Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

On looking foolish

Looking foolish is one of the biggest risks when taking chances in business. It’s something every innovator and entrepreneur has to consider.

Venture Capital investor Mark Suster explains why he doesn’t mind looking foolish with his choice of investors on his blog today.

One of the toughest things in life is taking the risk of looking foolish in front of your peers yet that’s what the real high risk inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs do with their ventures.

Light bulbs and the telephone looked ridiculous to many at the time they were invented and no doubt the inventor of the wheel or the Neanderthal who came up with the idea of cooking meat in a fire both probably received a far bit of scorn when they told the others in their tribe about their idea.

While Suster is talking about ‘moonshot investments’, even the most modest venture is going to attract scorn.

There would be few people who decided to buy a doughnut franchise, establish a cafe or set up a lawn mowing service who weren’t told by some of their relatives, friends or colleagues that they are doing the wrong thing and they should stick to their safe job in their cosy cubicle.

Should someone want to change the way doughnuts are made or lawns mowed, then they can expect even more naysayers laughing at them.

In this current craze about ‘entrepreneurship’ it’s easy to overlook the real costs and risks of running any sort of business. Looking foolish is another of those risks.

Having a thick hide is another useful attribute when you’re investing, running a business or changing an industry.

Peak employment and the political challenge

The current angst about employment in an age of automation is a political, not technological, problem

This week’s edition of The Economist asks about the Future of Employment and where the jobs are in a society where work is increasingly done by machines.

For the Economist the conclusion is that the future of employment is ‘complex’ and observes economists and politicians haven’t given enough thought to the effects of the changing workplace and the dislocation of many workers.

Much of the Economist’s story is based around the ideas of professors at MIT Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their upcoming book “The Second Machine Age”.

The race with the machines

Professor Brynjolfsson gives his view at TED 2013 in the key to growth? Race with the machines, a presentation countered by Robert Gordon in the ‘death of innovation, the end of growth’ and followed by an excellent debate between the two.

Brynjolfsson cites the dilemma of bookkeepers being displaced by software applications such as Intuit Turbotax as an example of where service sector staff are being displaced.

“How can a skilled worker compete with a $39 piece of software?” Brynjolfsson asks.

“She can’t. Today millions of Americans do have cheaper, faster, more accurate tax preparations and the founders of Intuit have done very well for themselves. But 17% of tax preparers no longer have jobs.

“That is a microcosm of what’s happening not just in software and services, but in media and music, in finance, manufacturing, in retailing and trade. In short, in every industry.”

The great decoupling

Brynjolfsson’s key point is that workers’ wages have been decoupled from productivity and that the workforce isn’t sharing the rewards of improved practices and increased wealth.

That is certainly true over the last forty years, however that may not be a technological effect, but the business consequences of liberalising the financial sector which has seen massive pay increases to the banking industry and managerial classes that has been way out of kilter with the rest of the workforce.

It may well be the current golden era of high executive salaries is a transition effect of an evolving economy, albeit one where our grandchildren will puzzle over an era where a failed executive can receive a $100 million payout on being fired.

As The Economist points out technological change itself tends to create new jobs that make up for those displaced in old industries, this is a view supported by GE’s Chief Economist Marco Annunziata.

The main problem that Brynjolfsson identifies is the medium term issue of dislocated workers finding themselves out of work with superseded skills and, as The Economist point out, it’s clear the developed world’s political leaders haven’t though through the consequences of that transition.

In almost every sense, the current crisis of confidence about employment prospects is more a political and social problem rather than technological.

Helping displaced workers is going to be the greatest challenge for today’s generation of business and political leaders, the real question is are they up to that task?

Startup economics

The failure of Everpix is a good lesson for any business founder.

Business advisor Ivan Plenty’s in-depth study of the viability of failed photo sharing startup Everpix with some useful lessons for business owners in any industry.

Everpix shut down last November having run out of money despite getting favourable reviews from the tech press and in an unusual move, the founders put the company’s financials up on GitHub.

