business advice | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Creative Quandaries

How artists, musicians and writers are struggling with the economics of the online economy

In February, musician, coder and uber-geek David Lowery gave a talk to the SF Music Tech Summit on the difficulties musicians have making money in the online economy.

Meet the Old Boss, Worse Than The Last Boss is an excellent dissection of the economics of the music industry as it currently stands – and it doesn’t look good for artists.

David shows how the old distribution model was more rewarding for artists than today’s digital model, the old fashioned record store has largely gone out of business and has been replaced with the iTunes where Apple receive half the income of the local shop but assumes no risk, few costs and a far greater profit margin.

Similarly, the record labels’ costs and risks haven’t substantially changed but their income has plummeted.

We’ve seen the controllers of the music distribution business replaced with a far smaller, and more profitable, group of digital gatekeepers.

A great line in David’s presentation is just how much money technology company executives are making compared to their record industry counterparts of the 1980s, without taking on the responsibilities for keeping the creative supply pipeline flowing.

Record labels value content and content creators. Sure they kept a lot of money for their executives (although even mid 90?s music executive pay is dwarfed by tech executive pay.) But record labels unlike tech companies, know they built their businesses on those who create content. Therefore when they were flush with cash they set out to buy the services of as many artists as they could. This had the effect of sharing the wealth with musicians. It may have been uneven it may have been wasteful, it may have not touched every artists and the labels may have pocketed most of the revenue but at least they felt they needed to give something back to the content creators. They knew artists created something of value.

The key words in the above passage are “content creators” as the struggles of the music industry are similar to those of writers, photographers and anybody creating original works that can be digitized.

Probably one of the most interesting aspects of this are that many of the digerati David criticises for their utopian views on technology are themselves marginalised, and often impoverished, by the same economics.

David links to a number of Huffington Post articles examples, yet it’s Adrianna Huffington and her contemporaries like Chris Anderson who are aggregating paid writers work and turning most of us into digital sharecroppers.

It’s the Lords of the Digital Manor who are making a return while the bulk of content creators struggles.

Those digirati, like myself, are making just as poor a living from their work as David’s friends in the music industry.

What’s clear is we have to find the methods of distributing music and other valuable creative works that benefit the artist or writer, the old models of the publishing, broadcasting and music industries did this – not always fairly, but at least creators were rewarded.

Right now we’re in a world where information is free and a small group of gatekeepers are controlling what revenues are available.

It’s unlikely that situation is sustainable and over time we’ll see new models develop to displace the current gatekeepers who may be part of the transition effect to a changed economy.

The person who figures out the successful model will be the 21st Century’s Randolph Hearst – hopefully they’ll spread the wealth around a bit more than the current gatekeepers.

What do we call the long term?

Has the long term arrived yet?

Yesterday Optus launched their revamped business services under the banner of Optus Vision.

As part of the launch, the telecommunications company released their Future Of Business report complied by Deloitte Access Economics.

In discussing the details, economist Ric Simes of Deloitte Access made some observations on what drives businesses in adopting digital technologies. Ric broke it down into management time horizons.

Short term: Economic uncertainty is no excuse for ignoring digital strategies.

Medium term: Companies start using digital technologies for competitive advantages.

Long term: Structural change disrupts industries.

On asking Ric what his definitions of short, medium and long terms are, he said “1-2 years”, “3 to 5” and “beyond five years”.

The interesting thing with this is that for most industries the long term has arrived, in fact it’s been with us for a decade. It’s just many managers and investors haven’t noticed.

John Maynard Keynes once said, “in the long run we are all dead.”

For some industries that long term disruption has happened and their business models have died – it’s just that managers haven’t noticed they are dead.

The View From The Cloud

Where is the cloud computing industry heading and how does it affect businesses?

I’m presenting View From The Cloud this afternoon where we look at the results of SmartCompany’s technology in business survey.

The results are interesting, with nearly half the respondents saying they don’t use any cloud services.

Almost certainly, those respondents are wrong – they don’t realise many of the things they do on the web are cloud based. The 9% who nominated “they don’t know” are closer to the truth.

Those “unknown unknowns” are the big challenge for business managers and owners – those who think cloud computing isn’t being used in their organisations don’t know what their staff are up to with their laptops and smartphones.

