business | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

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.

Defaulting to transparency

Messaging startup Buffer seeks to be open in every aspect of business, will this help the startup grow?

Social media scheduling startup Buffer takes transparency seriously, will it help the business?

Many fine words have been written about openness, sharing and collaboration in recent years but few organisations really practice what’s been preached. An exception to this is social media service Buffer that takes openness to extreme levels.

Buffer keeps few secrets with the company sharing its monthly operating figures, internal emails and even its formula for calculating salaries.

The company’s CEO Joel Gascoigne believes this helps build trust in his startup, saying in his blog:

There are many reasons we default to transparency at Buffer, and perhaps the most important is that I genuinely believe it is the most effective way to build trust. This means trust amongst our team but also trust from users, customers, potential future customers and the wider public who encounter us in any way.

Building trust is one of the most important tasks of any business owner or manager; whether it’s with customers, staff, suppliers or investors and startups have a bigger task than most. So Joel is onto something with this approach although one wonders how long the philosophy will last as the company grows.

One thing that stands out in Buffer’s figures is how little Joel and his staff earn; while $158,000 is a good wage it isn’t the massive income that those who glamourize startups pretend founders earn.

Joel’s experiment with Buffer is an interesting experiment and it will be fascinating to see how long the company continues the philosophy of extreme transparency and how many others follow the example.

While it might not be necessary to be as open as Joel Gascoigne and Buffer, the idea of defaulting to transparency is one that many organisations – particularly governments – would benefit from adopting.

Demand Media’s closed window of opportunity

Demand media’s downfall offers some hopeful lessons for those who want to see better quality content on the web.

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.

Finding the mythical pot of gold at the end of the crowdfunding rainbow

Raising capital through crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter is only the beginning for most businesses.

Raising capital is tough, while the Silicon Valley legend of a smart group of geeks finding wealth through fairy godfathers – aka VCs – throwing money at them may be true for a small number of outliers it isn’t the reality for most businesses.

For most businesses, even if they are lucky to find a VC or angel investor, raising that money is usually the start of the next phase of building a venture which can be even tougher.

With the recent rise of crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo and Pozible which are a lot easier to raise capital through than finding VC or angel investors, there’s been a lot more commentary on how these services are a pot of gold for artists and entrepreneurs.

Mark Pesce discussed some the challenges of Kickstarter campaigns in an interview on the Decoding the New Economy YouTube channel about funding Moore’s Cloud.

Backing Mark’s views is a post on Fast Company’s design blog discussing what happens after a successful campaign.

In Life after Kickstarter, Jon Fawcett describes what happened after raising over $200,000 for his project Une Bobine.

Having more than met his targets, Fawcett found raising the money was only the start of the business challenges with logistics, taxes and fulfilment being hurdles his team had to overcome.

Fawcett actually had an advantage in had tied manufacturers up before launching the funding campaign; for those who haven’t, the process would be even more fraught.

As the Fast Company story concludes, the successful fund raising was only a small, albeit critical, part of getting the products to market.

Fawcett’s story is a reminder that a product’s journey doesn’t end with funding. While Kickstarter has democratized and decentralized the process of raising capital, concerns of manufacturing, shipping, and storage still retain the unglamorous grit of the real world. There’s no flashy website for setting up your supply chain. Perhaps that’s the next part of this grand process prime for disruption.

While raising capital is tough, it’s only part of the story of a successful business. Jon Fawcett story is a reminder of that.

Does small business really want high speed broadband?

Is big business getting all the benefits of high speed broadband?

One of the mantras of the digital economy is new technologies, such as the web and cloud computing, level the playing field for small businesses competing against large corporations. Could it be that belief is wrong?

The Australian Centre for Broadband Innovation last week released its Broadband Impacts report where it examined how high speed internet is changing communities. The results weren’t good for small businesses.

One of the key metrics the ACBI used was business use of websites, it’s shocking enough that only 70% of Australian corporations have an online presence but less than half of small businesses being on the web is disgraceful.

An interesting quirk in the above table indicates that there’s quite a few microbusiness using online sales services and one wonders if the question being asked by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is too limiting in its definition of websites.

The ABS defines businesses with a web presence as those with a website, home page or other web presence but excludes those listed solely as part of an online listing. A web presence was reported by 45% of Australian businesses as at 30 June 2012.

With this definition excluding social media and listing services, it probably does understate the number of Microbusinesses that have an online presence but not a website as defined by the ABS.