As Plenty points out in his analysis of Everpix’s finances, the company was unlikely to ever break even and it’s a lesson to every business owner on the importance of keeping an eye on cashflow and understanding where the venture’s break eve points are.

One of the key take-aways from Plenty’s analysis was that the base costs of the business were too high and even in the best circumstances it was unlikely that venture would have succeeded.

A good business plan would have helped the founders understand this problem and it illustrates why rigorously developed cashflow forecast is a great tool for a manager or proprietor.

The Silicon Valley investment model

The ultimate objectives of a company’s management are always important when considering the success or failure of a business; what objective is the business working towards?

In Everpix’s case, it may well have been the Silicon Valley Greater Fool model was a likely end, with good software and a growing customer base the company could have been attractive to a buyer.

Were that the objective of Everpix’s founders, the company was under-capitalised as management couldn’t afford either the burn out or the PR and marketing team essential for raising the venture’s profile with key investors.

Under-capitalisation is one of the greatest problems for any new business and its clear that Everpix didn’t have the equity to scale the way it needed.

Capital on its own though isn’t a panacea, from Ivan Plenty’s analysis the indications are that Everpix’s fate would have been the same, but more drawn out.

Everpix’s failure and the numbers behind it are a good lesson for anybody thinking about starting a business — numbers matter and businesses live and die by them.

Reinventing Moore’s Law

Has the pendulum swung against Moore’s law of computers steadily increasing their capabilities?

Google attracted the headlines yesterday with their prototype smart contact lens that helps diabetes sufferers.

The concept is an example of what’s possible with the next generation of tiny, low powered computers and illustrates how microchips can be slimmed down for a relatively dumb device.

Liz Gannes at Re/Code received a briefing from Google on the details of the device and quotes project lead Brian Otis as saying that the lens is “the flip side of Moore’s Law.”

Moore’s law

For most of the microchip era the focus has been on increasing the number of transistors we could fit in a square inch of silicon, this was the basis of Moore’s law — that the number of transistors on integrated circuits will double every year.

Co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, proposed this rule in 1965 and it has held fairly constant every since.

Now we may be seeing the trend heading the other way as developers focus on what can be achieved with the bare minimum of computing power.

Google’s smart contact lens shows how simplifying devices for specific tasks makes them more affordable and suitable for low power devices.

While the internet of things won’t kill Moore’s Law, it does change the basis of how we think about advances in microchip technology.

Network neutrality and the internet of things

Yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision ruling against network neutrality is a mixed bag for the Internet of Things industry.

Yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision ruling against the Federal Communication Commission’s regulations on network neutrality is a mixed bag for the Internet of Things industry.

Network neutrality is the principle that all internet traffic is treated the same, regardless of its nature or destination.

The FCC rules meant US based Internet Service Providers weren’t allowed to discriminate between different types of services, for instance blocking Netflicks or allowing faster downloads from Amazon.

In the United States network neutrality has been a bone of contention between consumer groups, government regulators and ISPs for over a decade, although it hasn’t been much of an issue outside North America.

For Machine to Machine (M2M) or Internet of Things (IoT) vendors and services there is some attraction in Telcos being able to offer prioritised traffic for mission critical systems.

In applications like supply chain management and public safety, reliability of the connection is essential and something the ‘best effort’ services offered by ISPs are not well suited to.

When networks are overcapacity, say at sporting events or during disasters, being able to shed non critical traffic may be important for emergency services and the devices they may depend upon.

So for IoT and M2M services, network neutrality is not necessarily a good thing.

However there is a downside should network neutrality be overturned, the risk of vendor lock in is high and it’s quite possible to see as situation where, for instance, AT&T enter into an agreement with Google to provide the public network capabilities for Nest home automation devices.

This could see Nest customers suffering a substandard service if they choose another provider.

Internationally the attitude towards network neutrality has been that competition will sort things out, however the IT and telco industries do have a habit of trying to enforce their own monopolies on customers – something we’re currently seeing in the Apple-Google battles over smartphones and connected vehicles.

So it isn’t clear whether network neutrality isn’t a good thing for the M2M sector, however it’s something that’s going to play out as these technologies become more ubiquitous across the economy.