Of those who are knowingly using cloud computing services, over two-thirds said they did so for the flexibility while just under a half appreciated the cloud services’ ability to grow with their business.

An encouraging aspect of the survey is how only a quarter of the respondents nominated price as being the reason for adopting cloud services.

This is an aspect of selling cloud computing services that has worried me for a while, that companies are commoditising their market by giving away free – or insanely – cheap services.

As always, price doesn’t drive the good customers and this survey illustrates that. Provide a good service at reasonable price points and the customers will come.

Business respondents also illustrated a mature attitude towards risks with cloud service with 61% concerned about data safety and half of that number worried about access issues.

An interesting part of the threat response was that 17% had other concerns about cloud technologies – including being tied to one vendor.

This is an interesting attitude which indicates people don’t understand the degree of vendor lock in that already exists in the computer world and why the majority of businesses are using Windows computers running Microsoft Word. If anything, cloud services are far more open than boxed software.

Vendor lock in though is a real concern and something that all cloud computing users should check before they, or their business, becomes too dependent on any one software package, consultant or online application.

Overall, the SmartCompany business technology survey is an interesting snapshot of where business is today with emerging trends and services. Join us at 12.30 to discuss the results.

Now Facebook’s challenges really begin

How can Facebook build their revenues to justify the huge market valuation.

The long awaited float yesterday of social media service Facebook was a triumph for the business’ founder Mark Zuckerberg, his management team and advisors.

A market valuation of 100 billion dollars for a business started less than ten years ago is an impressive achievement and that sum now presents massive challenges for management who have to deliver on what investors believe the service is capable of.

At US$38 a share, Facebook is valued at 76 times its projected 2012 earnings of 50 cents a share, and nearly twenty times its expected revenues of US$5 billion. This compares to Google which trades at less than 15 times its 2012 profit estimate and six times revenue.

For Facebook to match Google’s value, the social media service is going to have to start making serious money beyond they can from charging egoists and corporations $2 a time for featured posts.

Google’s success was in moving out of their walled garden, had Google focused on advertising just on their own search pages the company would be earning a fraction of the billions they now make every quarter.

It’s difficult to see how Facebook can move off their platform into other sites and with users moving to mobile, the company will find itself even more constrained by Google and Apple who want to control access to their devices.

A more obvious course for Facebook is to maximise income from the massive data base of likes, preferences, relationships and opinions they have amassed from their users. How they do this will probably be the biggest challenge to Facebook’s management.

In monetizing their database, Facebook will push the limits of the law, tolerance of privacy advocates and possibly the patience of their user base. This is going to test a company that has in the past been slow to respond to public concerns.

Another challenge is perception – with such a massive valuation, Facebook is going to attract critics regardless of what they do.

A good example of this is the number of people criticising the float for not ‘popping’ on the stock market debut. At the end of the first day’s trading the stock had only gone up 0.6% and some in the media claimed this showed the IPO wasn’t the successful.

The idea a successful IPO is one that soars on the first day of trading is a naive view from a 1980s mindset. The idea was born out of the privatisation of British and Australian utilities in the 1980s and 90s where taxpayers were seduced by the idea of “free money” in exchange for selling community assets cheaply.

A ‘stag profit’ from a share that soars on its public float is theft from the existing shareholders and a transfer of wealth to insiders and their advisors.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists and startup founders aren’t dumb and have never fallen for that trick – investors pay dearly for stock in their ventures.

While no-one would call Mark Zuckerberg and his management team dumb they have a big job ahead of them finding revenue sources to justify the $100 billion market valuation. It’s going to be an interesting ride.

Eroding business silos

Knowledge is power, and the businesses who can share it are those who will define the 21st Century.

During our ABC radio discussion on politics and social media with Jeff Jarvis, we inevitably came around to the issue of sharing information.

We’ve covered the risks of personal sharing extensively and Jeff’s view is that our perceptions of privacy are evolving as we explore what is acceptable or tolerable in an information rich world.

Overlooked in this discussion is just how important sharing is for businesses – particularly in breaking down silos within an organisation.

As organisations grow, silos develop as various groups or departments grow to address specific functions. It’s a natural process.

However silos can damage businesses as valuable business knowledge is kept within the group rather than shared with the entire organisation.

