The story of Outbrain and Twitter’s business model

Since nothing interesting is happening over at Twitter this week, I thought I’d share the story of how Outbrain pioneered Twitter’s business model, even before Twitter made its first $.

Disclaimer: This story is a decade+ old, based on the best of my memory. Dates and details might be a little off. Also – not claiming any credit! Just sharing a fun little story we’ve never told. 

Twitter and Outbrain were both founded around 2006/7. Given my previous experience inventing the space of Contextual Advertising (at my previous company, Quigo) we were focused from day 1 on our business model: advertisers paying to be included in a recommendation feed. By ~2009 we had established Outbrain’s 2-sided marketplace, with advertisers paying us.

Our ad format (“native”) was broken into components: a title, short text, image & URL. Outbrain’s ad components were not far from those of a tweet, and could easily be formed into one. At the same time Twitter was a) exploding (following SXSW etc), and b) seemed completely clueless about a business model. The match seemed perfect to us. 

Mark Zuckerberg summarized that period perfectly (from Nick Bilton’s great book, Hatching Twitter): “Twitter is such a mess, it’s as if they drove a clown car into a gold mine and fell in.”

(interesting side note re the verified model Elon just announced: Outbrain’s model at the time was a $10/month subscription for those blogs and newspapers that wanted their content promoted in our recommendations. We later added CPC, and ultimately killed the subscription)

In 2009/10 we met ~3-4 times with Twitter management, proposing that we serve an Outbrain “paid tweet” every few organic tweets that they serve, and share the revenue. They seemed intrigued, but nothing came of it. 

But since it made too much sense that Twitter should ultimately monetize with sponsored tweets, yet things seemed stuck, we decided to try to prove the Twitter business model unilaterally, without Twitter’s help. How do you do that? There were 2 ways to get sponsored tweets into the Twitter feed:
1) by partnering with Twitter itself. That seemed like a dead-end.
2) by partnering with Twitter users with a following.

One of the Outbrain executives at the time – Josh Guttman – had an idea about the latter, and asked to head to Los Angeles for a couple of weeks to try to make it happen. Josh didn’t want to share the specifics with me, but succeeded beyond my imagination: 

Shortly after, Hugh Jackman and Charlize Theron had agreed to partner with us on the experiment. We had to build for them a custom search interface into the Outbrain ad database. Back then, nearly 100% of the Outbrain ad database was actually news stories from publishers and bloggers. So they’d find stories about topics they cared about and wanted to promote. For example, Hugh Jackman was into stories about coffee, and especially sustainable coffee farming. 

The plan worked! Outbrain had a monetization engine up and running on Twitter before Twitter figured out how to monetize it themselves. 💪

…but it worked too well in some ways, and poorly in others. On the worked well side: Engagement with the OB ads was insanely high. I don’t remember specifics, but think CTR’s for a story promoted by a celebrity was double digit %’s.
On the worked poorly side: Since we didn’t control the platform (and were doing this without Twitter’s help), once the promoted tweets were out – they were permanently showing to 100% of the followers of that celebrity.

That meant that any targeting the advertiser was hoping for couldn’t happen. Worse: When an advertiser’s budget was consumed, we couldn’t pull off the ad, and clicks would continue coming. For example, when Hugh Jackman would tweet a story about coffee, a huge surge of clicks would come, mainly from Australia, quickly eating up the budget of an advertiser that was looking for US traffic.

We went back to Twitter with the great results of our experiment, to see if we could now formalize it into a formal partnership that would make them $$’s. Nothing came of that either. We pulled the plug on the experiment. 

Shortly after, Twitter announced that they’d start monetizing with sponsored tweets. 

(Not taking *any* credit on that, btw! The idea was obvious and it was really just a matter and execution for them to get there.)

Share this post!

Outloud

Today we (=Outbrain) are announcing the launch of our sponsored link program called Outloud. Outbrain now powers the recommended/related article links (“People who liked this article also liked these:”) on thousands of blogs and newspapers including USA Today, Slate, Fox, Tribune, Golf.com and SportingNews.

Using Outloud, companies and bloggers can now submit links to stories into our index. We then show links to those stories on the most relevant pages in our network. The cost is a flat $10-per-month for each story you choose to submit via Outloud. There is no long-term commitments or anything like that, so this is practically risk-free.