What do startup founders really earn?

A global survey of salaries drawn by startup founders illustrates some truths about being a business enterpreneur

One of the myths of the current cult of the entrepreneur is that everyone will be a winner as their startup gets bought out by Google for a billion dollars. The reality is life for a startup founder is a grind.

Startup Compass looked at 11,000 startups across the world to discover what founders really earn and the results show the reality of life when you’re starting up a business is that the wages are pretty poor.

In San Francisco, London and New York, the wages are piddling compared to the cost of living in those cities.

Low pay and business success

This is good news for investors though, as there’s a clear correlation between the success of a startup business and the salaries its key staff members draw – successful businesses are built on the back of founders ploughing everything into the venture.

It’s also high risk as a failed business can leave the founder with nothing to show for several years of hard work, something that’s overlooked by the ‘liberate yourself from your cubicle’ gurus advocating everyone starts up their own venture.

Australia’s high cost economy

Notable in the stats is the high rates demanded by Australian founders, more than 25% higher than their Silicon Valley counterparts and a gob-smacking 60% more than London or Canadian equivalents.

Australia’s high cost of doing business was emphasised last year where a comparison by Staff.com found Sydney was the second to Zurich as a place to base a tech startup. Worryingly, that survey didn’t consider owners’ drawings.

Part of Australia’s high wage requirements are no doubt due to the country’s lousy tax treatment of options and share plans but a bigger problem is property ownership – an Australian who hasn’t bought a home by 35 is destined to be one of the nation’s underclass.

So an Aussie entrepreneur has to earn enough to qualify for or service a mortgage, it also discourages Australians from starting even moderate risk ventures.

The consequence of the need to draw a high salary is that the proportion of investor funds that goes into founders’ wages is almost three times higher in Australia than it is in Silicon Valley. That’s a big disincentive for foreign investors to put money into Aussie startups.

If you wanted an example of how uncompetitive the Australian economy has become, this is a good start.

Regardless of where a startup is based though, the message remains that the road to a billion dollar buyout from Google or Facebook is not paved with gold.

The Roadrunner Effect

Your business can keep running even when it’s gone over the edge of a cliff.

Fans of the roadrunner cartoon will remember how in almost every episode one of the characters, usually the coyote, would run over a cliff.

A few seconds after running off the cliff they’d keep going and then, just as they realise their mistake, they’d plummet into the deep canyon.

It’s similar for businesses – you can be a long way over the cliff’s edge before you realise you’re about to take a big fall.

Yesterday’s post about Sensis and the squandering of ten billion dollars is a good example of the Roadrunner Effect in business.

Sensis annual revenue and profit 1999-2013 (millions of dollars)

While it was obvious from the early 2000s onwards that the Yellow Pages model of expensive small business advertising listing was doomed, Sensis boss Bruce Akhurst did an admirable job of keeping revenue flowing.

Even more impressive is that the division managed to book close to a 50% gross profit most years during that period even when the revenues started to decline.

A large part of Sensis’ success was in screwing more money out of its client base with enhanced ads, new categories and a better digital offering that tied into Google’s Adwords program.

Unfortunately for Akhurst and his management team, economic gravity eventually claims even the luckiest or best run enterprise and Sensis was no different as small business started realising Yellow Pages advertising had become largely ineffective.

In many respects Sensis is a good example of a once profitable business that fails in the face of technological change – the new technologies help it become more profitable at first, but eventually a changed marketplace kill the business.

The question for those enterprises and industries is how long can the owners, managers and employees keep running before they realise the ground has dropped out from beneath them?

It could even be entire countries that suffer from the Roadrunner Effect, it certainly appears that the game was up for the European PIIGS long before it became obvious to the governments and citizens. This may prove true for Australia as well.

Either way, it’s worthwhile for business owners and managers to consider whether there’s a cliff face ahead even when revenues are accelerating.

Google schmoogle – how one telco destroyed 9 billion dollars in shareholder funds

How one company blew nine billion dollars in shareholders’ equity is a lesson for every business on the value of timing and wise management.

