US Coupons IPO signals a return of the Online Deals mojo

Posted on by Billy Tucker

RetailMeNot today submitted an S-1 filing as a precursor to a $230m float in the US, a clear indication of an upswing ahead for the beleaguered Online Deals market.

Some time back I talked about the diffusion of innovations curve, how deal-hungry consumers had adopted the burgeoning Deals market like a pack of clucky Brangelinas on Safari, driving the growth of the market place to breaking point. What followed was market disillusionment as the half-baked players fell short of their customers’ expectations time and time again. Now that the chaff has been swept away, or in some cases absorbed by the leaders the market is once again satisfying a powerful demand for online deals.

In Australia I expect the market to regain momentum toward a billion dollars in revenue, and $100m or so in EBIT. As a market the EBIT pool isn’t stellar, but given the winner-takes-most nature of the sector each of the 2-3 leaders will likely hold 20% of the market and share more than 80% of total profits, meaning $200m in revenues will yield ~$30m in EBIT, not bad.

Diversification in the Deals model is also apparent, with a clearer division between servicing a basic need versus impulse and discovery. The holiday category is growing with fully packaged vacations on offer turning long-haul travel into a $1,000 impulse purchase, and the utility categories such as wine and home-wares are solid. Ironically the original purpose of Group Buying, to fill every empty seat in your local restaurant, continues to miss the mark with offers appealing more to the price conscious than the culinaraly adventurous, disappointing proprietors and their staff alike.

Although no one has yet nailed the local restaurant marketplace, the prize is huge. I expect one of the leaders will emerge with a model that works and further accelerate the Australian Deals market to $1bn in revenues between now and 2016.

Group Buying fortunes on the up?

Posted on by Billy Tucker

After bottoming out during the past few months, the fortunes of some Group Buying businesses seem to be on the up, albeit a significant number have collapsed or been acquired in the past six months and the outlook remains grave for many more!

The fact that the sector’s nose is slightly up is in part due to the weeding out of weaker and often less scrupulous competitors who often served only to undermine the reputation of the sector as a whole.

In fact out of the 50 largest Group Buying businesses assessed in April, only 29 remain intact just 6 months on. And given only 10% (5) of those businesses were acquired that supports the view that smaller Group Buying businesses are of limited real value. In such a crowded and undifferentiated market lifesaving investment is tricky too given a lack of brand equity, good will or asset strength (off the shelf web sites are common and subscriber base overlap with top-tier competitors is often well over 70%) resulting in the collapse of underperforming and debt laden Group Buying businesses.

A quick browse through the sites of the 29 still standing uncovered indicators of pending doom for some.

Here are the choking canaries of the Group Buying world:

  • A high degree of niche product deals, such as robotic vacuum cleaners or iPad accessories
  • No sign of “number purchased”, an essential component of Group Buying that is quickly discarded when numbers are low
  • Extended Deal deadlines, this industry was founded on deal a day for good reason!
  • A smorgasbord of deals on one page, suggesting desperate recycling of old offers

Group Buying remains a $1bn future industry in Australia, regardless if that industry seemed to lose its way and stall when it was only half way there. Regaining lost momentum will be down to the leading players showing the way once again with a combination of brilliant marketing and a commitment to helping consumers discover great business products.

The strongest already have their playbook (Living Social, Cudo and Ourdeal) and will extend their positions in the coming 6 months through a focus on back-to-basics Group Buying offers like quality restaurants, high value vacation offers and utility products such as Cudo’s Meat Merchant.

Although I suspect another 15 from April’s top 50 will be gone by April 2013, leaving only a dozen or so standing, I think I already know who they are, I wonder if they do?

Google, a lot like a corrupt SatNav!

Posted on by Billy Tucker

image

Google commands tens of millions of dollars each year (probably hundreds) through knowingly selling brand terms through AdWords (such as “cudo” for our business). Yet, users are increasingly using Google for everyday web navigation, so they knew where they wanted to go, they just wanted Google to help them get there.

This is a lot like punching a restaurant’s address into your satnav, but being taken to the highest bidding restaurant instead!

And as businesses grow their sophistication in SEO and they establish their listing at the top of the Organic pile for free. Allowing competitors to purchase a business’s brand term means the target business also has to buy their own
brand term else there is a fair chance an unsuspecting user will click on the competitor’s link, commanding unnecessary dollars from at least two businesses! This has lead to a Mexican Standoff between Group Buying sites, including the seven or so competitors currently spending their dollars on the term “Cudo” today.

In itself this is not necessarily evil of Google, it is opportunistic though.

However, once a business has been granted a trade mark they can then protect their brand from being bought on Google by law, yet Google seems to be oddly slow at applying any kind of block to AdWords, milking yet more dollars from a potentially struggling business over the 3 to 6 months it takes to limit the term in AdWords (Google may not block the term altogether!).

Why is it so hard to protect my mark on the world’s most sophisticated Search platform? Yahoo! and Bing seem to behave much less like a Corrupt SatNav with a clear policy on Trade Marks.

At Cudo we are spending over $50k each month buying our brand term on Google, that’s one expensive Mexican Standoff!

See below for an excerpt from a Trademark Case Study, found here

“Trademark Case Study

A Google Adwords client, who is a leader in the very competitive Network Marketing field, recently noticed a surge of infringements against their trademark which was being used in competitor ad copy on the Google Network.  Competition within the Network Marketing industry is extremely competitive and aggressive. The client became aware that their competitors were bidding on their trademarked search terms. This caused the cost to secure top positions for their ads to skyrocket from an initial $2.00 per click to $15.00 per click. Monthly expenditures increased from $1,200 to nearly $30,000. The estimated budget increased to $500,000+ for the year. Control of the top ad space in Google was their primary objective in order to dominate the ad-space for their branded trademarked term.

Given the level of aggression by the competitors and the extortionate cost been borne by the client, there was only one solution and that was to stop all advertisers from bidding on the terms.  Is it right that a business owner has to spend $500,000+ to buy their own branded name – a name that has already cost them millions of dollars to build?  This is $500,000+ the trademark owner has to spend because of a policy that disavows elementary business ethics.  Yahoo and MSN have recognized the injustice of such a slippery-slope policy and have taken steps to change it.  We filed trademark infringements with all three search egnines.  Yahoo and MSN results were clear within days.”