Tag Archives: Business

How Wall Street Captured Main Street

If you have the time, read James Kwak‘s interview in The Straddler. He has some interesting things to say about how our culture is oddly enamored of the idea of the swashbuckling wall streeter, and yet intimidated by economics and finance, and how that has influenced policy decisions. He’s a smart cat.  Here is a small sample:

“And Wall Street’s argument that it has this mysterious power, that you have to trust it that it’s using it for good, and that if you take it away, the world will end, is obviously obnoxious—but it’s a hugely successful debating point.  Congressmen are afraid of it.  They’re afraid that they don’t understand what’s going on, and they’re hearing these lobbyists say that if you push too hard on the banking industry, the world will end.”

Benefits of the European Economic Model

Salon recently interviewed Thomas Geoghegan, author of Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?: How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life, a book which, in addition to having a ridiculously long title, discusses the benefits of the European economic model (higher taxes, generous benefits), particularly in terms of improved quality of life. I haven’t read the book, but he made some interesting points in the interview.

He notes that while Germany (his main focus within Europe) has high wages and strong unions, it is also a leading exporter. With one-third the population of the US, Germany still manages to export more than we do. Thus the claim that America can only be competitive with low wages and weak unions is belied by Germany’s success.

He also takes on the GDP statistics that seem to indicate that America is much wealthier than Europe. He notes that GDP doesn’t measure things like leisure time, or a free college education, or liberal parental leave rules:

“One day we’ll get beyond that and see that the European standard of living is rising. You can pull out these GDP per capita statistics and say that people in Mississippi are vastly wealthier than people in Frankfurt and Hamburg. That can’t be true. Just spend two months in Hamburg and spend two months in Tupelo, Mississippi. There’s something wrong if the statistics are telling you that the people in Tupelo are three times wealthier than the people in Germany…..So much of the American economy is based on GDP that comes from waste, environmental pillage, urban sprawl, bad planning, people going farther and farther with no land use planning whatsoever and leading more miserable lives. That GDP is thrown on top of all the GDP that comes from gambling and fraud of one kind or another. It’s a more straightforward description of what Kenneth Rogoff and the Economist would call the financialization of the American economy.”

That quote makes me wonder: if you took out all the casino components of real estate and wall street speculation, what would the US GDP statistics look like then? I’m sure that someone has done this analysis, but I couldn’t find it online.

Geoghegan makes clear that he is an American and that he loves America and loves living here. He merely notes that when we discuss, as we are in the current election, those great American values of individualism and free markets and the heroic capitalist, we should remember that there are benefits to other systems. Germans work, on average, nine weeks less per year than we do (two months!), and yet they seem to have a pretty nice standard of living. I’m not saying I want to move to Frankfurt tomorrow, because I don’t. I too love living in America. But there is no reason we shouldn’t learn from other countries and from what they do well.

On Facebook and Intellectual Property Theft

As the non-film press reviews The Social Network, their gloss on the film is driven, not surprisingly, by their philosophy of business. For example, in The New Republic, Lawrence Lessig focuses on how net neutrality enabled Facebook to thrive, because he is a fiend for net neutrality. [Sidebar: his argument makes no sense (typical of Lessig), because Facebook is a low bandwidth application, and net neutrality issues are all about bandwidth intensive applications.] The Wall Street Journal aims more at the lawsuits against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, because it hates anti-business lawsuits (tort reform is one of the Journal’s pet causes; of course, lawsuits by businesses against regulatory agencies are fine) and loves the free market, and nothing is more free market than a successful entrepreneur. TechCrunch also criticizes the lawsuits, not so much from a tort reform perspective but from the Silicon Valley perspective of the heroic entrepreneur who works harder and succeeds; the money quote from this review is when it criticizes the Winklevoss twins because they “spend the majority of the movie demanding compensation over a site that they didn’t build.”

Both the Journal and TechCrunch minimize the lawsuit aspect and emphasis Zuckerberg’s execution of the idea. And to be sure, he executed brilliantly. There were already social networks out there – Friendster and MySpace – and yet it’s Facebook that’s the big winner. Facebook had superior technology, design and social elements, all of which helped it succeed. But to dismiss the Winklevoss claim as a mere “contract dispute” as the Journal does is to slant the story to make a political point. If the claim is true (obviously, I don’t know the facts, but Facebook did pay the twins over $60 million to settle the claim), Zuckerberg signed a contract to build a site for the twins, but instead of working on that site, he stalled the twins while he built a competing site. That is much closer to theft than to a contract dispute. Again, Zuckerberg won on execution, not on theft, but let’s not let that execution disguise or obviate any devious behavior that led to Facebook’s creation.