The relevance of broadband

In the context of broadband it’s worth noting that websites and online commerce don’t need high speed internet connections, so it’s hard to conclude that giving these businesses faster access is going to make a difference to the way they work.

Where high speed broadband and ubiquitous internet really make a difference is in business operations. As workers become more mobile and the internet of things rolls out, having access to reliable connections is going to become critical to most organisations. Again though, small business tracks poorly on this measure.

Overall the use of cloud services – which is what the bulk of these “new operational processes” will be – is pretty poor across the board although one suspects in the larger organisations various groups have changed their business practiced around services like Dropbox and Documents To Go without senior management being aware of it.

What’s particularly disappointing about this statistic is small businesses are the group most suited to using cloud services and those not adopting these technologies are missing a competitive advantage.

So who needs broadband internet?

These results beg the question – does small business really need high speed broadband access? If they aren’t doing things that could be done on a dial up modem, like registering domains or setting up websites, it’s hard justifying the investment of connecting SMBs to fibre networks.

While there’s no doubt high speed internet is essential to the economic future of communities and nations, we have to keep in mind that not all groups will take advantage of the new technologies. Some will be left behind and in Australia’s case, it may well be small business.

Shops of doom

Some locations are the kiss of death of businesses.

“Location, location, location” is the mantra for real estate investors and property speculators, that rule is just as true for those setting up a shop or cafe.

When you pay attention to the retail strips or malls in your suburbs you’ll notice how some locations are doomed to fail.

The featured picture in this post is what should be a good location in the centre of a dining strip in an affluent Sydney suburb. Just fifty metres either side of the premises are successful and long running cafes.

However this spot has had five different business fail in the last three years and in the past decade hasn’t had a single stable tenant.

The question is what causes this? Is it because the landlord’s are greedy?

In some cases it is, the featured premises had a stable tenant in a very nice and well priced fish restaurant for many years. When the landlord jacked up the rent, the seafood cafe moved out and the place has struggled ever since.

Something many people have mentioned to me over the years is how difficult they find it to negotiate on price with landlords over commercial space with the owners very reluctant to budge on rents.

Often, the letting agents are prepared to throw in sweeteners like fitout costs, rental holidays or paying utilities but it’s very rare that the headline rent will be negotiated down.

Part of this could be due to the properties being valued as a multiple of their monthly rents; so if the leasing rate falls, so too does the property value which is bad news for the landlord and their bank.

When landlords get too greedy properties lie vacant for a long time. A good example is nearby to the featured property.

The bike shop that occupied this unit for about 12 months moved out over two years ago and before that it had been vacant for a long time. Despite being on a busy commuter strip in an affluent suburb, it’s a lousy location with poor visibility, truly awful parking and lousy amenities.

In a genuine free market the rent should fall until a business that can operate in such a low turnover location can afford it, that no entrepreneur can make the numbers work indicates the asking price is too high.

Although even the cheapest rents won’t help a truly blighted location which is why it might be a good idea to ask around the local shops and residents to see how a location has performed before signing that lease.

It would be a shame to doom your business because of a lousy choice of location.

Commoditising cafe Wi-Fi

Over the past decade the idea of offering Wi-Fi internet connections to customers has become standard in the hospitality industry, today it’s pretty well a commodity.

Not so long ago it was difficult to find a cafe that offered Wi-Fi and many of those that did either charged for it or were part of a provider’s networks that you had to be a member of.

Today, Wi-Fi has become pretty standard in cafes and places like airport terminals although interestingly the hotel industry has been slow to adopt it.

In the hotel industry a perverse rule of thumb seems to apply that the more expensive the property is, the pricier internet access will be as backpackers hostels invariable have free Wi-Fi while six star hotels charge anything up toe $30 a day for a connection.

While the hotel industry still has to be dragged into the 21st Century on this front, cafes seem to have reached a point where having Wi-Fi is no longer a commercial advantage but not having free internet is now a distinct disadvantage.

This was the point made by Nicholas Carr in his 2003 essay IT Doesn’t Matter where he suggested that computers, and other ‘infrastructural technologies’, don’t offer a competitive advantage once they are widely adopted.

For a brief period, as they are being built into the infrastructure of commerce, these “infrastructural technologies,” as I call them, open opportunities for forward-looking companies to gain strong competitive advantages. But as their availability increases and their cost decreases – as they become ubiquitous – they become commodity inputs. From a strategic standpoint, they become invisible; they no longer matter.