How one company blew nine billion dollars in shareholders’ equity is a business lesson on the value of timing and wise management.

As a rule, telecommunications executives are an arrogant bunch and none are more so than Sol Trujillo – formerly of American West, French provider Orange and finally Telstra, Australia’s incumbent telecommunications operator.

History shows that Telstra’s board, largely made up of dim-witted political appointees, had little idea of what they were getting when they hired Trujillo in 2005 but they soon found out as the brash American’s less than diplomatic style quickly alienated politicians and industry commentators alike.

Trujillo though wasn’t particularly concerned about the sensibilities of passes for Australia’s business and political elites, he was happier to take on bigger players on the global stage and one of those was Google.

Google Schmoogle

Like telcos and media companies around the world in the mid-2000s, Telstra had a problem with its directories business as the World Wide Web was eroding the value of the Yellow and White Pages franchises.

At the time many analysts were agitating for Sensis, Telstra’s directory division, to be sold off as a separate business. In 2005 it was valued at ten billion dollars which was a tidy sum for the telco as it rolled out its Next G network.

Trujillo though had a better idea – Sensis would claw back the market by taking Google on with their own search engine.

Sensis Search was born in November 2005 and the Telstra CEO dismissed questions about the wisdom of taking on the search engine giant with the comment, “Google Schmoogle.”

Three years later, Telstra quietly accepted defeat with Sensis CEO Bruce Akhurst announcing a ‘commercial agreement’ with Google.

Nielsen NetRatings at the time showed Google search being used by 9.3 million Australians compared to just 184,000 users for Sensis Search.

In Telstra’s 2008 annual report, Sensis earned 2.1 billion dollars. On a 2.5x valuation, the division was worth five billion to Telstra’s shareholders at the time the search engine was closed down..

The Dying Yelp

Despite the setback, Sensis was able to struggle along for another decade on the back of its strong cashflow and legacy market position although income was steadily falling.

In a desperate attempt to shore up its declining revenues, the company picked up the failed digital ventures of Australia’s newspaper duopoly and licensed operations from overseas startups like Yelp!

Few of these acquisitions made sense and none of them were properly integrated into the declining directory media business.

Finally a year ago, Sensis admitted they live in a digital era with Managing Director John Allen admitting what most industry observers knew a decade earlier;

Until now we have been operating with an outdated print-based model – this is no longer sustainable for us. As we have made clear in the past, we will continue to produce Yellow and White Pages books to meet the needs of customers and advertisers who rely on the printed directories, but our future is online and mobile where the vast majority of search and directory business takes place.

But it was all too late, the market had been lost along with the bulk of shareholders’ equity.

Today Telstra announced a 70% sale of Sensis to US based Platinum Equity for $A454 million. The value of the entire business being $650 million – 7% of the division’s value nine years ago.With over nine billion Aussie dollars squandered on hubris and a failure to recognise a changed market place, Sensis stands as a good example of how valuable timing and good management are in business.Sol Trujillo though did very nicely, and the dim witted men who sat on Telstra’s board in 2005 will never be called to account for wasting so much of their shareholders’ money.

Building a house with 3D printing

Will 3D printing deliver on its promises to disrupt the building industry?

Much of the discussion around 3D printing has focused on making your own coffee cups, toys and small mechanical parts, but what if we start thinking about using these devices to build houses?

University of Southern California spin off Contour Crafting received attention at the CES over the bold claim by the program’s director, Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis, that it will be soon possible to build a house in 24 hours.

That’s an audacious claim although it doesn’t include site works or fitting out, much less the design of the structure.

Contour Crafting isn’t the only university spin off experimenting with 3D printing to build structures; Freeform Construction, part of the UK’s University of Loughborough, has also been working on developing the technology.

The British team haven’t been as audacious as their US colleagues and, rather than see whole buildings being constructed, they see potential applications being in fabricating specialised parts including cladding panels and complex structural components.

Like all robotic applications working in hazardous environments is another aspect touted for the technology.

The British team is almost certainly right in their view, 3D printing is unlikely to fabricate entire buildings onsite but it will have applications in the building industry which will have ramifications for tradesmen, architects and project managers.

For architects this technology could prove to liberating as it gives designers the opportunity to create structures that haven’t been feasible or possible with existing materials and techniques.

Some trades though may not fare so well should this technology appear on building sites, it certainly doesn’t look like good news for bricklayers and form workers.

It will probably take sometime for this technology and it’s still very much under development, Contour Crafting itself won awards in 2006 and the machines are still under development.

Bill Gates famously pointed out that in the short term we over-estimate the effects of technology while in the long term we underestimate them and that’s almost certainly the case with using 3D printing to build structures.

Dangerous liaisons – the risks in government support

Government investment money isn’t free or easy as a UK entrepreneur found.

“I coulda bin a contender” is the first thing that comes to mind when reading The Register’s story on how the iPhone could have been a British invention.

However the tale of British engineer Andrew Fentem and his struggles with the UK investment bureaucracy is a warning to all of those who think that government support programs are an easily solution for getting ideas to market.

Fentem’s story is a common one around the world – an inventor approaches a government agency which agrees to support the project and then bogs the entire venture down in paperwork and bureaucracy.

In some respects this is understandable as bureaucrats and politicians are deeply risk averse, which is fair when taxpayers money is involved, with the result that justifying an investment is going to be more about ticking boxes and meeting criteria rather than genuinely helping projects succeed.

During my short stint in working for a government agency every week would see at least three people contacting me about taxpayer support for their businesses.

Most of the time there was no godly reason for the government to give these folk a penny and it took the few diplomatic skills I have to politely break the news they had little prospect of getting a grant or subsidy.

Some approaches though were very good projects but usually I’d warn the inventor or entrepreneur that any support the state government would give them would come at the cost of spending hours completing irritating paper work.

My advice was that driving a cab and living on noodles for six months to raise the capital would be a better investment of their time than dealing with grey suited bureaucrats like me.

This advice didn’t always go down well, but it was better for both the taxpayer and the entrepreneur in the long run.

Well thought out government programs can do a lot of good for businesses or inventions that might not otherwise come to fruition, although many of the success stories probably have as much to do with the calibre of the public servants running the scheme as they do with the programs themselves.

In the case of Andrew Fentem and his touchscreen technology it’s almost certain that the folk at NESTA were out of their depth and far more comfortable with subsidising trips to Las Vegas for circus clowns, which in itself is a valuable lesson for governments on defining programs and supervising agencies.

Raising funds for any business or invention is a tough game anywhere in the world and assuming governments are an easy way to find money is as flawed as any other misconception about building a startup.

The moral is government money in neither free nor easy if you’re an inventor or an entrepreneur.

A triumph over orthodoxy – Seven years of the iPhone

The Apple iPhone reinvented the smartphone and mobile internet industries. Can it also define the internet of things?

“Once in a while a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything.”

Those were Steve Jobs’ words when he launched the iPhone seven years ago.

It was a strong opening that was reinforced by the event’s tag line, “Today Apple reinvents the phone.”

It wasn’t an idle boast, the iPhone was a leapfrog development – using Jobs’ words – over the existing clunky smartphones and it changed the entire industry and spawned some new ones.

Smart Company’s Yolanda Redrup asked me for a few comments on her story on the iPhone’s birthday and her questions triggered some thoughts on just how the iPhone changed the mobile phone and telco industries.

A triumph over orthodoxy

Apple’s iPhone triumph was born out of the established players’ orthodoxy; companies like Nokia, Blackberry and Palm were wedded to the idea that a tactile QWERTY keyboard was essential for a smartphone.

Those keyboards took away nearly half the real estate on the phone, Jobs called it “the lower forty”, and it made surfing the net a painful task, let alone watching videos or movies.

Full featured keyboards made making calls difficult as well. One of the barriers of adopting smartphones was that using the things as phones was quite difficult.

By having software keyboard and dialling pads that only appeared when needed, Apple solved the problems that faced smartphone users.