Cloud Computing: New, Cool & Totally Old-Fashioned

I went to a very interesting panel discussion last week on cloud computing, in particular on go-to-market and sales strategies for cloud and SaaS (two terms that I will use interchangeably in this post) companies. The panel taught me about how cloud company executives view their business, but mostly it reminded me that most businesses are pretty similar: they hinge on cost-effective ways to bring in paying customers. No matter how high-tech your product is, you need to reach potential customers and then turn them into actual customers.

Listed below are some of the key lessons from the panel, split into the few that are cloud specific, and the rest, which could generally apply just as easily to a ball bearing manufacturer.

Cloud points

  • The product has to work. Since lots of cloud businesses are spread via word of mouth, the application needs to work early. Compare this to selling big software packages to enterprises, where bugs and customization are expected
  • Customers that might use a cloud product probably want to try it online, rather than get a visit from a rep. This is because they are, by definition, tech savvy. But of course you should adjust this for geography and age
  • SaaS products tend to have lots of upsell opportunities. So just get customers in the door, even with a small initial usage. This is why freemium works so well in this space. Note: this is really hard for traditional enterprise sales guys to adjust to. They always want to work for the giant sale
  • As a consequence of the above: don’t charge by the seat. That sets up barriers to increased usage. Let everyone use it, but charge by feature
  • Silicon Valley is developing camps: HP v. Cisco v. Oracle. Be aware, because this means that sometimes your backend technology choices might influence who you can partner with

Points that apply to all businesses

  • Your distribution channel must match your customers. E.g. Big companies like P&G are unlikely to buy via self-service model
  • Find a keystone/reference customer, especially one who can lead to other target customers. E.g. Accountants led Quickbooks to small business customers
  • SMB is a bad term. A 15 person company is totally different than a $500M company
  • Look at who is using your product, then target more of them. E.g. If you see that 3 ski resorts are using your product, then plan a marketing campaign targeting ski resorts. This is generally true in business, but it’s easier with online products where you can see who the end user is
  • Understand your business model: Cost to get someone in the door. Cost to get them to become a customer. Conversion rate. Revenue per customer. Margin. Productivity per sales rep. Online businesses have more data, so it should be easier to do this. But still, this is basic business knowledge. Revenue per customer needs to be greater than cost per customer. Revenue per sales rep needs to exceed compensation per sales rep
  • Don’t throw your venture money at the market by hiring too many sales reps too early. Develop your sales force as your model develops. Reps will always try to game the system, and the better you understand your model, the less they can game it
  • A better product makes for an easier sale. Duh! This is true everywhere. But here is an interesting, tech only metric that was postulated: aim for an a-ha moment within 10 clicks

Hat tips to all the people involved:

  • Chad Lynch, who put together the panel as part of the Total Access educational program at the law firm Orrick
  • Greg Heibel, a partner at Orrick, who moderated the panel

The panelists:

 

Are Businessmen Evil?

Jane Mayer’s article in the New Yorker about David Koch and his brother Charles and their massive funding of right wing political causes is an absolute must read. Regardless of political leaning, I think everyone should be disturbed by the ability of two incredibly wealthy men to so powerfully affect the political discourse in our society, and to do so anonymously.

But the article also made me think about how the Kochs and other businessmen are so determined to lobby government to support “free enterprise,” or at least to quash regulations that might hurt their business. The article discusses how the Kochs are using the same strategy on global warming – fund enough junk science to convince people that there is no scientific consensus – which the tobacco companies used so effectively to stall regulation of nicotine.

The issue I’m contemplating is not one of maximizing profits, but a broader moral issue. What makes a CEO who knows his product is harmful fight so hard against regulation? Does he take his fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder profits that seriously? Is he so focused on his own compensation that he doesn’t care what health problems he causes? The Kochs are nutjob John Birchers, so I expect them to screw over the world, but what about all the other CEOs? What about those who are fighting against environmental regulations even though they know that the global warming science is solid? Or Wall Street CEOs fighting against regulations when they know that their companies caused the financial meltdown? Or coal mining CEOs fighting safety regulation after an explosion in their mine killed 29 workers?

