Featured

Intent Data, the Key to Internet Marketing

Detailing how first-party digital intent data can be used by marketers and advertisers, and why intent data is not the same as social data. Alert: startup idea enclosed.

Peeking out, New York, NY, 2011
Peeking out, New York, NY, 2011

Good to see Techcrunch write this weekend about data and its potential impact on ecommerce.

But not only did they miss the point about personalization, they missed the biggest opportunity in the space.

The biggest opportunity isn’t from retail sites building better personalization engines or mining social data, but in the social clipping and curation sites (i.e. intent engines) leveraging their curation and inspiration features to build ecommerce and affiliate platforms to power their built-in business models. And if you’re wondering, the really valuable data isn’t third-party social data, but first-party intent data.

 

Data, data, everywhere. But not a byte to use. *

Pinterest, the new hot thing, is already driving real traffic to ecommerce sites; Tumblr, the still-hot thing, is closing in on a billion page views a month; Polyvore recently raised a new round to capitalize on their growing community and traffic; and the web abounds with niche social clipping services.

And in each clip, store, share, pin, re-pin, tumble, re-blog is a tremendous amount of data.

Granted, the data isn’t clean, and the intent behind each action may not be clear, but it’s a signal of intent and desire just like a search and a click.

 

First-party intent data and third-party social data aren’t the same.

If you’re excited about the opportunities of the social graph, you should be just as excited about the opportunities of the intent graph.

Why?

While social clipping sites like Polyvore, Pinterest, Svpply, et. al. are great sources of personalization data, they are particularly valuable for fashion and “soft goods” where tastes change quickly. Why? As David points out, data-driven personalization simply doesn’t work the same for fashion the same way it works for books. And social data isn’t the solution either: friendship and taste are two separate things. First-party intent data (or, “taste data”) from social clipping services are more powerful signals of relevancy or potential purchase intent than third-party social data (i.e. social data mined off-site from Facebook, Twitter and other social sites). The data created in these services is much more relevant, and it’s not just because people are signaling purchase intent through what they clip and share: it’s because tastes and intent is more clearly aligned in these tighter, more focused communities.

Granted, the intent data from Polyvore may not be as portable as social data from Facebook (i.e. it may apply to a smaller amount of contexts), but that’s up for the data scientists to figure out. What I do know is that intent engines will power the golden age of Internet marketing. The hardest part will be figuring out how.

 

Native Monetization Engines, powered by First-Party Data

The most powerful way for intent engines to leverage their first-party intent data is to build native monetization engines that tap into the types of products, services, and transactions that are popular in their communities.

Recommendation engines work when they are like magic. As in, “How did Pandora know I wanted to listen to this song?” And we love them when they succeed. But when they fail, they fail badly. The hit-rate of a recommendation engine needs to be very high to succeed. Of course, “how high” depends on the community, the products being recommended, and the UX/UI implementation of the recommendation engine.

Now, this isn’t a trivial task. Amazon has spent years on their personalization engines. Netflix found the problem of improving their recommendation engine so hard they ran a public contest to find innovative ways to figure out what you want to watch.

I believe most of these social services have not created recommendation and discovery engines tied to their first-party intent data because 1) they have more immediate product and scaling issues to deal with, 2) growing traffic is more important at the moment, and 3) it’s a hard, hard problem to solve.

There’s room for a new solution to help solve this “hard, hard problem” by creating a universal native monetization engine. The monetization platform could first be launched as an API that pulls in a service’s unique intent data, parses out significant intent, and passes it back to the service to tell them what to recommend.

Each service obviously has unique data properties and signals (i.e. the intent behind a pin probably doesn’t equal a re-blog), so it’s an open question whether a third-party could build an optimization engine across these unique sites. I’ll leave it to the data scientists to figure out if the learnings from one algorithm could work for another.

 

Matching First-Party Intent Data with Third-Party Data

Obviously, I understand that Tumblr and Pinterest may not want to outsource their intent monetization engines to the same company, but the model is already used in many other industries (for example, many airlines use the same yield management and revenue management software).

But even without a universal monetization engine, there is an opportunity for a DMP (data management platform) to manage these services’ first-party data and match it up against second-party and third-party data supplied by a host of cookie, geo, site, and social data providers. That’s a successful model used in online marketing and advertising for years. Third-party data can be a powerful way to target and optimize marketing messages **, and many services are already using third-party data for personalization and discovery (Spotify and Rdio using third-party social data to recommend songs, for one).