Disrupting the telcos

The other orthodoxy in the smartphone industry was that the telcos were essential gatekeepers. Nokia and the other incumbents put the needs of telecommunications companies over users of their phones.

As a consequence email and web browsing capabilities of the existing smartphones were crippled as the telcos tried to lock their customers into their own proprietary networks rather that giving them access to the public internet.

With the iPhone, Apple broke out of that telco dominance and started to dictate terms to the phone companies. This wouldn’t have been possible if the iPhone hadn’t been a far better, and much more popular, product.

Building the app store

Another area where the iPhone disrupted the phone companies’ business was with the App Store. Every smartphone had its own add-on programs but they were expensive with poor functionality and developers had to build versions for every company’s operating system.

Both the telcos and the phone vendors could see that app stores were a potentially lucrative area but systemically failed to execute on the idea with clunky and expensive software.

The App Store showed how smartphones should work and coupled with music, another area where the handset vendors dismally failed, Apple is now earning over a billion dollars a month from iTunes.

Technological change

Some of the iPhone’s success was due to technologies maturing; earlier smartphones were crippled by slow data connections over 2G or CDMA networks and cloud computing, or software-as-a-service as it was then called, was just beginning to mature as a technology.

Cloud services and 3G connectivity meant the iPhone could hand off most apps’ processing needs to the service provider, something that the earlier smartphones couldn’t do because the technology wasn’t there.

That connectivity did come at a cost, the iPhone and its competitors created huge challenges for telcos as they struggled to meet the data demands of their enthusiastic web surfing customers.

Looking at the future

While the iPhone came to dominate the smartphone market, that dominance didn’t last as Google Android devices started to flood the marketplace. Now Samsung is as big a player as Apple and a wave of cheap Chinese products are now flooding the industry.

For Apple and the other smartphone vendors the opportunities now lie in the internet of things (IoT) as connected cars, workplaces and homes require a device to control them. That device is often the smartphone.

In the next few years the market battleground is going to be creating the applications, platforms and ecosystems around these IoT technologies and its no coincidence that Apple has partnered with BMW on providing software for their smartcar.

Jobs finished his iPhone presentation with the Wayne Gretzky quote, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been” and committed Apple to always being where the market is going to be.

Where the market is going to be in the next seven years is anyone’s guess, but it would be dangerous to count Apple out.

Who pays for the internet of things?

Our assumptions about where the money will be made from the internet of things may turn out not be so.

“If there’s one number I’d like you to remember, it’s 19 trillion.” Cisco CEO John Chambers told the 2014 International CES during his keynote speech earlier this week.

Chambers was referring to the economic value of the Internet of Things or machine to machine technologies as they get rolled out across society, but who pays for the connectivity?

In the case of the smart home, office, factory or farm the data costs go onto the existing internet bill, but once you get out of the office or on the road then the bills start mounting up as systems start connecting to a cellular or satellite network.

Certainly the telcos see the opportunity with Ovum Research predicting telco’s M2M revenues will grow to reach US$44.8bn over the next five years.

While for logistics companies and similar businesses this will be just another cost of doing business, for many consumers being stuck with an expensive mobile data plan with their smart car might not be attractive.

As car manufacturers start to push their vehicles as being more like smartphones, suddenly the choice of network provider, compatibility with apps and operating systems starts to become a valid concern.

In that world, choosing a car on the basis of which telco it connects to is a sensible idea.

Of course it may be that consumers may not own cars by the end of the decade. The vision of companies like Zip Car and Uber is that we just call for a towncar or pick up a share car when we need one.

Certainly that vision makes sense from an economic perspective and the trends right now show that millennials are nowhere near as interested in cars as their parents and grandparents were.

As with every technological change, it’s not always obvious in the early days how things will pan out. In 1977 the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation Ken Olsen said, “there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Within 15 years he was proved very wrong.

The motor car drove western society during the Twentieth Century and to assume we’ll continue to use it the same way in the 21st is as flawed as believing a hundred years ago that we’d continue to use horse carriages the same way as previously.

So the assumptions about where money is to be made with the Internet of Things may turn out to surprise us all.