Carr’s proposition also implies that businesses who don’t adopt these technologies once they’ve become widespread risk being irrelevant and marginalised.

For cafes, this means that customers will be ignoring them unless they do offer Wi-Fi and it will be another cost of doing business for the proprietors of coffee shops.

Which begs the question of how do cafes differentiate themselves.

Perhaps the answer lies in the dog bowl shown in the photo, making a venue pet, or child, friendly may be one way to attract customers.

One thing’s for sure, just having good coffee and tea might not be enough to cut it in the future.

Tuxedos and cocktail dresses — the real cost of being an entrepreneur

Correcting the myths about startups is the mission of venture capital investor Mark Suster

venture capital investor and blogger Mark Suster said at the Dreamforce 2013 conference yesterday.

Suster’s mission is based upon having seen the process of building business up close having been involved in two successful startups and trade sales before joining Salesforce as head of product development then branching out to the investor side of the business.

There’s also a personal reason for Suster wanting to tell the truth about starting your own venture, “the reason I’m on a personal mission to explain this is because a friend committed suicide.”

“His company had raised four million dollars but, by his standards, it wasn’t succeeding.”

Suster’s story resonates with anyone who has founded a business — it’s not something everyone is suited to and it’s a tough, demanding lifestyle.

Tuxedos and cocktail dresses

Part of the problem is public perceptions, Suster describes a conflict between “public persona and cognitive dissonance”; while an individual startup is struggling with their own flaws and failings, it appears that everyone else is doing well from their carefully crafted and placed publicity stories.

“Everyone else’s PR is their tuxedos and cocktail dresses,” Suster points out. “You on the other hand are seeing yourself naked in the mirror every morning.”

On being a marriage councilor

It’s often said that a business partnership is like a marriage and Suster finds much of his work as a venture capital investor involves counseling founders over their relationship.

“Sometimes one has to go,” Suster says. “It doesn’t matter what your preference is — and we all have our favourites — but the business cannot survive with the two of them.”

When two founders split, there is also the problem of equity, should both have equal shares then it becomes difficult to split the business; “should one partner leaves, it’s often easier to shut down the company and start again.”

Buy in your skills

A similar problem happens when there’s more than one partner and Suster cautions it’s better to employ people with the skills you need rather than offer equity in a new business.

“Having too many founders is the greatest dilution you’ll ever face,” Suster warns and his advice is to hire the skills required by the business rather than give away equity in your business.

Another benefit of hiring people is having a good team on the payroll is the validation good investors are looking for. “Having a good team proves you’re able to hire good people which is the most important skill an entrepreneur needs,” Suster explains.

Ultimately, Mark Suster sees the journey of building a business as a decade long process, the billion dollar startups are the exception rather than the rule.

The biggest advice Suster has is to understand your goals, “if you don’t define what success is, you’ll never achieve it.”

Building a business is tough, and not everybody is suited to doing it. Mark Suster’s advice isn’t just appropriate for technology startups, it’s also valid for anyone starting any type of business.

A soonologist’s view of the future

BT Futurologist Nicola Millard on being a futurologist and the future of the workplace, the open plan office and customer service.

“I think my job title is a little bit misleading,” says Nicola Millard of her role as BT’s Customer Service Futurologist. “Most people would imagine futurologists have a crystal ball that works and maybe talking about twenty to twenty five years out about a future where intelligent robots have taken over the world.”

“My horizon tends to be a bit shorter,” Nicola explains. “My time tends to start in about three weeks time and tends to extend to five years, so I’m more of an industrial futurologist and CEOs tend not think beyond the next three weeks.” “I guess more of a ‘soonologist’ than a futurologist.”

Nicola was talking to the Decoding The New Economy YouTube channel at BT’s London Demonstration centre where the time frame is somewhat more than the next three weeks as the company shows off the technology and product lines it believes are going to change the communication industry.

For BT and Nicola, much of the near future is focused in how consumer and workplace behaviour is being changed by IT and communications technology.

Nicola sees an interesting relationship between technology and people – technology can radically change peoples’ behaviour but it also can amplify existing behaviours. “It can certainly influence the way we work, rest and play, in the ways we approach the office and how we consume,” says Nicola.

“Behaviour changes are really fascinating when we give people people access to technologies that give them more choice and more information than ever before. It untethers us. All of these thing present opportunities to change that way we do stuff.”

