Big Ideas

Proving YOUR SELF wrong

There is, in each of us, an idea of self. A vision of who we are, what we stand for and what we're capable of accomplishing. Like the perfectionist painter, this idea is the canvas in our closets that we continue to modify and hopefully, improve.

I'm of the belief that this idea of self is always in flux. This last weekend, I ran my first marathon and changed a piece of my self in a meaningful way. This post is about examining my conception of self and one of the tactics that I apply to create change in my life.

 

 

I used to be a small, small kid.. I hated it

Shortly before my 10th birthday, I started taking Tae Kwon Do (TKD). From day one I was hooked. Being shorter or smaller didn't matter. I was fast, I learned quickly, I liked to fight. I was good at it, immediately.

A few months later, my family adopted a cat. Aside from fish, I'd never really had a pet and taking that cat in really opened my eyes to how attached one can get to an animal. We named her Aintabelle (the opposite of Isabelle..super dorky) and I quickly became her favorite.

As coincidence would have it, I have pretty severe pet allergies. We didn't really know it at the time, but when we took in the cat, I inflamed the asthma that was latent in my lungs.

So there I was, 10 years old, passionate about this new sport I'd started, in love with a new cat friend we'd adopted and wheezing. A LOT. Life seemed really unfair to me at the time.

Despite the asthma, I managed to keep practicing TKD. I loved it so much that I fought through the asthma. It'd flare up, but I managed it.

At home, as we figured the allergies out, I had to stop playing with the cat so much (it was hard, I'd usually just stop when my eyes got too red..) and she couldn't go in my room at all. It wasn't perfect, but combined with the inhalers, the allergy meds and the modified diet my parents put together for the cat, we kept it going all throughout my teens.

The thing was, I had asthma.

It was allergy-induced and although exercise exacerbated it, I could make it through in certain situations. I loved TKD so much (perhaps because I'd tried it before having to deal with asthma-attack laden lungs) that I figured out a way to get through. I got stronger and stronger every class and it actually made me more fit. I had to work 20% harder than everyone else, but I didn't care. It meant that I had more gas in the tank when I was finishing matches (my specialty became winning in the final round). I did what I had to do, because I wanted it, just that badly.

PE and school sports however, were another matter. When cross-country and track and field came around, I tried to compete, like I did for all of our sports. I ran a bit but didn't really enjoy it. It was torture, running while having lungs that were not terribly efficient and seeing other kids go so much faster with much less work. It demoralized me.

Physically, I developed two self-images

At school I became the kid with asthma, who couldn't run when you had to run in PE or who would, but was slow and had the inhaler. That was me. From time to time, I'd feel great and run well, but most of the time, I was slow, it was painful and I hated it.

Meanwhile, at TKD I was a different person entirely. I matured, I competed, I did well and it was a virtuous cycle of reinforcement. Day after day, month after month, I developed an idea of who I was in my TKD uniform: I was a competitor, a winner, an instructor, a coach. A leader. More than anything, Tae Kwon Do taught me how to lead when I was a teenager.. it was incredible.

Why was this happening?

I think that while my asthma is much more prone to flaring up when I'm running (particularly uphill) what really occurred was that asthma became more than just a physical ailment that impeded my performance. It became something that formed my sense of self. Thinking about that for a few moments is, for me, really enlightening.:

The way in which I saw the world, the opportunities available to me, the possibilities in life.. all of the options in my head became affected by a physical affliction.

I got it in my head that I wanted to be good at TKD. That I could prove myself through it - that martial arts, unlike other sports, were a place where the fact that I was smaller, smarter and not white didn't matter. They might even be assets. My frame of reference, at TKD, gave me the ability to envision great success, despite asthma.

I decided that I could and would be good at TKD and with hard work and practice, I was right.

But it wasn't sustainable

As I met with more success in TKD, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. I'd prepare myself for the competitions and then, day of, I was often less interested in winning the competition than just getting it over with. Many times, I only really invested myself in winning when I thought I had something to prove to others. There was the match where the kid was double my size (no joke - I weighed 50+lbs, he weighed 98 lbs), or the numerous times when I sparred the adults in class and I'd destroy them for taking it easy on me. More often than not, I was motivated to prove others wrong.