This is the opportunity we see now in the various cloud computing, social media and big data tools that have developed to help people, gather, curate and share information.

Today there is no excuse for critical customer information sitting in the call centre logs not being available to marketing, sales or management teams. That is just one example of thousands.

Over time we’ll see businesses owners and managers develop the skills and tools to use data more effectively. This is already happening as many IT people move from Information Technology to Knowledge Management.

Business silos won’t ever be fully eliminated; in many ways they are necessary as you can’t expect the company accountant to know everything the customer service or sales staff do.

Those businesses who are successful will be those who overcome internal politics and resist the managerial urge to build little empires, information is too important to be hoarded by middle management princelings.

In the 19th Century power came in the form of steam engines, today it comes in knowledge. How well are you harnessing the power in your business?

Forget Plastics, today it’s Big Data

Big Data is the IT industry’s latest buzzword but it’s been sitting on our desktop all along

“Plastics” was the career advice to uni students in the 1967 movie The Graduate. Today the same advice to a smart young entrepreneur would be “big data”.

Big data is the current buzzword for the IT industry, we’re seeing start-ups with cool tools popping up and whole new job descriptions to manage it, while big and small businesses ponder how to use another technology in their operations.

At the end of the month, the third of the City of Sydney’s 2012 Let’s Talk Business series will see SmartCompany’s James Thomson among others discussing how data drives business.

How we use data in our business is something we’ve had to come to grips with for ages, but many of us haven’t really started to find those nuggets of value in our databases.

We’ve actually been in the era of big data for decades since computers were introduced in the workplace. One thing that PCs do very well is gather and store information.

Today computerised point-of-sales systems, database software, loyalty programs and web-tracking tools mean we have a massive amount of data about our clients at our fingertips.

As computers get more powerful and cloud-based services start making detailed data analysis more available, we’re going to see even more data pouring into our businesses.

Social media services add to the data deluge as they gather, giving even more intelligence about our markets, individual customers and the performance of our businesses.

The problem is that many of us are already overwhelmed by what we have. The thought of even more data we can’t use causes many managers and business owners to hide under their desks and weep.

An article in the MIT’s Technology Review about Peter Fader, co-director of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania looked at this problem.

Professor’s Fader’s view is that most businesses have enough data – the problem is managing what we have, along with the risk of trying to extrapolate too much from historical information.

To deal with this overload we’re seeing companies like Kaggle starting-up to help us mine this data and get useful information about our businesses and customers.

What these data-mining companies are promising is the ability to see the patterns in what appears to be just a mass of confusing data.

Already we’re seeing businesses that can connect the dots get a head start on their slower competitors who don’t appreciate the value locked in their databases and CRMs.

Making sense of the data we’re accumulating is the real challenge. If we’re not paying attention to what we already have then there’s little point in gathering more.

Tickets for How Your Customer Data Can Drive New Business at the Sydney Town Hall on May 29 are still available.

Digital roadkill

Is your business the fluffy bunny sitting in the Internet’s fast lane?

Digital Roadkill first appeared in Smart Company on 10 May 2012

Just over thirteen years a group of Silicon Valley technologists wrote The Cluetrain Manifesto detailing what they saw as being the new rules of business in a connected world.

Cluetrain was mandatory reading when terms like “information superhighway” were fashionable and Yahoo! was the dominant web portal. It’s somewhat fallen out of fashion today.

Like most manifestos Cluetrain was partially unreadable and heavy on dramatics but it did lay down the principles that are now largely accepted in both the online and mainstream business worlds.

I was reminded of the Cluetrain Manifesto earlier this week at a suburban marketing event run by one of the country’s biggest media organisations. The lessons of the last thirteen years seemed to have passed by almost every business in the room.

Most of these businesses were operating they way they did in the 1990s. While some of them had a website and a couple had Facebook pages, their businesses had barely changed in the last twenty years.

These businesses are digital roadkill. Many of them have no idea what’s about to hit them as they sit paralysed wondering what the bright lights baring down on them are.

In this respect they aren’t dissimilar to the big department stores or electrical chains that are working to a model that’s ticked along nicely for decades and don’t realise how the fundamentals of the economy have shifted in the last five years.

Many of these small traders are still taking orders by fax and some of them still keep their cheque book ready to pay their suppliers bills. It’s that bad.

The idea of selling over the net is completely beyond them, only big overseas companies dodging GST do that sort of thing.

Even in the marketing field, these businesses have ignored the obvious for years with many still advertising in their local Yellow Pages and freebie community newspaper, despite barely making a sale from either in five years. But these channels worked for them once.

Few of them have up to date websites, are doing the bare minimum search engine or mobile optimisation and almost every single one hasn’t bothered to claim their local business listings.

To be fair to the little guys the host organisation was no better, this large media organisation has a good online product – they even own one of the major online local business listing services – but their sales people on the night didn’t mention it as they are too locked into selling their traditional local newspaper advertising products.

At least that company is wealthy and has other profitable arms that can prop up its dying local newspaper arms which can at least appear profitable while there are costs to be stripped from the operation.

Unlike those big media companies and retailers, the small local business doesn’t have big cash reserves or deep pocketed investors allowing them to survive for years in a declining market.

These small businesses are just going to drag their owners into poverty.

Not only have the old rules of business gone, but the value of businesses which choose to live in the past has evaporated. Few people are going to buy a business with an old, declining customer base.

“Roadkill” is an apt term for a business that probably won’t be around in two years.

Today the Cluetrain is big lumbering road train carrying ecommerce goods down the fast lane of the information superhighway with a driver that has no intention of stopping.

Make sure your business isn’t the cute fluffy rodent sitting in its path.

Bringing your own device and business change

how the Bring Your Own Device philosophy is changing the businesses operate.

Two years ago I realised that the management trend of staff bringing their own computers to work – BYOD – was more than a fad when I noticed executives were bringing the then new iPads to meetings.

Most of these executives worked in organisations where IT departments had waged war on employees connecting their own equipment to the corporate network, so this was a serious development in the computing world.

In many ways employees had been bringing their own technology devices to work for years. It was, and still is, quite common to see public servants and those working for other bureaucratic organisations arriving at meetings with an underfeatured work supplied handset and their own smartphone.

IT managers hated this as they saw those private devices as a security risk and another headache for their overworked staff to deal with.

When the iPod was enthusiastically adopted by the executive suite, the game was over for those IT managers. Suddenly they had to deal with these devices and the issues involved.

At a seminar run by systems integrator Logicalis earlier this week looked at some of the issues around BYOD for companies. What was striking in their presentations were the need for HR and legal departments to be part of the process for adopting this philosophy.

The BYOD philosophy is a big jump for organisations as it means relaxing controls on employees and for many managers that is the biggest challenge.

Part of that challenge is controlling the organisation’s data on devices that could be going anywhere and doing anything.

While companies like Logicalis and Citrix address this with remote desktop applications that create a virtual Windows desktop on the employee’s device, networking giant Cisco offer their ISE devices to run “identity services” that set up rules controlling what staff can access and where they can access it from.

Cisco Australia’s Chief Technology Officer Kevin Bloch gave a good round earlier this week up of where they see BYOD driving business. To Cisco, the move to mobile devices is irresistible as shown in their Global Mobile Data Traffic Update.

Interesting both Kevin and the Logicalis speakers see BYOD as being part of the recruitment process. Increasingly younger workers expect they will be able to use their own devices rather than relying upon employer issued workstations and mobile phones.

According to Kevin, Cisco’s research is finding many employees would trade salary for the right to bring their own device which is something that should grab the attention of budget constrained managers.

This also ties into other employer trends such as Activity Based Workplaces where companies provide hot desks and staff are expected to store their items away at the end of each workday.

Ross Miller of the GPT Group described how this is another trend driving the paperless office as staff using hot desks find packing away files and paperwork each day is an unnecessary hassle.

What we’re seeing with businesses adopting BYOD policies is a big change in the way places operate and this has consequences for all divisions of an organisation from HR and legal through to marketing and corporate affairs. It’s a genuine game changer.

How the BYOD philosophy is changing business is good example of technology driving our habits and work practices in ways we don’t always anticipate.

One thing is for sure, the workplace of the future is far more autonomous and diverse than those we’ve been used to for the last hundred years, the businesses who don’t adapt are those being left behind.

No exit

The problem of selling your business to fund retirement.

The men’s hairdresser down the road from me has hung up his scissors after twenty-four years.