The untethered office

Technology has also untethered the office, says Nicola. “In the old days we had to go to the office at nine o’clock in the morning and leave at five in the afternoon. We didn’t have any other options – we had a desk, we had big technology and we had masses of paper.”

“That’s all changed.” Workplaces have always struggled with collaboration and Nicola sees the open plan office as being a 1970s attempt to get workers to talk and work with each other rather than hiding behind closed doors. “By forcing people into open plan we hoped that by breathing the same air they would start to collaborate.”

“Now we collaborate with people that aren’t necessarily in the same place as us. The office itself has become a collaboration tool,” Nicola says. “We’re seeing the evolution of the office.”

Today’s technology tools and remote working have changed the role of the workplace with the office becoming a place for workers to collaborate and work together, however that nature of work has changed.

Working beyond the office

With improved connectivity the home office and mobile workers have come into their own with BT having around ten percent of their workforce operating from their residences and the company finds they achieve around a twenty percent improvement in productivity from those staff.

However home working isn’t for everyone. “I’m a terrible home worker,” Nicola says. “I tend to go mad so if I want to collaborate I go to the office but I want to work quietly I go to the coffice’, which is generally a third place outside the office or home.”

“There’s only four things I need to work; good coffee, good cake – these first two are non-negotiable – good connectivity and then I need company. Not necessary office type company but just a buzz.“

The change to retailing

Today’s buzz extends to shopping, the shops are fuller on a Saturday afternoon than they have ever been before. The showrooming phenomenon – where customers use their smartphones to check prices and proudcts while in the shop – allows retailers to enhance their sales strategy as the same available to shoppers can also be used by sales assistants.

“Shopping is sometimes a contact sport,” Nicola observes. “the fact we are comparing and contrasting, the fact we are challenging the physical shop. Waving our mobile phone on the shopfloor.” “Retailers for a long time resisted showrooming, they split their online and physical spaces. We’re now seeing those physical lines blurring.”

Emerging trends

Nicola sees the biggest challenge facing business in the near future being agility – as cloud services expand, it’s easier for companies to scale which places pressure on many incumbent businesses.

Big Data also presents opportunities, “there’s always been big data, we’ve always had too much data, the analytics tools have changed.” For great challenge though for business is change and this is what will focus executive attention in the near future. “Businesses tend to be built to last rather than for change.”

The Digital Fallacy

Businesses don’t need a Chief Digital Officer, it’s one of many fallacies about the digital economy

Earlier this week Telstra held their 2013 Digital Summit in Melbourne, a curious event featuring a bunch of US based experts to tell the locals what they should have already known about the changing business landscape.

The reversion of Australian business to a 1950s colonial cringe is worth a blog post in itself, however more interesting was the assertion that every organisation should appoint a Chief Digital Officer.

A Chief Digital Officer is an idea based on the flawed fallacy that digital technologies are unique and separate from other business functions.

The Chief Electricity Officer

Digital is simply the way business is done these days and has been since the electronic calculator appeared in the 1970s – having a Chief Digital Officer is akin to appointing a Chief Electricity Officer.

The role of a Chief Digital Officer is an idea usually pushed by social media experts and other fringe digerati that perversely undermines the very roles they are trying to promote.

By putting “digital” into its own organisational silo, the proponents of a Chief Digital Officer are actually advocating marginalising their own fields. It’s also counterproductive for a business that follows this advice.

The real challenge for those pushing digital technologies is putting the business case for their particular field and in most cases, such as social media or cloud computing, the argument for adopting them is usually compelling in some part of every organisation, but it shouldn’t be overplayed.

More than just marketing

An aspect heavily overplayed in the commentary around the Telstra Digital Summit was the role of social media with most people focusing on branding and marketing.

If you believe this is the extant of ‘digital business’, then you’re in for a nasty shock as supply chains become increasingly automated, Big Data makes companies smarter and the internet of machines accelerates the business cycle even more. Social media is only a small part of the ‘digital business’ story.

Over-stating the role of individual technologies is something that’s common when people have books or seminars to spruik – which, funny enough, is exactly what Telstra’s international speakers were doing.

It’s understandable that an author or speaker will overstate the benefits of their project, but it doesn’t mean that you should fall for the fallacies in their arguments.

A tour of Google’s London Campus workspace

Google’s London Campus offers a free coworking space in the basement that’s open to small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs.

Google’s London campus is credited by many in the City’s Silicon Roundabout district as being one of the catalysts for the explosion in the local tech centre.