I remember two distinct moments of clarity on this point:

- The first occurred when I was preparing for the state championships my senior year of high school. I was at this point, the favorite. I'd won the past 3 or 4 years and I'd actually competed nationally a number of times. It was a strange feeling, being the favorite. I took training easier. I didn't push myself to fight the bigger, tougher opponents in my classes. My friend Rocky had argued with me, saying that if I forced myself to run, I'd be in even better shape and would be able to not just finish the fights strong, but to finish the tournament strong. Fighting 4 or 5 9-minute bouts was devastatingly tiring. He was right. I didn't care. I ran once and stopped.

- The second occurred at the high school graduation party my parents threw me. My master came to the party. At this point, he'd been part of my life for 9 years. I was his 3rd student. He cared for me quite a bit. He made me who I am, in some ways. He talked with my parents about the fact that he was disappointed that I was leaving the state and couldn't continue to train with him for Nationals and the Olympic Games. I heard about this later from my parents and the overriding thought in my head was, "That sounds like too much work."

At some point, I'd taught myself to rely upon others for motivation

I'd looked to prove other people wrong with TKD in the first place and followed that pattern by looking to others for motivation to get better at TKD. Progress, after a while, became a series of spurts, rather than steadily occurring change. I've learned that this approach doesn't tend to work well in the long run. We have to create and maintain the habits that define us. It requires continuous investment and repetition, that's why it is, in fact, habitual.  My habits take work, regularly.

So, one of the habits that I care a great deal about is that of self-motivation.

When no one has expectations of you or they already think that you're doing well, you can often coast and make excuses if you don't live up to expectations. The reality of the world that I live in is that it doesn't take a tremendous amount of work to just tread water. In personal and professional life, being average to above-average doesn't seem to be challenging. Of course, this is contextual, so I understand that I exist in a privileged class. I might rephrase this and say: coasting, in life, appears to be the norm. 

I think that in some ways, this reflects upon how much we want to be seen as "nice" people. In the world that I live in, very few people are truly honest in their evaluations of one another. They bottle problems up, they hold back with suggestions, they get scared to give praise. While this is polite, it also makes it much less likely that we can look to others for motivation. One of the reasons that I have this blog is to solicit feedback and motivation from my friends. Only a few of you choose to :)

I don't think that this is terrible. It does, however, explain why I'm more likely to give you feedback and try to offer praise. I have had to learn that I can't rely upon you for motivation.

Which is why this habit is called self-motivation

Over the past several years, I've taken up running. It started off slowly - 10 and 15 minutes on the treadmill at the gym. Jogging really slowly with friends. Introducing myself to the idea of enjoying running, not hating it. I found something amazing happened once I started running outside in San Francisco: I got happier.

It really was as simple as that. One day I started running down to the Marina and along the water and after that I couldn't stop. It's just that beautiful, calming and energizing for me. I've always loved the water and running along it made me appreciate running and San Francisco far more than ever before.

As I ran, I got healthier, I got happier and I taught myself self-motivation.

At first, when I started running regularly, I found myself looking at how others were doing in order to find a reason to push myself a little harder. I was falling back on the habits I'd developed in TKD. But I realized it and sought to change it.

Now, when I run, I play mind games with myself. Sometimes I see someone running faster and see if I can keep up with them to test if I'm taking it too easily. I see how much of a song I can make it through at a dead sprint at the end of my run (I was up to half a song or ~2 1/2 mins). In short, I learned to focus inside for my running motivation and increased performance.

I made myself start running the bridge, to see if I could do it.

I could.

I took the US Half Marathon course map and did it, the day before the race, to see if I could do it.

I could.

I started training with Allison for the LA marathon, to see if I could get my mileage up quickly.

I could.

3 weeks after Allison said that she was going to do the marathon, I knew I was in. I wanted to see if I could prove that my past self could be changed. I wanted to see if I could grow far beyond the asthma attacks of my youth to complete a marathon.

I could.

 

Pushing yourself isn't just about being positive

Which brings me back to the title of this post, "Proving your self wrong". As much as it was important for me to build myself up and enter the race, feeling as if I could do the marathon, that's not the whole story.