The sign on his shop window apologizes and the shop itself is up for lease. Shortly there won’t be any evidence a long standing local business was once there.

Roy had no exit from his business and he sell the operation as a going concern.

For Roy his retirement will be funded solely out of his savings. If he’s lucky he’ll have saved enough of his income from the business for a comfortable retirement – unfortunately many small business owners they’ll eke out the rest of their lives on the pension.

Even for those who have planned for an exit, many of their plans have fallen over in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

It’s always been questionable whether Gen X and Y entrepreneurs could afford to pay the sums for the affluent retirement of Baby Boomer business owners but now the post 2008 contraction in lending means it’s even less likely retiring business owners like Roy will find someone to buy their businesses.

While the focus is on twenty something app developers selling their businesses for a billion dollars, the truth is that wealth for most business owners lies in the local newsagent, hairdresser or coffee shop owner being able to sell their operation for a reasonable return.

For many baby boomer business owners it’s going to mean working more years than they intended and sharply reduced retirement expectations.

Property values too are difficult. Many boomer businesses had the sensible model of buying the property their business occupies as a retirement nest egg.

Again those properties are too expensive for the new generation and the deleveraging economy means the outlook for property values isn’t good.

On every level, things are going to be tough for those wanting to sell businesses over the next decade.

Those who do get good prices for their businesses are going to be those doing something exceptional to gain attention with income and profits that make them stand out from the cloud.

Just being the best hairdresser in the neighbourhood or having a popular cafe isn’t going to be enough.

Hopefully Roy The Barber managed to stash away enough for a well deserved comfortable retirement.

Continuing the online payments battle

Mastercard’s PayPass is a direct challenge to Visa and PayPal

Today Mastercard announced their PayPass service, a “digital wallet” that allows consumers to pay through various online channels including the web and their smartphones.

Mastercard’s PayPass is the latest move in the battle to control the online payments industry as consumers move from plastic cards to using their mobile phones and Internet devices.

One of the interesting aspects of PayPass is how it is a direct challenge to PayPal who in turn recently launched their PayPal Here service which threatens incumbent credit card services like Mastercard and Visa along with upstarts like Square.

While its early days yet in the mobile payments space as consumers slowly begin to accept using smartphones and tablet computers to pay for goods and services, its clear the industry incumbents are moving to secure their positions in the market place.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this develops, many merchants will be hoping this competition starts to drive down transaction costs.

Depreciating the future

We’ve become used to not planning for necessary costs. Will it eventually hurt us?

When I wrote my first book back in 1998, one of the things my editor and I did was look at the cost of buying and maintaining technology.

Regardless of how we chopped the costs up, it came up consistently that the purchase cost of a personal computer was around a third of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

The TCO concept is something forgotten by people – be it a minister announcing a billion dollar purchase of jet fighters, a CEO boasting how he’s opened a hundred new outlets this year, or a family buying an investment property.

It was bought sharply into focus for me when one of my kids claimed he couldn’t use his government provided school laptop because the IT guy didn’t have the repair software to fix a problem.

Despite millions being spent on providing these computers, little has been allocated to maintaining them.

This is typical of the public education sector, early in the adventure of building a computer support business I learned that services to schools and universities were fraught with difficulties as many would infrequently receive a fixed amount for capital expenditure but nothing for ongoing maintenance. You see this in the conditions of buildings on many campuses.

Forgetting operating and support costs is something we all fall for.

Strangely motor vehicles are the only area we consistently factor in maintenance and running costs, probably because we get the fuel price shoved in our face every time we take the car for a drive.

While computers are becoming disposable items just like fridges and TVs were maintenance isn’t so much an issue given most last five to ten years before needing expensive repairs, its still true for many capital items.

There’s another aspect to forgetting costs – depreciation.

Depreciation allows us to factor in the declining value of our business assets yet I keep meeting people who treat depreciation as income or even an asset in itself. This is particularly true among real estate investors who prefer to buy newly built apartments for the higher depreciation deductions they can claim against tax.

Bizarre stuff and true bubble thinking where people think operating losses will be offset in the medium term by capital gains.

One of the aspects of 1980s thinking is that business costs like training and maintenance can be palmed off elsewhere or infinitely deferred. That isn’t the case.

In society and business, we’re seeing the effects of pretending these costs don’t exist. Somewhere in there lies opportunity.