Category: Uncategorized

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

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

    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.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • A tale of three cities and three different government programs

    A tale of three cities and three different government programs

    Three different business; Chobani yoghurt, ESPN and Phizer are an interesting contrast on how government support can help business and get a real return for taxpayers.

    When Kraft Foods decided to shut down its South Edmeston yoghurt plant losing the 55 remaining jobs was a blow to the hamlet of 2,000 in upstate New York.

    Eight years later the plant is in new hands, employs 600 people and is the centre of  the United States’ thriving Greek yoghurt industry.

    In 2006, Hamdi Ulukaya bought the dilapidated factory from Kraft to produce yoghurt similar to what he was used to in his native Turkey and today Chobani is one of the fastest growing food brands in the United States.

    Ulukaya tells the story of Chobani in the Harvard Business Review and how the company has grown without any external investment, instead relying on bank finance and government supported guarantees.

    Key to Chobani’s founding were the US Small Business Administration loan guarantee program that enable the entrepreneur to buy the mothballed Kraft plant.

    While Chobani is a success of the Federal government’s program, just over a hundred miles away the Connecticut state government is pouring money into the maw of ESPN to keep the company’s head office in the town of Bristol, the New York Times reports the company has received nearly quarter of a billion dollars in subsidies in just over a decade.

    ESPN has received about $260 million in state tax breaks and credits over the past 12 years, according to a New York Times analysis of public records. That includes $84.7 million in development tax credits because of a film and digital media program, as well as savings of about $15 million a year since the network successfully lobbied the state for a tax code change in 2000.

    Notable amongst ESPN’s benefits are the credits under the state’s film and digital media program. As we’ve discussed on this blog in the past, the movie industry plays a cynical game or playing off governments and its no surprise that cable networks would do the same thing.

    Connecticut has a bad track record in industry incentives, the destruction of much of the town of New London is a poster child of what governments shouldn’t do when trying to build new industries or attract large corporation.

    New London’s demolition of an entire suburban district for the never built head office of pharmaceutical Pfizer is testament to what can go wrong when government officials are dazzled by big promises from large corporations.

    Unless support is appliedstrategically and sensibly, competing against other communities to attract big corporations, sporting events or major projects is a zero-sum game that ultimately sees the taxpayer a lose.

    While Chobani created 600 jobs in South Edmeston at no net cost to the taxpayer it’s likely Kraft would have demanded tens of millions of dollars in NY State taxpayer support for retain fraction of the jobs that the new business created.

    Invariably modest small business programs prove to be a better bet for taxpayers than dumb corporate welfare, unfortunately governments around the world prefer to throw money at big business as they are the ones that write the campaign cheques and employ retired politicians.

    Sadly in an era where corporate welfare is the norm rather than the exception, we can expect to see more ESPN type deals and fewer Chobanis with the taxpayer being the poorer for it.

    When a politician proudly announces the number of jobs being created through their subsidies to a large corporation, it’s worthwhile for local taxpayers to take the spending of their money with a large grain of salt as history is not on their side.

    Image courtesy of jprole through sxc.hu

    Similar posts:

  • Big Data, retail and the 80/20 rule

    Big Data, retail and the 80/20 rule

    Sorting out troublesome customers is one of the major benefits that big data offers businesses, a profitable example lies in reducing returns to online stores.

    One of the banes of online retail is dealing with returns, the industry pioneers overcame objections to shopping over the web through no-questions-asked returns policies that’s trained customers into expecting they can send items back regardless of the reason.

    The Frankfurt School of Finance and Management’s Christian Schulze surveyed nearly six million internet transactions and found returns are effectively costing online retailers half their profits, as The Economist reports.

    Leaving that sort of money on the table is painful for any business and online retailers are trying to find ways to reduce those return costs by sacking their customers;

    But this risks a backlash: rejected shoppers are likely to rush to the newspapers or social media to complain—and their gripes may turn other, more profitable customers against the firm.

    Much of this comes down to Pareto’s Law, that 80% of your problems will come from just 20% of customers, and a key imperative in business is to get the troublesome, high maintenance customers buying from your competitors without being too obvious.

    Identifying those troublesome customers is where Big Data comes into play, coupled with intelligent analytic tools businesses are able to identify who is more likely to return a product or dispute a bill before the sale is made.

    As the Wall Street Journal reports many online retailers are exploring ways they can reduce the return rates using Big Data and analytics.

    By giving buyers access to their purchasing history stores are able to suggest when a customer is buying something that isn’t appropriate or the wrong size.

    The WSJ cites fashion retailer Rue La La, which lost $5 million in returns last year, as an example.

    For instance, a customer who has continuously bought the same brand of dress shirts in both a small and a medium might see a note pop up saying: “Are you sure you want to order the small? The last five times you ordered both sizes, you only kept the medium,” Chief Executive Steve Davis said.

    Another tactic for retailers is to discourage frequent returners from buying high margin goods through targeted vouchers and offers. One point the WSJ article makes is how differential pricing is going to be applied – if you regularly return goods then expect not to be offered the best discounts when you visit the retailer’s website.

    Many returns though are the result of genuinely dissatisfied clients and this is where improving customer service kicks in, the WSJ describes how some retailers are now providing video tutorials for their products and increasingly smarter customer service can be used to avoid returns.