Many of us know and believe that being positive is a great thing, that it helps us push forward in life. But many of us forget that along the way, we reach points where we feel as if we CAN'T do anything. In those moments, many of us vow to avoid those can't determinations again. We don't push through.

I was twittering, leading up to the marathon and during it, because I wanted to document some of my thinking for myself (and anyone else who was interested). In mile 20 of the race, I twittered:

"Mile 20. I can do this. I can do this."

I didn't twitter however, that at mile 23 of the marathon, I KNEW that I couldn't finish. I felt it in my legs. They were done. Too tired. I'd gone out too fast, shouldn't have separated from my partner at mile 12 and it was far hotter than I was used to. My head told me something:

I wasn't going to be able to finish.

And so, what I want people to remember is that sometimes, it's not that you're lacking a positive outlook. It's that you need to prove yourself wrong. If you want something out of life but think you've objectively determined that you can't have it... you're probably right.

But what if you're wrong?

Go test yourself. Your self just might change.

 

Technorati Tags: First marathon, sense of self, proving yourself wrong, self-motivation

Silicon Valley vs. the World? Is it really that simple??

Yesterday, Michael Arrington wrote "An Outsider's Flawed View of Silicon Valley in response to Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman's blog post, How Green Was My Valley.

 

I'm shocked at his reaction. I'd say appalled, but Michael, really, I can't say that I'm ever appalled by anything that a CMC alum does :-) (I went to Pomona, for the record).

 

Why all the venom Michael?

First of all, it seems to me that Michael's characterization of Glenn's post is off-base. He says that Glenn compares Silicon Valley unfavorably with Seattle. I don't see that in Glenn's post - what I see is a comparison of the pros and cons of the two areas.

Must everything be a conflict with a clear winner and a clear loser?

Perhaps this is the huge difference between the Silicon Valley and all other "also-ran" cities. The competitive spirit is such that in Silicon Valley you can't sniff in the area's general direction without raising the hackles of one of its cheerleaders.

Let's be clear - I don't mind the competitive spirit, I really enjoy and thrive upon it. Competition is great and it creates stronger, more resilient organizations and people. But aggressive competition has its costs as well. To steal a tactic that Michael uses, "Don't delude yourself" into thinking that choosing to be aggressively competitive is anything but a tradeoff. You're choosing to alienate and motivate those that might have been your best allies.

 

Which brings me to the 2nd of my reactions to Michael's post:

Being collaborative, cooperative and friendly is NOT a bad thing and it just might be the ONLY thing in the future

Glenn Kelman's post is about how he, Hadi Partovi and Rich Barton all think that Seattle is never going to be much like Silicon Valley. It's illustrative of his very point that he chooses to collaborate with both of those executives in crafting his post while Arrington goes off on his own about the perceived attack the Valley has suffered at their hands.

As someone who grew up in Redmond, WA and currently calls San Francisco home, my observation has been that the cutthroat nature of the Valley makes it much harder to feel like you can ask for help. Of course, this is just my perception, but I'd like to extend this point to something a bit more relevant:

It appears to me that "Web 2.0" (or whatever name you want to use for the networked technologies of today) is about collaboration, openness and most importantly, the understanding that if the other guy wins, it doesn't necessarily mean that YOU LOSE.

It is my belief that we're all seeing the most open, collaborative, cooperative companies make a name for themselves because they understand that competition isn't really about crushing the other guy, it's about competing to provide your customers with the best, most useful products and services.

Furthermore, the approach taken by many of the Seattle companies that I've been watching has been all about following a strategy of open collaboration. Amazon, Redfin, iLike, Zillow, Picnik and many others are leading the way to a more collaborative, hopeful, helpful business climate. This is where the bomb-throwers among you probably think, "Wait, you're from Redmond and Microsoft is all about crushing the other guy!"

Well, no, that's not right at all. If you look at the companies that many of us watch and are most interested in at the moment (Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Facebook, Amazon, MySpace) you'll recognize that many of them are looking to copy the playbook of Microsoft (and some are even beating them at it..). For decades now, the company has competed fiercely but reached out even more stridently to cooperate with those who could help them (don't make me post the infamous developers speech again). There is no company out there today that has been more responsible for supporting software development than Microsoft. There are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses that make money by taking Microsoft software and extending it and servicing it. The very idea of a software platform begins with Microsoft and while you might argue that they haven't done enough you certainly would sound ignorant by suggesting that their collaboration and cooperation hasn't been hugely valuable to the company and the industry.

If companies in Seattle or New York or Mumbai or Sao Paulo are learning that it's better to work with one another and that means they "don't have what it takes to make it in Silicon Valley" I say Silicon Valley better start looking into the mirror a lot harder. But somehow, I don't think that Michael speaks for everyone in the Valley on this issue..

Finally, I have one last thing to take issue with, given that Michael was willing to nitpick every part of Glenn's post:

Ideas don't matter worth a damn. EXECUTION matters. PRODUCTS matter. Ideas? Everyone's got them.

Michael writes:

The truth about Silicon Valley is that ideas matter more than anything. A Stanford (or even the occasional Berkeley) student with an idea can turn it into a Yahoo. Or a Google. Or countless other success stories. They are surrounded by people who want them to succeed, who are willing to give them money to support their ideas, and then help them grow it. There is no where else in the world quite like this place.

If anything, the sheer number of successful companies in Silicon Valley proves that it's the execution that matter. The support system that Michael references helps in EXECUTING. Ideas are everywhere. As someone who has spent his time in the halls of Yahoo!, WebEx, RealNetworks and other co's I assure you - there's NO shortage of ideas. If Michael wants to argue that the Valley is better at hearing ideas and supporting their execution, great. But don't tell me that ideas matter more than anything. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley.

 

Technorati Tags: Seattle & Silicon Valley, Glenn Kelman, Michael Arrington, The New Silicon Valley

Facebook thinks it's big enough...

So now it's joining the DataPortability Workgroup:

Facebook, Google And Plaxo Join The DataPortability Workgroup

 

While Duncan would tell you that this is a huge step forward for Facebook's strategy and that they're changing their tune, I would have to amend that statement a bit. I think that the fact that Facebook is willing to join the workgroup says three things:

1) They believe that they have enough momentum to continue growing their user base. At a size of ~60mm today, I bet that they're of the opinion that the chances of any network smaller than them catching up any time soon due to DataPortability is slim to none.

2) Moreover, they probably believe that given the traction that their application strategy has provided them with developers, dataportability will actually allow them to further eat into MySpace's lead

3) As a member of the workgroup, they can slow down the process as they see fit from the inside, putting up meaningful barriers to any suggestions around portability (say, the ability for a user to truly shift their data to a new network that might supplant Facebook as their primary network) that could negatively impact Facebook.

 

Call me a skeptic, but I think that Facebook's proven to be a savvy innovator with a pretty solid grasp of timing and damage control/PR communications.

 

For those of you who don't understand WTF this post about, shoot me a note in the comments and I'll reach out to you individually. It'll help me create a better post about this topic in the near future.

 

Technorati Tags: data portability, facebook, communications, Open Web, WebMe, Indipity

Proof that media is culture-specific

Check out this Indian PSA promoting safe sex.... not only is it bizarre and hilarious at the same time for us Americans, it's also highly demonstrative that media and really, communication, is much more culture-specific than most give thought to on a regular basis. This is, given the Indian media that I've seen, pretty normal in some important ways. Feel free to go rent a Hindi movie if you don't believe me :) 

(Hat tip to my media guru sister, who passed this on to me).

 

But wait a second... are you sure that I'm not just doing the ignorant thing and taking some piece of media that's meant mockingly (say, like the Colbert Report) and ascribing serious attributes to it? What if this was an ad from a popular comedy show (SNL India perhaps?) and now I'm telling you all that this is a real ad? The credits at the end make it a little odd, don't they?

So let's see.. what else is out there in the way of condom ads from India?

It turns out, according to this news item that another condom ad won an award from the UN this year. Much shorter, more serious but the point of the ad is that condom is an ok word to say - now that might be kind of different from what we'd see in America, but not as shocking as the above video. Check it out:

But wait, there's more...

You should then remember that this is an ad that was judged to be good by the UN. While the story does mention quite a bit of activity done in order to promote the campaign, it doesn't mean that this campaign was particularly effective. What it might actually speak to is the subjective judgements of largely Westernized citizens on the UN panel of judges. Oh, that and the fact that according to that article, it sounds like the campaign was only competing against 2 other campaigns for this award... Minor detail, no?

 

So, what's my point here, now that I've tied your head in knots?

Won't it be a great world when advertising and marketing messages are much better translated to the cultures that they're targeting?

Which of the above campaigns really gets people in India to use condoms and practice safe sex?

Remember, that's the goal here - to get the message across and impact people's behavior.. that's what this stuff is all about. It's not about winning awards or having something that is so funny and odd that people on the other side of the world are looking at it and passing it around to one another as a joke. This campaign is about promoting safe sex and hopefully slowing the growth of AIDS in India, the country with the most reported AIDS cases of any country in the world.

*Wow, that's a very serious goal, isn't it?*

Yes, advertising and marketing messages can be unwanted and annoying. They can be offensive or deceitful. They can even be culturally damaging.

So can any type of communication.

But when it has such a high ceiling, we should really be focusing on making it better, not arguing about exactly what is and isn't ok. And when I see media like this, I think to myself, "Damn it, we need to be making ads that communicate better to the cultures they're hoping to connect with!"

What U.S. company can effectively advertise in India? It's damn hard, isn't it?

We need people to take much more seriously the fact that in order to communicate our ideas globally, we have to be able to tailor those messages: not just language, not just images, but real cultural tailoring. Understanding, experimenting and continuing to revise those messages so that they hit home with the target audience most effectively. 

It's happening now in small ways (think about McDonald's "I'm lovin' it" or the massive growth in Spanish language media), but it's very very slow for society as a whole and this should really be changing dramatically with the Internet.

Anyone want to help speed that change up? I bet there'd be some money in there for ya :)

 

Technorati Tags: Advertising, Culture targeting, Cultural communications, media and culture

Just an awesome, awesome interview

Valeria Maltoni, over on her Conversation Agent blog, conducts an awesome interview with the Editor-in-Chief of BusinessWeek.com over here:

"Meet the (New Media) Editor -- John Byrne, BusinessWeek"

Excellent questions, as usual, from Valeria, but I was really impressed by John's answers. The guy is thoughtful and he gets it - he understands the importance of the conversation that goes on around journalism. He also really understands the importance of the permanence that the digital medium provides and says:

The aha for me is that the most permanent and influential of all journalism today is, in fact, digital. Unlike the journalism in a magazine or newspaper that gets thrown away, digital journalism is a permanent searchable record. You can access it anywhere around the globe at anytime, whether you are at home or work, in an airport lounge in Warsaw or a cafe in Bangalore. Unlike print, it doesn’t disappear with the garbage. You can’t line a bird cage with it. Instead, digital journalism lives on forever.

Wow. Sometimes I take this progress for granted. But it wasn't that long ago that I was hearing that the online medium cheapened journalism and content. I LOVE how much people's perceptions are changing.

Technorati Tags: Business Week, Online journalism

Digging into the details of a company #1: Viagogo

Question: What happens when a startup receives funding from an executive who is on the payroll of its chief competitor?

Read on to find out.

 

Continuing on my last post, "Digging into the details: understanding companies from the outside", I'd like to explore a bit of a discussion on a startup that seems to be a no-brainer. Not only does it have serious exit options available, but it's being built to capitalize on a large and proven opportunity over the long run.

Interestingly, there's quite a bit of public information about the company and yet it's not getting a large amount of discussion, nor are key details being brought to light. This is why blogs are terrific; I can attempt to address the shortcomings in the marketplace for information. Today, I'll be bringing you Chapter 1 in my occasional "Digging into the details" series:

"The Viagogo story"

Last week, Viagogo got a significant amount of press because it announced a U.S.-based deal with the Cleveland Browns (Techcrunch coverage, Venture Beat coverage and Paid Content coverage) along with a $30mm funding round. Now, I'd been aware of the company for a little while but I found that the coverage smacked of "PR regurgitation" and decided to do some more digging for myself. After having done so, it's become pretty clear to me that those involved in the company right now have a very real chance of making a killing.

Let's start with the basics:

What's the company do?

If you've ever heard of StubHub, you know what Viagogo does. Basically, the markets around tickets for events are pretty inefficient and both Stubhub and Viagogo attempt to make them more liquid, better matching up sellers and buyers of tickets for concerts, sporting events etc. If you recall, Stubhub sold to eBay in January for $310 million. Viagogo's focused on the European market and has secured numerous exclusive relationships there, which is why their entry into the U.S. made some headlines.

How do they make money?  

They match up buyers and sellers of event tickets and charge them both. Their info page appears to be deliberately vague but my understanding is that they charge sellers as much as 15% and buyers as much as 10%. So, that'd add up to 25% on each transaction. Compare that to the typical fees on eBay and I think you'll quickly come to the conclusion that they're either crazy or in an insanely good market.

Is this sustainable?

Given Stubhub's success in the U.S. (conducting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions) , their eventual sale to eBay, and claims that the secondary ticket market might be worth around $10 billion in the US alone, I think it's safe to say that, at the very least, there's clearly some money here.

 

But let's dig a bit deeper, shall we?

While the Browns deal was the company's first in the U.S., they've got substantial traction in Europe. In fact, they have exclusive relationships with the top football clubs in Europe (like Manchester United) and are, I'm sure, working to secure more. This is important because in the U.S., Ticketmaster has typically had exclusive relationships but has been under attack by the event constituents, as they've realized that Ticketmaster is under-monetizing the opportunity.

Let me stop for a second and explain: a core principle of economics is the concept of supply and demand. Basically, the price at which supply meets demand is where the optimal price lies. This is a simplification, but good enough for our purposes. For many years, Ticketmaster and traditional ticket sellers have insisted on selling tickets at tiered rates, without taking into account the ability to upgrade the purchasing dynamics, using the Internet, to determine the accurate prices for tickets. For the most part, this is why scalpers exist. Yes, there are some last minute sales that occur, but really, scalpers are people who have figured out that the ticket price for an event is below the price that rabid, devoted fans will pay. Slowly, sports teams, bands and others have realized this is the case and determined that ideally, they'd prefer to charge the correct prices for their product.

So, back to the narrative. Stubhub and some other competitors have come in and not displaced Ticketmaster, but rather, have layered themselves on top of Ticketmaster, by addressing the secondary market - the reselling of event tickets. In making that marketplace more efficient, they've realized significant economic benefits while pleasing many a happy consumer. Viagogo, however, has managed to successfully replicate that market in Europe and then, taken it one step further by negotiating exclusive relationships with some of these organizations, blocking out competition in a way that hasn't been seen in the U.S.

This is, in a word, genius.

Now, mind you, I suspect that they're being dumb about the long term pricing of the business. I don't think that making 25% on each of these transactions is any more defensible than my $10 service charge with Ticketmaster is (in an efficient market), but then again, business is war and some businesses wage war with consumers...

So, those are the core pieces to understand I think.

But there are a few unique twists here that make this more of a big deal:

1. As is discussed in these articles, Eric Baker, started Viagogo. He co-founded Stubhub and left in 2004, due to some disagreements. So, he already knows how to do this.

2. If you don't think that he's motivated to beat Stubhub, you're kidding yourself. Surprisingly, none of the articles I saw on this topic touched on a very real point: personal motivation. Baker clearly had strategic disagreements at Stubhub and continues to believe that he could have built a better business. He even cashed out during the eBay transaction (for ~$31 million, if the ownership stakes in this post were right), so he's not doing this just because he made no money. No, he's convinced that the real opportunity has been missed and he's going after it. That is a compelling story and speaks to a fanatical desire, the likes of which often makes for extraordinary success.

3. Techcrunch makes this point: "The company claims to be generating more revenue in June, its tenth month in operation, than StubHub did in its first 15 months combined." Ok, so the data says that they're killing it on the execution and revenue front. I'm willing to bet that not only was Baker right about some of his strategic disagreements but that there's a secret embedded there: the exclusive relationships with the sports teams are paying off.

4. If some of the clubs aren't starting to allocate a certain portion of their tickets to the Viagogo ticket exchange, they're missing out. Here’s why… The football club makes all of the revenue associated with primary ticket sales. Then, there's a secondary market, totally endorsed by the club and powered by Viagogo. Now, typically, when a good is sold the first time, the manufacturer makes money but when it's sold a second time, the manufacturer doesn't see a penny. In this situation, however, the club in question is making money on the first transaction and probably again on the second transaction, via a rev share from Viagogo. If this is what's happening, the revenue from Viagogo is purely incremental, which is music to a CFO's ears. Why wouldn’t a team offer this, both for their fans and for their own bottom line?

5. eBay is an acquisitive company that has bought many similar companies over the years to expand its global footprint. At the very least, if Viagogo successfully rounds up the European market, eBay would want to own it in order to add to its existing capabilities and presence in markets (like the secondary market for events). Additionally, it would appear that eBay sees the opportunity to connect these marketplaces with their Skype acquisition (touched on in the above mashable post) and my guess is that the company thinks that secondary markets can be enhanced using voice/video interactions.

6. Which brings me to my most important point, which I've saved for last...
   Niklas Zennstrom is an investor.
   Now, you might not recognize that name offhand, but he's one of the co-founders of Kazaa and then Skype. In addition to running Skype (according to eBay at least), he also maintains a venture capital fund, Atomico Investments. If you look at their portfolio, you can see rather easily that they've put money into Viagogo. This is important because: a) Niklas continues to run Skype b) eBay owns Skype, after acquiring it a few years ago c) eBay owns Stubhub, a clear competitor of Viagogo.
   
   Let me put this another way: Zennstrom is putting his own money into one of his employer’s competitors. I wonder if eBay knows about this.

So, looking at that overall picture, it looks to me like the WORST case scenario for Viagogo at this point is that it sells to eBay. Not bad for a company that’s only been around since last summer. Seems like a no-brainer to me, how about you?

 

Technorati Tags: Viagogo, Skype, Stubhub, eBay, evaluating companies, research and investing, Niklas Zennstrom, Atomico Investments

Digging into the details: understanding companies from the outside

Over the past several years, I'd like to think, I've become an increasingly savvy investor. As a result of the focus that I put on better understanding what really drives corporate results and how that gets valued in the markets over the long run, I've begun to achieve a pretty satisfying success rate. (Of course, recognizing that the market's done pretty well the past few years, I continue to evaluate this..)

One of the ways that I hone these skills is that as I'm reading about various companies I try to dig into the ones that play to areas I'm interested in and know something about. I find that over time, as I do this, I see a larger picture, an evolving story that tells me more about the company than what I could find from the conventional public reports and press coverage. This has led me to uncover companies from WebEx to Google. From Starbucks to In 'N Out. 

Every once in a while, this process uncovers a private company that I think is doing something pretty well and definitely has a no-brainer opportunity in front of them. When a company is private, you don't get very much detail and I like testing my ability to piece together the story on private companies with minimal data. Call it a mental exercise, but I find that it's really helpful to push my brain to think through the various scenarios that could be playing out behind the scenes. When the companies actually grow and go public (as I watched with Google) you get the satisfying, "nice, I was right" feeling, to boot.  As I learn to do this more successfully, I get to really apply these analytical techniques to the public marketplace, where I can actually take positions in companies that I discover. 

I've decided that because I do this relatively often and because I'm finding that blogging makes me be a bit more rigorous when sharing thoughts, I'm going to start talking through some of my ideas on this blog. Perhaps I'll turn up some promising public companies and maybe I'll alert you to some interesting private companies.  Hopefully, I'll occasionally really hit the nail on the head like I did when talking about the Blackberry Pearl last fall in a post titled, "Evolving the Mobile Interface". In case you haven't been watching, RIM's been on a tear, in large part due to the massive success of the Pearl and the subsequent releases of devices utilizing the trackball interface :)

So, tune in for my next post, where I'll discuss a private company that I've recently come across that I think has a pretty strong future ahead of it.

Technorati Tags: evaluating companies, business analysis, private companies, research and investing

Things that I'm thinking about (part 3)

Wow, the past few days have seen a noticeable increase in traffic here, which says to me that some of you subscribers are more actively engaged and are maybe even passing on my posts to friends of yours. Thanks!