Taking it one step further, could this DMP tie together a range of different monetization services? Start with an affiliate network clearinghouse to power ecommerce affiliate sales, add an ad server that allows marketers and advertisers to use a service’s first-party intent data for onsite ad optimization, and see what else others could build on top of intent data. The online advertising world knows how this works: same model, new data.

 

Selling Intent Data

The next leap, and perhaps the scariest one for these services, is selling first-party intent data through intent exchanges for other people to use for targeting, retargeting and optimization purposes. One of the biggest problems for Google in unifying their data sets across services is that it breaks the original contract that Google made with their users. We’re not really mad that they are unifying all our data together, we’re mad because this isn’t what we agreed to when we started using Google. This is why we get upset when Facebook changes the layout, news feed or data policies to sell more relevant ads. That’s why we worry about the business model of any new service: we know that free comes with a cost, and what we may love at first may end up very different once the service figures out how to make enough money to support itself.

Selling data is troublesome for these services because from a user’s perspective, it sounds horrible. Sell my data? Without me earning anything from it? Without me agreeing to this shift in policy?

Some companies can make it through that change, others can’t. And it’s all about how it’s implemented and communicated.

 

Turning on Built-In Business Models

Can Tumblr, Pinterest, Polyvore and others turn on their ecommerce engines? Or will they remain media-driven, sponsorship and advertising-based companies? Time will tell.

+

* Sounds a lot like what Hunch could have been, right?
** As an investor at kbs+ Ventures, we have investment stakes in multiple companies leveraging both first-party and third-party data in a variety of ways for marketers and advertisers.

How crowdfunding could impact the venture capital industry

What happens when everybody’s a venture capitalist? The crowd is waiting to disrupt yet another industry, and the time is now for the venture industry to take advantage of it. Thoughts about crowdfunding and its potential impact on the venture capital industry.

Outside The In Crowd, New York, NY, 2011
Outside The In Crowd, New York, NY, 2011

A couple weeks ago I wrote about how the crowd is disrupting the photojournalism industry. Put a camera in everyone’s hand, and it’s not a surprise that the photography industry has to adapt a bit.

As the crowdfunding bill winds its way into Congress, the venture capital community has to start thinking about how the crowd could change how new ventures are funded and how they could have to adapt.  Let anyone invest a money in startups, and what happens?

First off, here’s happening in Congress: there are a couple different pieces of legislation aimed to change significant limitations for entrepreneurs raising private capital.  While one simply aims to raise the 500 shareholder rule to 2,000 shareholders, and one aims to reduce registration requirements for IPOs under $50 MM (potentially bringing back the small-cap IPO), the most interesting is the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which would allow entrepreneurs to raise up to $2 MM in capital per year directly from individuals without having to register them with the SEC, essentially allowing companies to crowdsource investment capital from “non-accredited investors”.  Individuals would be limited to $10 K or 10% of their annual income, whichever is less.

Will it pass? It was passed by the House in Nov 2011, but it’s far too soon for me to tell if it will clear the Senate. But let’s think about the long-term impacts here, because even if it doesn’t pass right now, the long-term pressures are here to stay.

Here’s how I think it will play out.

 

The dollars will come from the crowd, but the badges will still come from the big names.

If you’re an entrepreneur and you found out you could now raise $2 MM by going directly to individuals, what would you do tomorrow?  You’d probably setup a link on your website telling people you’re raising money, and you’d start promoting it.  You’d also start looking for platforms and communities of engaged potential investors to tap into the right crowd that would be interested in your idea.

The first one would get pretty crowded pretty quickly, as getting attention is pretty tough. Long-term, the platforms offer you the best chances of actually raising money.

But it’s not just about raising money. These platforms and communities are important trusted-third parties that can be important “stamps” or “degrees” or “verifications” for an entrepreneur. And stamps are important: raising venture capital is one thing, raising money from Kleiner is another. Going to university is one thing, going to Harvard is another. And raising money from the crowd will be one thing, and raising money from Kickstarter / Second Market / Angellist would be another thing completely.

If you’re an individual investor, you’ll need some way to figure out if this company is going to make it big.  You’ll do your research, you’ll listen to tips from friends, you’ll hear about things in the press, you’ll see where others are investing your money. You’ll make independent decisions, but you’ll still need signals to help you allocate your attention.

The importance of a trusted third-party isn’t going away. If you’re an entrepreneur, you’ll still want that stamp of approval that comes from raising money from an important source of capital.  If you’re an individual investor, you’ll still want the security that comes from investing through a trusted third-party or from a verified source.

Who is best positioned to be that third-party?

Kickstarter, SecondMarket and Angellist are the best positioned from the early-stage crowdfunding, investing, and fundraising perspectives.  But any company with a trusted party relationship with masses of engaged individuals and the resources to create robust responsibility mechanisms could create a crowdfunding community.

Apple, Google, and Amazon would all be able to create very interesting crowdfunding platforms, using their existing payment platforms or trusted payment relationships and leveraging their engaged bases of users.  Amazon would be an incredibly interesting platform, or perhaps they would be better served to power the payments platform behind a Twitter-sponsored crowdfunding platform. But in the case of Apple and Google (and increasingly, Facebook), the play is a different: they are highly incentivized to help engineer innovations that leverage their platforms, and creating crowdfunding platforms would be a very intelligent way to market and promote their own services.

 

Crowdfunding is about the community, not the technology.

But like most things today, the important thing isn’t the technology, but the community. And that’s why any company with a strong community ethos could be a strong player in crowdfunding.

And that’s important to remember, because it’s likely that we would see an abundance of crowdfunding platforms. “The crowd” actually consists of many crowds across many industries, technologies, countries, and niches, and I would expect to see many different crowdfunding platforms emerge in their own spaces.

Crowdfunding platforms could emerge around the innovation platforms set up to engage highly interested and engaged consumers (i.e. the innovation platforms created by HP, Dell, Procter & Gamble, and other companies pursuing Open Innovation strategies), and they could also emerge around companies with extensive supply chains (i.e. GM, Ford, Apple, Cisco, etc.), as an extension of their vendor-sourcing and vendor-financing efforts.

But the important thing here isn’t the technology: look for the communities first.

As I’ve said before, beyond raising money, crowdfunding is a highly evolved form of sales and community engagement. Well-run Kickstarter projects are about more than money: they can be great footholds to build a community and establish base of supporters that can evolve into customers when the time is right.

 

Crowdfunding won’t kill the venture capital industry. But it will force VCs to adapt.

Yes, the wave of “dumb money” of the crowd will put pressure on traditional angels and venture capitalists, but crowdfunding won’t kill venture capital. Smart entrepreneurs will learn to use all forms of potential funding (the early-stage crowd, customers, angels, institutional venture capitalists, late-stage public investors), and institutional venture capital will still have a very valuable role. The key for VCs is to remember the role they play and position themselves appropriately.

VCs will still play very important roles in providing access to resources, relationships, strategic advice. But the role of a partner and a mentor will be even more valuable: an entrepreneur can tap into the crowd for money, but they’ll never get the same close relationships or advice from the crowd than they’ll get from a professional venture investor. And as money flows from the crowd to startups, I believe we would see a lot more companies started as projects, a lot more entrepreneurs looking for early exit opportunities, a lot more acquisitions by very early-stage companies, and a larger need for institutions like venture capitalists to make those connections and transactions happen.

The important thing for investors would be to pick their industries and stages carefully. Very early-stage valuations could raise substantially, cutting out opportunities for early-stage angels and VCs, and push more venture investors farther upstream to later-stage momentum capital.

Really intelligent venture investors will learn to collaborate with the crowd, rather than merely competing against the crowd. We could see big venture capital firms create their own crowdfunding platforms and raise sidecar “crowd” funds from the masses. VCs would act as the trusted investment advisor for the crowd. Early-stage investment could finally see it’s own mutual fund. A Kleiner + Amazon crowd fund could be a huge hit.

 

If new legislation passes, the “problems” of crowdsourcing investment capital will create a lot of business opportunities.

Will it create a new wave of speculation? Undoubtedly. But once the wave passes, that’s when the real activity starts. We have to get through the wave to get to the good stuff. The lesson we have learned throughout time is that limiting access to a small amount of participants in opaque markets creates massive problems with wealth concentration. Crowdfunding could disrupt that in the early-stage investing area, and allow a much larger number of people to participate in the value creation that occurs in the early-stages of company development.

And it could also create a lot of interesting business opportunities around data, company performance transparency, tracking and accountability, registration, communication, and investment management. I’ll leave it to the entrepreneurs here to think about the possibilities, but the lesson is clear: crowdfunding is a simple idea with wide-ranging impacts on existing and new businesses. Everybody involved in funding, supporting, and benefiting from early-stage innovation will need to create a point-of-view on how to best position themselves to take advantages of potential legislative changes.

Whether we like it or not, the crowd is at the door. And whether the laws change now or later, the underlying pressure of the crowd isn’t going away. Better to disrupt than be disrupted.

 

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs