So as I mentioned in my previous post, I spent the week with 500 teens at a camp. It was an interesting week as far as social media was concerned. The kids tweeted, vined, snap chatted, instagram, and even facebooked a bit. What was bizarre to me was the lack of care regarding what they put on there. As we went through the week we learned more and more about the bizarre and inappropriate things the kids had posted in the past. I really don't think these kids get the impact that these things can have on them in the future. All the stupid things that I did, are stupid things I did. The stupid things these kids do get posted online and they create their own web persona. I wish they would listen, but it's quite intriguing about how little they care.
I have always tried to simplify the different Internet business models down to something like disruptive, purely online based, and something that was my hybrid based. These were very broad generalities, but I usually stack things in piles vs filing them and I like my "buckets" of stuff. It was interesting reading all the different nuances of Internet models. It's honestly so unique it becomes difficult to keep up with all of them. Because of that, the Business Model Generation text and the different patterns was intriguing to me. Talking about the five different patterns. Open business models and free are interesting to me. Free is not really free, it's about creating demand in an inexpensive low cost way. Then, you use that demand to sell product. The open model is interesting, but I have real issue with these models being sold as altruistic. The bottom line is Linux wouldn't have taken off without HPQ, IBM, and RHT getting behind the business. You can't have mission critical systems using software that is not in some way standardized and supported. The Long Tail was talked about in my last post, and though I don't like Netflix there is significant value in understanding what the Internet can do for you here.
The multi-sided Platform is interesting though. What used to be a sleepy business managing fleets is turning into a multi-sided platform with companies like FLT and WEX providing spending cards to fleets, but getting paid by the merchants. In addition they create value to the fleet managers by providing them all kind of management reports online. They are very interesting businesses growing rapidly with multiples expanding dramatically.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Saturday, August 10, 2013
What a week, and man am I behind
So, I spent the week with 500 teenagers at a camp on the Delaware River on the Pennsylvania Side. I saw tweeting, facebooking, snap chatting, Instagramming, vining, etc... I think I have determined what drives the constant innovation. As each platform becomes more known, more parents go and start joining that platform. Why, because they want to check in and see what their kids are doing? Well, you get busted on Facebook, you switch to Twitter, then you get busted there you go to Instagram. Finally, when you say screw it, I don't want to get caught doing anything, but I still wanna have some fun!!! So then you join snap chat and think you have the whole thing figured out... Then someone screen captures your stupid video clip. Oh well, looks like you can't escape technology. More to come!
Sunday, August 4, 2013
So, the Long Tail is why Netflix sucks!!!
Sorry, but it really does! I don't have time to watch an entire group of TV shows. I don't like searching for so so movies from 1984. Occasionally I will pop it up and find something I like. Tonight we watched the Lorax with the kids, it was good. It's probably the fourth time we have seen it. I didn't have to pay for it (other than my subscription I pay every month that I have forgotten about), it was relatively enjoyable. But to be honest, till tonight I didn't get it. I rationalized that parents kept it for their kids to watch cartoons. Or maybe people like really bad movies from the '80's and '90's. But, really what it boils down to is that it's cheap enough to not be a bill you are going to force out of your budget, the movies can be had for cheap enough, and the scale is large enough that they can generate a profit. And with the download service, they don't even have to send out the DVD or store it.
When I worked in the technology industry 11 years ago, I really got behind the Internet and it's disruptive effect on business. I kid you not, when I worked at a large IT firm, I recommended we start what would have been a similar business to freecreditreport.com. The problem was though that this wasn't what we did. We processed credit applications for banks. That was our model. We didn't capitalize on the disruption. I left there and went to work for an investment firm. There we had a gag order when it came to talking with reporters. One PM broke that and said some pretty stupid things to a reporter. He got fired faster than he could have yelled, "greed is good"!!! (He was a Gordon Gekko wannabe). The article was seen on the Internet by someone who got upset and he was gone. This strategy is basically sticking your head in the sand and acting like nothing is going on around you. Even if you are an early adopter, experiences can skew your view of how to use new technology. Situations like the Comcast service technician and the AOL call center rep mentioned in one of the readings can have a significant effect on organizations.
I think the thing that is so intriguing about the Internet is the change to business models. A family member wrote a book based on her experiences. She self published it, and has sold a couple thousand copies. While that is by no means a commercial success, the "Long Tail" reading and recording describe a business model that one is open to these small runs, but also has the potential to generate earnings down the road. This disruptive nature is interesting. But it isn't for every business. I think the thing to think about though is how an you harness the power of the Internet in your business. For example, though I don't talk about my current position extensively on LinkedIn, I have a significant amount of information about me and almost 750 connections. Me building my network there can only help in the long run. Even for the organization I currently work for.
The exciting thing I think I read about this time was the IBM VP talking about removing segmentation. As you think about this concept, it has a lot of exciting opportunities. For example, last January a number of retail customers really began complaining about show rooming and the effect Amazon and Ebay was having. At the same time, I covered a software company that focused on retail supply chains from warehouse to the shelf. They had issues in the March Qtr last year because customers quit buying software as they had to rethink this exact problem. How do we manage the data to work to keep customers in the store. The concept they gave was as your customer was standing in front of say a TV at Best Buy, if they went out to the Internet to check the price, you might flash a coupon or send them one to their phone. My first thought was I would leave the store and start to look to see who was watching me everywhere I went. The point is though, you can't market anymore to generations, male, female, working not. Everyone has their own desires and those that can put their message on point to that person has the potential to make a fortune. There is risk of course, but there is much opportunity if you can find that right balance.
When I worked in the technology industry 11 years ago, I really got behind the Internet and it's disruptive effect on business. I kid you not, when I worked at a large IT firm, I recommended we start what would have been a similar business to freecreditreport.com. The problem was though that this wasn't what we did. We processed credit applications for banks. That was our model. We didn't capitalize on the disruption. I left there and went to work for an investment firm. There we had a gag order when it came to talking with reporters. One PM broke that and said some pretty stupid things to a reporter. He got fired faster than he could have yelled, "greed is good"!!! (He was a Gordon Gekko wannabe). The article was seen on the Internet by someone who got upset and he was gone. This strategy is basically sticking your head in the sand and acting like nothing is going on around you. Even if you are an early adopter, experiences can skew your view of how to use new technology. Situations like the Comcast service technician and the AOL call center rep mentioned in one of the readings can have a significant effect on organizations.
I think the thing that is so intriguing about the Internet is the change to business models. A family member wrote a book based on her experiences. She self published it, and has sold a couple thousand copies. While that is by no means a commercial success, the "Long Tail" reading and recording describe a business model that one is open to these small runs, but also has the potential to generate earnings down the road. This disruptive nature is interesting. But it isn't for every business. I think the thing to think about though is how an you harness the power of the Internet in your business. For example, though I don't talk about my current position extensively on LinkedIn, I have a significant amount of information about me and almost 750 connections. Me building my network there can only help in the long run. Even for the organization I currently work for.
The exciting thing I think I read about this time was the IBM VP talking about removing segmentation. As you think about this concept, it has a lot of exciting opportunities. For example, last January a number of retail customers really began complaining about show rooming and the effect Amazon and Ebay was having. At the same time, I covered a software company that focused on retail supply chains from warehouse to the shelf. They had issues in the March Qtr last year because customers quit buying software as they had to rethink this exact problem. How do we manage the data to work to keep customers in the store. The concept they gave was as your customer was standing in front of say a TV at Best Buy, if they went out to the Internet to check the price, you might flash a coupon or send them one to their phone. My first thought was I would leave the store and start to look to see who was watching me everywhere I went. The point is though, you can't market anymore to generations, male, female, working not. Everyone has their own desires and those that can put their message on point to that person has the potential to make a fortune. There is risk of course, but there is much opportunity if you can find that right balance.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
What do I want to get done this week?
Honestly, my goal is just to keep my head above water this week. I am gone next week and will have very limited access to the Internet. So, I am trying to get ahead as well as deal with earnings season. Earnings season for an investor is like drinking through a fire hose. It can be intense. My goal is to read and listen to all the required readings for week three. In addition, I would like to at least skim or listen to a couple of the other readings/recordings/videos, we'll see.
It was interesting this week to be sitting at work and looking at a company that I had done some work on but decided not to invest. The company was Garmin. What struck me as add was Twitter posts were running through my news feeds at work. Garmin was tweeting their earnings call and Factset had picked it up as news and was running through my feed. So, looks like I am going to be doing Garmin for me Twitter assignment due tomorrow. Very interesting.
I have read some of the IBM reading on moving from segmenting customers into groups but now moving forward with a segment of one. This is very interesting to me and used to own a company that was in many ways trying to capitalize on that. I will expand on this in a later post.
It was interesting this week to be sitting at work and looking at a company that I had done some work on but decided not to invest. The company was Garmin. What struck me as add was Twitter posts were running through my news feeds at work. Garmin was tweeting their earnings call and Factset had picked it up as news and was running through my feed. So, looks like I am going to be doing Garmin for me Twitter assignment due tomorrow. Very interesting.
I have read some of the IBM reading on moving from segmenting customers into groups but now moving forward with a segment of one. This is very interesting to me and used to own a company that was in many ways trying to capitalize on that. I will expand on this in a later post.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
The rest of the readings and videos reminded me of the immense value that the Internet brings. It is here to stay and if we don't figure out ways to utilize it, many areas of the economy will be overrun by it. The dichotomy of risk is striking to me. If you are a start-up, there is nothing to lose, try what you would like, information flows like water, if it works great! If you are an incumbent and you do something wrong? WOW!!! The response can be destructive. Those with the least to risk have the highest potential gain and those with the most to risk, well hopefully they can maintain market share after the Internet runs over it's market. The star search clip was a great example of mistakes made and the pain caused by those missteps. It seems backward to be honest. But that's why its so disruptive.
On top of it, as talked about in "Building Your Business Without Building Code", you can start one of these businesses with a power point presentation. How does an old line company compete?
In reading some of the other articles we heard stories about blogs going viral, little people who evolve faster than regular humans and the values that creates till they take over, etc... But through it all I kept thinking about all the positive and negative impacts. Many impacts are unknown to be honest and we have to keep adopting.
For someone like me lists are one of the best ways I think about things. The Internet is here to stay, community is important to humans, we will continue to drive connectivity and if we don't engage we will be left behind. So, my lists on the Internet:
Positives:
On top of it, as talked about in "Building Your Business Without Building Code", you can start one of these businesses with a power point presentation. How does an old line company compete?
In reading some of the other articles we heard stories about blogs going viral, little people who evolve faster than regular humans and the values that creates till they take over, etc... But through it all I kept thinking about all the positive and negative impacts. Many impacts are unknown to be honest and we have to keep adopting.
For someone like me lists are one of the best ways I think about things. The Internet is here to stay, community is important to humans, we will continue to drive connectivity and if we don't engage we will be left behind. So, my lists on the Internet:
Positives:
- Breaks down the barriers to starting a new company
- Reduces existing friction in communication
- Can create great wealth rapidly (This is counter in my view to the idea that the Internet flattens the world economically. I believe it just shifts wealth)
- Potential to be ants following each other around till we die
- Can destroy your business if you don't understand it
- Limits independent views and forces individuals toward the consensus.
Crowdsourcing... or will be just crowd surfing in one generation?
So, I read and watched the required video and readings and the first 3 readings under optional and the social marketing playbook. I have emailed my team to talk about our approach to the team project, and watched most of the videos under the General information, video links tabs. There were some great videos there. More on that later.
The crowdsourcing reading was very interesting. I really enjoyed reading about threadless.com. I love the fact that they didn't start out to create a business, but just did something they thought would be cool. They didn't like the T-shirts they could get, so they decided to figure out a way to get cooler ones. The thing that was even more interesting was that they really understood how to create a business though once it was going. By understanding human nature they created demand, developed a process to pay designers, and developed a relatively low risk business model from the beginning. In many ways, this is what the Internet is about. Allowing someone with nothing to lose (cause they have nothing but an idea) develop something that has the potential to create real value. The iStockphoto.com company was almost even more exciting. When you think about threadless.com, they were just selling T-shirts, iStockphoto.com was taking on a giant. However, this business model created so much disruption, it forced the incumbent Getty to buy it. This is the disruption that is so compelling and valuable. I was also struck with the authors discussion on community. This is in short supply these days as we become more mobile. We keep in touch, with family, we communicate on the Internet, but community... That seems to be missing. That desire for connection is something innate in humans. We need it. If you can great a model that generates that it can be very powerful.
P&G's model was probably the most interesting to me as I work in and analyze old line companies. I follow the technology industry but most companies I follow are not internet based but sell products into the technology supply chain. There are some Internet names, but not many that fit our requirements. So to see the use of the Internet and Crowdsourcing to develop product was intriguing. It got me thinking about other ways my companies and others could develop ways to improve their uses of crowdsourcing. I wrote my previous blog this week on an idea that I think is somewhat scary. In addition, I liked Surowieki's comments and Keen's comments as well regarding the risk associated with social media, networks, and to some degree crowdsourcing. I loved Surowieki's view of the only way social networks can be more correct than an expert is when each individual is independent and by operating in a network, it compromises your independence.
I am thinking more and more about ways to use the Internet to drive our business, but it concerns me longer term what will happen to independent thought over time if we don't manage exposure to networks for our children.
The crowdsourcing reading was very interesting. I really enjoyed reading about threadless.com. I love the fact that they didn't start out to create a business, but just did something they thought would be cool. They didn't like the T-shirts they could get, so they decided to figure out a way to get cooler ones. The thing that was even more interesting was that they really understood how to create a business though once it was going. By understanding human nature they created demand, developed a process to pay designers, and developed a relatively low risk business model from the beginning. In many ways, this is what the Internet is about. Allowing someone with nothing to lose (cause they have nothing but an idea) develop something that has the potential to create real value. The iStockphoto.com company was almost even more exciting. When you think about threadless.com, they were just selling T-shirts, iStockphoto.com was taking on a giant. However, this business model created so much disruption, it forced the incumbent Getty to buy it. This is the disruption that is so compelling and valuable. I was also struck with the authors discussion on community. This is in short supply these days as we become more mobile. We keep in touch, with family, we communicate on the Internet, but community... That seems to be missing. That desire for connection is something innate in humans. We need it. If you can great a model that generates that it can be very powerful.
P&G's model was probably the most interesting to me as I work in and analyze old line companies. I follow the technology industry but most companies I follow are not internet based but sell products into the technology supply chain. There are some Internet names, but not many that fit our requirements. So to see the use of the Internet and Crowdsourcing to develop product was intriguing. It got me thinking about other ways my companies and others could develop ways to improve their uses of crowdsourcing. I wrote my previous blog this week on an idea that I think is somewhat scary. In addition, I liked Surowieki's comments and Keen's comments as well regarding the risk associated with social media, networks, and to some degree crowdsourcing. I loved Surowieki's view of the only way social networks can be more correct than an expert is when each individual is independent and by operating in a network, it compromises your independence.
I am thinking more and more about ways to use the Internet to drive our business, but it concerns me longer term what will happen to independent thought over time if we don't manage exposure to networks for our children.
So, I got all my reading and listening done... Now I need to go back and review to write my blog! Maybe I should take notes on what I read. I never used to have to, but with the likely hundreds if not a thousand or my pages on read weekly from research reports and school, I think I may have to start taking notes.
One thing I keep coming back to is the social aspect. The ability for anyone to come out and say or do just about anything they want on the Internet. I was thinking about it in relation to investing yesterday. As an active investor, I believe that through my research, I can actually beat the market over time. We won't do it every year but we can do it over time. Our clients believe that too and they stick with us when we have 6 months or a year below trend. Historically we have come roaring back in the next year or two and move back to top performing fund.
The question though that I am asking here is, could a crowd approach to investing be better? Seeking alpha is a way for investors on my levels to post research. I love the idea! Could I use it anonymously to develop some street cred as an activist (I do this quietly already with companies)? More thoughts to come on that. The problem I have is some of the research is just atrocious. Here is a perfect example!
http://seekingalpha.com/article/75121-add-some-power-to-your-portfolio-with-volterra-semiconductor
This "analyst" likes VLTR. He has 48 different articles, almost 60 followers. He is recommending buying VLTR. That isn't the problem, I know the CEO, CFO, CTO, CMO, and many others at VLTR, but by just doing a little research, like reading and listening to their calls, I can tell you that some of his comments particularly the ones on notebook recovering or stabilizing (it's likely going to zero based on changes INTC has made to their chips) are wrong. This is not to tell you to go long or short on VLTR but to point out that individuals doing research who don't know what they are doing (comments are basically positive on VLTR) shouldn't be doing it. Would you invest using these analyst or retail sentiment indicators like trending stocks on message boards etc...? Honestly, I would probably invest opposite those metrics. I don't have an answer yet, but I don't see these models adding much value to the individual investor. If the model over the long run only gives value to the owner, I believe it will fail. I don't see this working in the investing world. Maybe I could use it to launch an activist hedge fund though... Hhhhmmmm, something to think about.
One thing I keep coming back to is the social aspect. The ability for anyone to come out and say or do just about anything they want on the Internet. I was thinking about it in relation to investing yesterday. As an active investor, I believe that through my research, I can actually beat the market over time. We won't do it every year but we can do it over time. Our clients believe that too and they stick with us when we have 6 months or a year below trend. Historically we have come roaring back in the next year or two and move back to top performing fund.
The question though that I am asking here is, could a crowd approach to investing be better? Seeking alpha is a way for investors on my levels to post research. I love the idea! Could I use it anonymously to develop some street cred as an activist (I do this quietly already with companies)? More thoughts to come on that. The problem I have is some of the research is just atrocious. Here is a perfect example!
http://seekingalpha.com/article/75121-add-some-power-to-your-portfolio-with-volterra-semiconductor
This "analyst" likes VLTR. He has 48 different articles, almost 60 followers. He is recommending buying VLTR. That isn't the problem, I know the CEO, CFO, CTO, CMO, and many others at VLTR, but by just doing a little research, like reading and listening to their calls, I can tell you that some of his comments particularly the ones on notebook recovering or stabilizing (it's likely going to zero based on changes INTC has made to their chips) are wrong. This is not to tell you to go long or short on VLTR but to point out that individuals doing research who don't know what they are doing (comments are basically positive on VLTR) shouldn't be doing it. Would you invest using these analyst or retail sentiment indicators like trending stocks on message boards etc...? Honestly, I would probably invest opposite those metrics. I don't have an answer yet, but I don't see these models adding much value to the individual investor. If the model over the long run only gives value to the owner, I believe it will fail. I don't see this working in the investing world. Maybe I could use it to launch an activist hedge fund though... Hhhhmmmm, something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)