As I waited, I could see from the teasers the angle that was being developed on the Internet segment: Facebook’s $10B valuation is an indication that we’re in a repeat of the dotcom bubble (smirk knowingly). I contemplated my options for key points to break out of this and came up with a plan. Something simple but pointy enough to break the monotony of condescending skepticism.

So, here’s how it went.

As you might have guessed, Live TV is not a medium I’ve mastered, so my plan was thwarted. Perhaps Dave Asman sensed where I was going when he cut to another guest. Fortunately, unlike Live TV, on the web there’s always a second chance. Here’s what I’d planned to say on this topic.

Asman: …but how will sites like Twitter make any money?

Me (second take): With respect, Dave, I think you might be missing the big picture here. Sure, some social networks might not survive and others might barely break even (or maybe get acquired by companies like Fox) and some investors will no doubt be disappointed because they were hoping for the next Google. But a lot of social sites will survive because they don’t need to make billions to fund their operations, which are steadily declining in cost. So maybe the question you should be asking is, assuming that some of them do survive, what’s going to happen to TV shows like this one when your sponsors discover they can reach your audience for a lot less money than they’re paying you? Social media means disruption – it’s hit the music business, it’s hit the newspaper business, and it looks like TV could be next in line. Think of people like Scott Monty, the head of social media at Ford, who’s able to broadcast his messages whenever he likes directly to over 22,000 followers, for free. Do you think Ford will be eager to continue paying millions of dollars to reach an undifferentiated TV audience with its commercials when Scott can put a link to a YouTube video in a Tweet and get massive exposure online for almost nothing? That kind of communication might not make Twitter wealthy – they’ll have to think of subtler ideas like selling marketing intelligence, or consumer data, or specialized applications – but it sure could change the economics of TV journalism.

A few things are clear:

• A cold wind’s begun to blow on web 2.0 startups, especially those whose business models run along the lines of building a large and loyal audience and then monetizing it with advertising. (Sound familiar?)
• The Web giants that survived the first downturn and became public companies are experiencing their lowest valuations in years – in many cases, since the downturn. Naturally this is related to the stock market as a whole, but one of the consequences is that virtually all of the incentive stock options issued to web company employees in the last three years have underwater strike prices.
• This means it’s time for social media to show its hand. We’ve reached the river. Let’s see what you’ve got.

Some examples: Google’s announcement it will sell ad placement on YouTube search results pages, in an attempt to replicate its most successful revenue strategy to-date on the difficult-to-monetize video site. This is part of an overall strategy to make the site more attractive to professional content owners, such as MGM and CBS which recently agreed to license some of its catalog material to the site. Then there’s Fox’s MySpace, which has taken a number of recent steps to shore up revenue by featuring more professional content, including featuring Hulu videos on its Primetime lineup, and working with MTV networks and Warner Bros. on a new monetization scheme (see our Gartner first take).

Still, there are some hold-outs. At the Web 2.0 summit in San Francisco, executives from Twitter and Facebook both insisted they were focused on growth and that money would come later. How much later? They didn’t say.

Meanwhile, mainstream media has troubles of its own. Viacom, for example, just saw its Q3 earnings decline 37 percent, and they, along with Time Warner, Disney, and other conglomerates (especially the ones that own newspapers) are also looking at their lowest valuations in years. The question now is, can old media and new media put their cards together and, between them, come up with a winning hand?