    With the increased sophistication of customer analytics and support tools, we’ll see online retailers squeeze more profit out of their businesses as well as look after their most profitable clients.

    The problem for ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers not deploying new technologies is they won’t have the tools to compete with their savvier online rivals.

    A good example of legacy managers struggling in the face of chronic under investment are Australian retailers and this week the Myer department store chain had to shut down its online outlet after the system collapsed.

    There is no timeline on when Myer’s website will be back up. It’s a tough time for those retailers that haven’t invested in modern system and an even tougher time for companies with legacy managers like those at Myers.

    The use of big data in analysing shopping behaviours is one area where well managed retailers will out perform their poorer rivals, it’s hard to see how companies like Myer will survive in the modern era of business.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • LG and the smart vacuum cleaner

    LG and the smart vacuum cleaner

    The theme for this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas appears to be the internet of things as vendors start peppering journalists with media releases showcasing the of the smart devices they’ll be showing off at the event.

    One of the early starter is appliance manufacturer LG showing off their range of smart appliances that are controlled though the Line messaging app that’s best known for its manga like emoticons.

    LG are particularly proud of their robot vacuum cleaner, the somewhat clunkily named Home-Bot Square that has a form factor similar to the Chinese made Win-Bot window washer.

    LG_SMARTHOME1

    Through the Line app, the Home Bot Square and other LG smart devices can be programmed with natural language, initially Korean and English, commands.

    Ahead of the CES show on January 7, the next few weeks will see more announcements like LG’s. There’s going to be no shortage of smart home devices to write about over the next few months.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Demand Media’s closed window of opportunity

    Demand Media’s closed window of opportunity

    A few years ago content farm Demand Media was being hailed in some quarters as the future of the media industry.

    Today its stock is languishing, revenues are falling and any thought that the cheap, low quality writing that Demand Media delivered will be the future of media is laughable.

    Variety magazine recently published a feature describing the of the fall of Demand Media  with a focus on how Google’s changes to its search engine algorithm undermined the content farm’s busines model. Variety’s story is an interesting case study on not relying on another company for your business plan and extends the hope that low quality writing is not the future of online media.

    Dodgy business

    Demand media evolved from the eHow and eNom businesses, both of which relied on dubious – if not downright dishonest – online practices.

    eNom was particularly irritating, basically just registering domain names around popular search terms that led to   pages full of advertising that delivered nothing of value to someone searching the web for information on a topic.

    It was very profitable for a while though, as Variety reports;

    Early on, Demand used eNom’s 1 million generic domain names (such as “3dblurayplayers.com”) to serve up relevant ads to people searching for specific topics. These “domain parking” pages were immensely profitable, generating north of $100,000 per day, according to a former Demand exec who requested anonymity. “That’s $35 million-$40 million per year without doing any work,” the exec said.

    The eHow business wasn’t any better, relying on low quality, cheap articles that only worked because they were stuffed full of the keywords that Google would base their search results on.

    On January 26 2011 Demand Media went public and the criticism of both the newly listed company and Google became intense.

    This story from Business Insider – which ha featured some gushing and dreadful analysis of Demand Media previously – illustrated the problem the company had of being overwhelming dependent on Google, although the writer believed Google were making too much money from content farms to really act against them.

    Google’s problem with the content farms was real, the quality of search results was falling and users were finding their pages were full of low value rubbish rather than authoritative sources which opened the search giant’s core business  to disruption from Microsoft’s Bing and other search engines. Something had to be done.

    Jason Calacanis, whose Mahalo was a competitor to Demand Media, flagged the risks to content farms in a presentation early in February 2011, “the one rule of working with Google is don’t make them look stupid. If you make ‘The Google’ look stupid, they’ll f- you up.” He said. “eHow makes Google look stupid.”

    Eventually Google decided they were sick of looking stupid and changed their algorithms and the rules for getting a page one search result suddenly changed.

    Demand Media’s business was doomed from the moment Google made that change, as Variety reports;

    By April 2011, third-party measurement services were reporting that the Google changes had reduced traffic to Demand sites by as much as 40%. Demand issued a statement that the reports “significantly overstated the negative impact” of the change, but the stock took a dive — plummeting 38% over two weeks — from which it has not recovered.

    As Demand Media was affected, so too was the entire Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) industry where thousands of consultants found their strategies of placing low quality pages and link rich website comments now damaged their clients’ businesses.

    For web surfers, Google’s change was good news as suddenly search results were relevant again.

    Demand Media was, in essence, a transition business that prospered during a brief windows of opportunity that quickly closed along with the company’s prospects.

    That window of opportunity was also dependent on someone else’s business strategy, which is always a dangerous position to be in.

    Demand Media’s lesson is that while there are opportunities to be had in markets that are being disrupted by new technologies, there’s no guarantees those opportunities will last. What works in SEO, digital media or social marketing today may not work tomorrow.

    It’s also a hopeful lesson that websites regurgitating low quality content is only a transition phase in the development of online media and that providing good, original writing and video is the best long term strategy for survival on the net.

    Should that lesson be true, then it’s good news for both writers and readers.

    Similar posts: