Mary Meeker's YouTube Math Misses The Mark
from the back-in-the-news-together dept
YouTube's new ad overlays continue to engender a lot of discussion about their potential impact on the online video market. One person who is quite optimistic about the program is the infamous (but still employed at Morgan Stanley) Mary Meeker, who estimated that the new system would add a staggering $4.8 billion to Google's top line. But, as none other than Henry Blodget points out, there's a little problem with Meeker's analysis (via Valleywag). She mistakenly took CPM to mean 'cost per impression' rather than 'cost per thousand', meaning that her estimate was off by a factor of 1,000. In other words, by her own logic, the new ad system will contribute lead to a modest $4.8 million revenue bump, which is nothing compared to the $1.65 billion Google paid for the site. Meeker has been covering this space for a long time, so it's hard to imagine that she really didn't know what CPM meant. Perhaps she was just trying to rush out a quick report on the topic and didn't take the time to look it over. But you'd still think that such a huge figure would give her some pause and make her question some assumptions before coming out with such a bold pronouncement.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, henry blodget
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh? Am I missing something here? Pay $1.65 billion, revenue growth of $4.8 billion? Sounds ok to me. Would imagine the $4.8 billion is per year. Top line is revenue growth. Maybe she said $4.8 billion bottom line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
She is not an engineer,
The numbers have to make sense and if they do not make sense then you need to go back to the math and understand. Then the numbers will make sense.
If you see an engineer give you an answer and then scratch their head, rub their chin or scrunch their face, then don't believe the answer. It is just a guess.
More fun with engineers: get one to say never/always or it is impossible.
They are trained to think that nothing is impossible, it only takes enough research/development and money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: She is not an engineer,
Yes....I'm an engineer.
But, you were right about engineers actually analyzing the numbers you get. Order of magnitude tells a lot in your results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How many times do you see a Burger King commercial and end up at Taco Bell? *thinking, oh ya, fast food sounds good* - which one is almost irrelevant. There's a couple of fast food places near me I won't go to, I don't care how many commercials I see - because, they quality sucks - BAD.
It's funny how some places will just dump millions into ads and then pay their employees like crap - and when you pay like crap, what kind of job is going to get done? Well - ya' know, you get what you pay for.
Which is just why I don't buy half of the products out there - they are garbage.
Take Mattel for instance - there's absolutely no way I'll buy my nieces or nephews a toy from them. Sorry, no 'savings' can possibly offset the risk of contamination or poisoning from their inept manufacturing. Just stating a fact. I think I'll look more for domestic products now in general.
Ads, ads, ads... I still ignore them, even if I see them. Quality is why I shop where I do. Not ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
maybe she got the idea from Austin Powers
*room erupts in laughter*
"Wait! Our model now predicts the revenue growth will be... five billion dollars!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uh-oh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
so which is which???
vs
"lead to a modest $4.8 million revenue bump"
[ link to this | view in thread ]