’t reach the mass of SMBs who are 1) not actively seeking out new advertising options online and 2) are hounded by traditional SMB advertising providers like the Yellow Pages, who don’t ever let up on closing small business deals. And to put that organization in place is going to take a ton of cash. You need sales agents in each city, you need sales management, you need office space, you need call centers, you need fulfillment, billing and operations teams to handle that size of a customer base. And that takes a ton of money.

That’s where the threats and challenges will come from. Groupon is way out ahead of any of its web competitors; but now, to succeed at capturing a big chunk of the SMB market it has to go head-to-head with these massive companies that have sales teams, offices, infrastructure, relationships (oh, and experience) selling to SMBs. They’re the company that local businesses are comfortable investing with. Now, SMBs may not be happy with them, and their businesses may be dying; but they’re a force to be reckoned with and Groupon is going to have it’s work cut out for them to make their business a legitimate contender for the big chunks of SMB dollars currently being spent with YellowPages and the other directories.

So Ingram is right, “now comes the hard part,” but while they’ll need to keep an eye on their web-brethren currently in the rearview; it’s their brand-new competition that will require the most scrutiny. The directories have lost enough already—they’re going to try to leverage their head start to deploy their own deal offerings, and that’s where the battle really lies for Groupon.

Why Groupon Needs $950 Million More

Groupon logo.
Image via Wikipedia

The blogosphere is abuzz over tech-darling Groupon’s proposed $950 million Series G round. Many people have asked “Why do they need all that money?” And while expansion is the obvious answer, it’s a bit more nuanced than that. Groupon knows that in order to grow at scale in the SMB market you need a big sales organization with feet-on-the-street in the markets you’re hoping to reach. If you look at the successful small business advertising providers—the one’s that own large chunks of the market—they all have large sales forces. And it’s the large sales force that has stood between many a great, local-business-focused business plans and actual success.

Groupon knows that without people pounding the pavement, pounding on doors and pounding the phone, they won’t reach the mass of SMBs who are 1) not actively seeking out new advertising options online and 2) are hounded by traditional SMB advertising providers like the Yellow Pages, who don’t ever let up on closing small business deals. And to put that organization in place is going to take a ton of cash. You need sales agents in each city, you need sales management, you need office space, you need call centers, you need fulfillment, billing and operations teams to handle that size of a customer base. And that takes a ton of money.

What Groupon is doing is something that no other tech company has done in recent memory—made a real run at securing a big chunk of the SMB market. Sure, new local-business-focused companies pop-up all the time. But most of them are either niche providers or they partner with the big existing yellow page providers to get access to their sales organization. They become a B2B channel provider leveraging the existing sales force because few can generate or raise the cash necessary to build a sales organization to go out and reach those SMBs directly.

Even mighty Google has taken this approach until now. They’re either unwilling to, or culturally unable to, commit to the SMB market with a massive sales force. Google has targeted savvy SMBs directly with AdWords solicitations; but has also worked aggressively to partner with yellow page companies to sell AdWords as part of existing yellow page bundled services, and often resold as CPM-based impressions (e.g. spend $2,500/month to get a quarter-page ad in the yellow book, a bolded listing with a photo on the site and a bucket of impressions driven by CPMs). And they’ve supported that initiative with direct mail, SEM (of course) and some print advertising as air cover to increase awareness and trial of AdWords through one channel or another.

But it was not until just last week that Google started outbound telesales direct to small business owners. That is a direct response to Groupon spurning their offer, and the realization that if they’re going to get serious about local business they can’t solve it with an algorithm. They need to put people toward the business unit to succeed.

All of this of course sheds quite a bit of light on the Groupon/Google negotiations and why the deal fell apart. I think what Groupon’s board realized (and kudos to them for this insight) is that Google—at its core—is not a sales-driven company. They don’t have the internal buy-in to be a hardcore sales organization and they’ve never committed the resources needed to make small business a booming success. They’ve tried to do it every other way except invest in a massive sales force. And I think Groupon looked at what has worked in reaching SMBs at scale and they realized it’s not arms-length. They realized that SMB advertising is still old school. It’s still knocking and dialing for dollars.