One of the features of the London facility is the free co-working space the company offers which has become an important landmark for the city’s startup and small business community.

Getting into the basement co-working space requires pre-registration and, in theory, you’ll be able to pick up an access card when you first arrive.

In practice the cards are long out of stock, so just showing your registration confirmation with it’s code to the rather rude and brusque receptionists will get you buzzed in.

The coworking space takes up the entire basement with four distinct coworking spaces – a courtyard, an array of tables, a lounge area and a shared bench.

Immediately inside the door is the communal bench that seats around twenty people. These are probably the best if you’re happy to socialise while you work. Even if you don’t it’s worthwhile grabbing a spot here if you see one available during busy times.

Directly beside the workbench area is the Android demonstration station. This is a clever initiative by Google to showcase their mobile platform and encourage their developer community.

Across from the Android test bench is the lounge area, this will be your best bet to find a place should you arrive when the coworking space is busy. It isn’t the most comfortable and quiet place in the room though as it gets lots of foot traffic and is across from the café.

The café serves a standard range of sandwiches, coffees and drinks with specials on certain days. Prices aren’t dissimilar from most of the coffee shops in the neighbourhood although you might find better range and a quieter spot eating elsewhere.

One of the missed opportunities in the cafes is the opportunity to sell computer accessories like chargers and cables, during each visit this reviewer noticed how there was always someone asking to borrow other users’ accessories to charge their phones or synch their devices.

Alongside the coffee shop is the courtyard; on nice day this would be a good place to work or to enjoy a beer and a chat with fellow geeks in the afternoon. During this visit in November, the weather was dark and dank with the outdoor area only being used by people making phone calls.

Beside the courtyard is the desk area where the serious workers hunker down. These spaces tend to get taken early and some people seem to arrive shortly after opening at 9am and don’t leave until the room closes at 6pm. Get there before ten if you want a spot.

One of the problems in the room is the fight for power sockets. By mid-morning it’s almost impossible to find a spare plug so if you’re looking to recharge a device you may want to consider a local café.

Another problem with the coworking space is it gets very crowded and some of the regulars have a habit of spreading out or hogging power sockets. It may be necessary to be quite pushy to get a seat or power socket when someone is taking up too much space.

Overall, Google’s London Campus is a good facility that many other cities could use. However with its congestion mobile workers may find it easier to set up in one of the many geek friendly cafes in the neighbourhood like the nearby Ozone or Shoreditch Grind right on the Silicon Roundabout itself.

Lessons in crowdfunding from an unsuccessful Kickstarter campaign

Crowdfunding is in its early days and Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce explains some of the lessons we have to learn about this new way of raising capital.

“I’d rather eat a bullet than do a Kickstarter campaign again,” says Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce in the latest Decoding The New Economy video when asked about crowdfunding his project.

Moore’s cloud is an internet of things company that focuses on lighting, “we think it’s interesting and something that expresses emotion” Mark says.

With their first project, Moore’s Cloud looked to raise $700,000 to build their first project but fell well short of their target.

Falling short lead to Mark and his team executing a classic business pivot from a static lights to Holiday, a system of intelligent fairy lights.

“We took exactly the same technology and put it into a different form factor,” said Mark. “It’s as if we took the light and unwound it.”

The failure of the Kickstarter campaign gave the Moore’s Cloud founders an education on how crowdfunding works.

Customer focused from day one

An important aspect of crowdfunding is it’s very customer focused. From day one of the campaign, the venture has to devote resources on relations with those who’ve pledged a contribution.

Most startups don’t have those resources, or the time and skills, to deal with those relations.

“People say it’s a better way of getting investors. I would have to say ‘it’s not better, it’s different.'” Mark says about crowdfunding.

The psychology of investors

One of the differences is the psychology of investors. Mark was urged by the CEO of Indiegogo, Slava Rubin, to set a low target as participants like to back successful campaigns.

“There’s a whole bunch of psychology I didn’t understand going in,” says Mark. “If we’d had a goal of $200,000 we probably would have filled it in the first two weeks.”

“Once a campaign is fully funded, it tends to get overfunded.”

A truism of business is that banks will only lend to you when you don’t need the money and it strangely appears the same thing applies to crowdfunding.

We’re in the early days of crowdfunding and there’s more to be learned about the way it works and for which ventures the fund raising technique works best.

The experience of campaigns like Moore’s Cloud are part of how we’ll discover the nuances of crowdfunding and the psychology of the crowds that contribute.