A quick shout out to a few folks who've been commenting:

Valeria - for always taking the time to comment when I link to you. Very impressive.  Mark -  I always appreciate that you take the time to leave a quick note when you like something. Thanks bud.  Jim - Wow. Awesome comment on my "Go Fail Yourself" post. Between the comments from you and Ben on that post, that has to be one of my personal favorite posts so far.  Ian - For sharing your little javascript code on my "Proactive Discovery" post. Amazingly, you were the only one to contribute something there :)

 

So, on to the networks version of my "Things I'm thinking about right now" series (here are Part 1 and Part 2):

 

Web Worker Daily brings us back to the point of networking: remembering that it's not just a series of transactions is important.

Fred Wilson hits on something near and dear to my heart - he's unsure of where this is going and about the difference between what users want and what developers will seek out. I believe that I have a very good idea of where it should go. Let's talk Fred. 

He also links to Dave Winer, who gets provocative in Fred's comments (Scott Rafer also adds in his useful pragmatic view). I think that he's right on here - real platforms look different from Facebook F8, folks.

Scoble points me to:

Jason Calacanis's post which spins the discussion around and essentially asks, "Does this stuff have any substance?" He also continues on in a second post, lightly touching on something that I think is being left under-discussed: the younger generations are being raised, at least in the U.S., with the expectation that they have to market themselves.

Proving that he really is a portal, Scoble also points me over to new stuff coming out of Plaxo. I'm  hoping to make it to Lunchaxo tomorrow, to see what's going on.

The NY Times does a piece on how the businesses who create networks impact real-life relationships in significant and negative ways.

 

Ok, I'm realizing this could be a bit of overload for people, so I'm going to stop now. As promised, I'm working on a more coherent piece that will hopefully pull these things together better.

 

Technorati Tags: social networks, plaxo, facebook, Dave Winer, Fred Wilson, Jason Calacanis, open social networks, communication, indipity

Things that I'm thinking about (part 2)

Holy crap!

I didn't think it was going to take so long to get up part 2 after my last post, sorry about that. Between my laptop dying (replacing h/w at a big company can be a HUGE pain, let me tell you..) a hugely consumptive weekend (drinking, dancing, reading, movie watching) and traveling (I'm up in Seattle visiting friends and attending the grand opening of one of their stores) I've been just overwhelmed.

You know what they say about excuses, of course..

So, other stuff that I've been thinking about, the advertising edition:

Creating value with advertising

Targeting, personalization and your personal involvement

Becoming an evangelist

Pontifications on Yahoo!, the ad market and how we should go make life even more confusing..

 

Part 3 will be dealing with networks (social and otherwise..).

 

Technorati Tags: advertising, personalization, targeting, evangelism

Sharing experiences: another amazing YouTube video

By way of my friend Damon's blog comes this amazing video of a home crowd at a basketball game. It's incredible to watch how into the game they are and the lack of social fear.

That's right, social fear. Maybe you should think about that for a moment. Do you have social fear? Are you afraid of being yourself in public?

The digitization of our lives is happening. Whether it's Flickr, YouTube, your blog or whatever's coming next, we're becoming more digitally entwined. That scares people. A ton. But it's also good, because you can share these experiences. Watch this video and then think about it like this:

- Imagine that you go to school here and you're trying to tell a friend who doesn't go there about your freshman year. You're telling them how cohesive the student body is, how tied together everyone feels and how much they love basketball. Your friend listens intently, but they don't "get" it. Not just with your words.

- You send them this video.

Then what happens? Maybe your friend picks up the phone and calls you with 5 questions about your school. Maybe they want to transfer there. Or think you should leave.

But, all of a sudden, they've gotten to experience your life more intimately than ever before.

Isn't that what we're really seeking with this stuff? The ability to more fully share who we are, what we think, what we do? Aren't we really try to share the experiences of our lives?

I think so.

You tell me. Tell me what you want out of blogs, flickr, youtube, twitter etc. I'm dying to know.

Technorati tags: YouTube, Sharing experiences, digitization of life, economy of influence, transparency