Look, I’m not anti-business. To the contrary, I am solidly pro-business. I’ve worked at companies, I’ve started companies, I consult to companies. My whole life is built on business. I understand the profit motive. What I don’t understand is the willingness to screw over the public in order to make more money. These CEOs would never in a million years think it was OK to stab a man and steal his wallet, but they have no problem poisoning him with industrial waste in order to save money. When do these people have enough? Where is their sense of human decency?

Green Movement Drives Innovation in Materials

The West Coast Green conference took place in San Francisco last week, featuring three days of speakers and panels and over 300 exhibitors on the trade show floor. The conference tag line was “green innovation for the built environment.” In other words, a focus on new approaches to green buildings.

One of the themes that emerged from the show was a profusion of new materials, or new uses for old materials. The green movement seems to be spurring tremendous innovation and creativity in the area of “stuff:” stuff for filling, for coating or for building. This innovation usually operates in one (or more) of three green dimensions:

  • The material itself is more environmentally friendly;
  • The material makes a building more energy efficient; or
  • The material lasts longer, and so over time a building requires less resources.

Some of the materials at West Coast Green were fairly high tech, like the coatings produced by Evolution Surfaces. These coatings use nano-particles to protect surfaces from moisture, mold, UV or other assaults. The nanocoatings are biodegradable and last longer. Also in the high tech world were the foams produced by NCFI Polyurethane. These foams provide the insulating power of fiberglass while providing an airtight barrier, making a home more energy efficient. Rinoshield’s ceramic encapsulated paint and Timbertech’s plastic decking boards were other high tech materials.

A medium tech approach used by some innovators was to apply technology in order to recycle existing waste materials. For example, Nyloboard takes old carpet fibers, processes them and applies a resin to create a water, rot and termite resistant faux-wood for decks. Icestone makes a kitchen counter material out of recycled glass and concrete.

Finally, there were folks who were taking existing materials and reusing them in innovative ways. Restoration Timber takes wood from old barns and other buildings and repurposes it into flooring and paneling. Oregon Shepherd and Bellwether Materials are both taking the wool from sheep that is currently discarded (90% of the total amount sheared!) and using it as building insulation to replace fiberglass.

In all of the examples above (and plenty more not mentioned), entrepreneurs were focused not on solar, water purification and the other usual suspects of green building, but on the mundane stuff of which buildings are made. Even here, the market opportunity of green is driving innovation.

 

Americans Want Income Equality

Despite all the rhetoric out there about free markets and entrepreneurship and meritocracy and winners getting just rewards, results from a new survey (done by a professor at Harvard Business School, the fountainhead of free enterprise) show that Americans actually want a more equal distribution of wealth. Moreover, it turns out that most Americans have no idea how unequally wealth is currently distributed.

I posted recently about Timothy Noah’s long piece on income inequality; now he summarizes the results of the aforementioned survey. The survey shows that Americans generally think that the richest 20% of us own 60% of the wealth. In reality, the richest 20% own 85%. The survey also reveals that when shown graphs illustrating America’s income distribution, Sweden’s income distribution and an equal distribution, most American’s chose the Swedish graph. The equal graph was second, and the actual American graph came last.

Or, look at this graph from the survey (hat tip to Baseline Scenario for pulling the graph from the original pdf):

American's ideal wealth distribution

Americans very clearly want a more equal distribution of wealth than they have now. They aren’t agitating for it because A) they have no idea how unequal things really are; and B) there is an aspirational optimism in Americans whereby they always think that they will end up at the top.  But the next time some Tea Partier or Fox pundit starts talking about how Americans love the current system and are totally OK with hedge fund managers making $1 billion per year, remember this graph.

Has Silicon Valley Stopped Solving Problems?

That is the claim of Dan Lyons in the recent Newsweek, wherein he claims that the trend of consumer internet companies (Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, etc.) making gobs of money by doing essentially shallow things will draw engineers and entrepreneurs away from solving the hard problems that have traditionally driven Silicon Valley.

Erick Schonfeld at TechCrunch disagrees, saying that Facebook and its ilk aren’t shallow and are also technically hard, since they have to scale to support so many users.  Most of Schonfeld’s article is, quite frankly, dumb (I mean seriously, using anti-virus software, which solves a real and burdensome problem, to show that internet companies are useful too, is nuts. And saying that Twitter’s many-to-many communication is a bigger tech achievement than the telephone network…dude, do you even know anything about technology?), but I appreciate his viewpoint and that of the many comments his article generated (as usual with comments, they are split between wisdom and inanity).

It won’t surprise regular readers of Thoughtbasket to learn that I come down somewhere between these two poles. I wrote a post on this very topic recently, riffing off a former Gartner analyst who said pretty much exactly what Gross said. Yes, Facebook makes people happy, and some of the technology required to build it to scale might help build other products. But it’s basically a toy, and the technology isn’t that innovative. More importantly, it sure isn’t curing cancer or solving the energy problem.

It’s OK for fun products to do well; Facebook and Zynga make tons of money because people love using them. But Lyons makes a good point: the wealth and attention being lavished on these fun products could lead smart people to build ever-shallower products (hello Foursquare) instead of solving big and important problems. Silicon Valley is a big place, and there seem to be a lot of entrepreneurs attacking all sorts of problems, but the tendency of the press (particularly TechCrunch) to focus on consumer internet companies as if they were the only things of note in Silicon Valley adds to the problem Lyons describes.

Virtual Companies Also Unfocused Companies?

One of the hot new trends in Silicon Valley is the “virtual” company: a firm where everyone works from home, only coming together for the occasional meeting at Starbucks. This can be a great thing, part of the lean startup trend. Obviously, saving money on rent and furniture and the like allows a company to get farther along before it needs to raise capital.

However there are also special challenges for virtual companies. I am consulting for two of them now, and I’m seeing some of these challenges first hand. These challenges primarily stem from the difficulty in communicating at a virtual company. With employees spread out, communication is usually via email or IM. These are mediums that tend to promote brief, sometimes inconsistent, communications.

Sometimes when “discussing” an issue with my clients there will be 15 or 20 emails, each only 1 or 2 lines long, with multiple people chiming in, often with their missives crossing each other, and thus not incorporating other thoughts and comments. It can be difficult in this environment to drive toward a conclusion, particularly if you want any kind of consensus. Ideas and concepts are more likely to fall through the cracks. Email can be super efficient, don’t get me wrong, but it can also make group communication less effective than it would be if everyone were together in same space.

A possible consequence of this sort of fragmented communication is that it makes solving difficult problems more difficult. A virtual company is likely to be better at solving problems a single person can tackle than at solving problems requiring cohesive group effort. Based on my consulting experiences, this is true whether the problem is technical or business oriented.

Technology can help mitigate these communications challenges. Skype and other services provide free conference calls, so you can at least communicate in real time. Web conferencing and virtual whiteboards can replicate meetings, and project management software can help ensure that everything gets done on schedule. But if the management of the virtual company isn’t aware of the communication difficulties and does nothing to address them, the company is likely to generate fragmented products or strategies.

Alaska Loves Federal Money

Yesterday I posted about how Alaska politicians talk a big game about wanting the federal government to leave them alone, but in reality they suck down more federal money than any other state. Having just spent a week in Alaska, I brought some photographic evidence of our biggest state’s big appetite for taxpayer money.

Here is the beginning of a beautifully built and maintained trail at the Mendenhall Glacier outside Juneau. You can see that construction of the trail, which must have employed several people to cut brush and grade the path, was paid for by the federal stimulus package. As for the big Bob Marley joint depicted on the sign….it’s unclear if federal dollars paid for that.

Trail paid for by US taxpayers

In Gustavus, a small town which is the gateway to Glacier Bay, a brand new $20 million dock is being built with federal stimulus dollars. I spoke with the owner of my hotel and with the pilot of my whale watching boat, and both said that the dock was completely unnecessary. But it was employing a whole bunch of skilled laborers, so many that they had to come in from Juneau, since Gustavus didn’t have that many construction workers.

The new dock at Gustavus

Here is a photo of all the pickups and SUVs owned by the people working on the dock. Again, these are local workers being paid with US taxpayer dollars.

Construction worker trucks

I have no problem with stimulus dollars paying people to build paths and docks; that is how a government stimulus package works. The government injects money into the system to boost employment and spending.  My problem is with a state that talks about how it doesn’t believe in the stimulus or in federal help at all while it continues to take as much federal money as it can.