Groupon realized that what they needed is a sales-focused organization, not a technology-focused one. And tying up with Google would be a mistake, because at their core the two companies are fundamentally different in what they know about going to market. Google knows that it’s tech and better and more tech; Groupon knows that it’s how many calls can we make in a day. Groupon’s board knew it wouldn’t thrive under Google.

Additionally, Groupon knew that tying up with a dinosaur of a yellow page business was a bad idea too. The margins are non-existent, advertising dollars are shrinking and moving online, and most observers are waiting for someone to drag those pre-Internet monoliths out behind the wood shed and put a bullet in them. So the only logical step for Groupon, between their options, is to go out and build the sales organization they need that supports the tech organization that they are.

So while everyone oohs and ahhs at $950 million and will continue to talk about bubbles in the tech space; I personally think Groupon has made a very savvy decision to truly be one-of-a-kind, to be the first tech company to go hard after the SMB market—and win.

Ad Space Disappears from New LATimes.com Home Page?

I was just checking out the new LATimes.com redesign and apart from its striking blog-like look, I noticed another feature that made it different from other news sites.  The ads seemed much less prominent in size and number than I’m accustomed to at other newspaper Web sites.  It piqued my interest that the change was that drastic that I immediately felt it with a quick visual scan of the page.  I decided to do a little comparison of the LA Times new Web site to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in terms of ad space and units on the home page to see if my initial reaction was right.  It turns out my eyes did not deceive me.

Some findings:

  • The new LA Times Web site has 34% fewer home page pixels dedicated to ads then the WSJ and 21.5% fewer than the New York Times
  • The new LA Times home page has fewer than half the ad units of the NYT and just a touch more than 60% of the WSJ
  • In total ad space (in square pixels) the LA Times has slightly more than the NYT, but the total size of the page drops the percentage of real estate drastically
  • The new LA Times home page is 13% bigger than the WSJ home page and 22% bigger than the NYT home page

Here is a comparison:

Los Angeles Times

Ad Space: 311,239 sq. pix
Full Page: 5,596,353 sq. pix
Ads: 5.56%

New York Times

Ad Space: 308,513 sq. pix
Full Page: 4,347,246 sq. pix
Ads: 7.10%

Wall Street Journal

Ad Space: 408,635 sq. pix
Full Page: 4,849,920 sq. pix
Ads: 8.43%

What does it mean?

It’s tough to say right off the bat of course, because the LA Times could be planning on new ad units that aren’t currently live.  They may want to break in the site and get feedback before crowding the user experience with ad units.  However, if this is a rather final design and implementation then it is quite a shocking reduction in potential ad revenue from Web traffic for the LA Times.  We all know that online ad revenues aren’t propping up these papers, but is it so bad in some cases that 20% less ad real estate is an acceptable loss? (Or as Chris Anderson likes to say “too cheap to meter?”)  Perhaps someone with more insight can delve into this; but at first look it seems like an awful lot of screen real estate committed to content (which is great for the user) with a much lesser emphasis on monetizing that traffic with ads (not great for the LA Times, unless of course they’re making it up elsewhere).

What do you think?

Some disclaimers:

  • I didn’t count other revenue generating areas such as job searches and real estate searches, etc. because it’s too hard to know what’s a rev share and what isn’t.
  • I did count the Yellow Pages box on LA Times because that was a fairly obvious ad unit. If you take it out it makes the numbers even more startling.
  • I did this quickly so I’m sure I’m missing some pixels here and there; but I believe the trend holds.
  • I didn’t have the time or inclination to do internal pages of the sites.
  • I’m not a math geek – feel free to pummel my math
  • You can see images of the home pages with the ad units I counted for the LA Times, WSJ, NYT (click the thumbnail for larger image)
latimes nyt wsj
LA Times NY Times WSJ
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]