Here are a few examples of what Outloud is perfect for:

  1. Amplifying earned media – Having bloggers write an authentic, positive review of your company or product is one of the most powerful endorsements you could ever hope for. But once that blog post is written – how many people actually read it? How do you get more, interested people to read those reviews? With Outloud you can submit links to authentic reviews of your company or product, and we’ll show them to people who are actively reading related content.
  2. Amplifying PR – Similarly, PR folks are focused on getting press and blog coverage for their clients. But once your client gets the PR, how can you maximize its effect. For $10/month on Outloud you can amplify great press coverage and get many more people to hear about it.
  3. Getting new readers – If you’re a blogger looking to get new readers exposed to your content, Outloud is a great and affordable way to do it. Choose the 5-10 stories on your blog which you think are best, and submit them to Outloud for $10/month each. We will then show your links on the most relevant pages in out network of thousands of blogs and newspapers.

The idea around Outloud is simple – we want to be able to show the best sponsored links possible on each page using our service. And to do that, we don’t want you thinking twice of whether you should or shouldn’t be submitting stories to Outloud – we’ve reduced the price barrier to the lowest reasonably possible.

The links you submit can be on your own blog, or on any other website in the world. If Walt Mossberg covered your company on WSJ, you are more than welcome to submit that link to Outloud as well. In fact, we think that the best links to submit would be authentic stories writen about you by other people.

But what we do insist on is that all links in Outloud be pointing to interesting, real content. We will be gladly rejecting any links to spam, scams, non-disclosed self-promotions, fake content, splogs, etc. Outbrain has always been about providing readers with the most interesting and relevant links, and we plan to continue doing so whether the links are free or sponsored.

Here’s an example of how Outloud links might look on a site using our service:

So go ahead and submit your stories to Outloud, and get them read!

(Thanks Eze for the coverage!)

Share this post!

Pricing Display / Demand Creation Ads

Following Fred Wilson’s post about display advertising, and my post about demand-creation vs. demand-fulfillment advertising, I had another thought I’ll share here regarding the pricing of “display” advertising (or in my terminology – Demand Creation Advertising)Fred Wilson says:

“…However, this study does not determine what the right price for display advertising is. Search is measurable by virtue of the cost per click and display is not. And if click thru isn’t the right measure, then display has an issue...”


And I agree with Fred 100% on that… While auction-based CPC (cost-per-click) is a great way to price the value of demand-fulfillment-ads[1], it is certainly *not* the right way to price advertising which is introducing a brand and creating demand. That’s because the users are *not* in immediate shopping mode, and the effect of the advertising on them is not necessarily embodied in an immediate click.

So following my thread, I had an idea which is slightly theoretical at this point, but could serve as a way to price Demand Creation Ads in the future:
Search ad inventory is inherently limited. That is why CPC bids on search terms are bidded up over time. In other words, the bids advertisers place reflect the balance between the value they get from each click, and the amount of clicks available on their keywords.

If this is true, then a mechanism that creates a lot more search queries and clicks should increase supply, thus reducing the cost of each keyword. One such mechanism are Demand Creation Ads (or, if you prefer – display ads). These ads don’t necessarily create any immediate clicks, but they should create more searches for the brand down the road.

Assuming all this could be aggregated and tracked efficiently (a big IF), you could then price display ads based on one metric – the increase they create in future searches.
Then the next step in pricing would be to identify a common denominator between the pricing of search ads and the pricing of display ads. So for example, as an advertiser I would know that I could pay $1 per search click, or I could pay 50c for display ads that created enough future searches to reduce my search CPC to 40c per-click.

Again – I’m not sure how doable all this is, but if it were – I think this would bring on the golden age of display/demand-creation ads on the web, making them suddenly as efficient as search ads are perceived today. 

 UPDATE: John Battelle just posted some interesting data from eMarketer on the effect of demand-creation-ads on the # of search queries —————————–>

=======
[1] It can be argued that CPA is a more perfect pricing model than CPC is, because it ties directly to the only real conversion metric that matters – the purchasing of a product. That is technically true, but I think that CPA has a few inherit deficiencies which make it a pretty bad solution for pricing ad inventory:

  1. It moves all the risk from the advertiser to the publisher. CPC perfectly balances the risks on both sides.
  2. CPC is a wonderful common denominator that allows all advertisers to participate in a single, easy-to-understand, marketplace. There is no comparable denominator in CPA.
  3. CPA requires a LOT of data points in order to establish the value of each ad and its probability of generating revenue. That makes it completely ineffective for a centralized and efficient marketplace.
Share this post!