Category: Investment

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.

Similar posts:

Does Facebook’s float mark social media’s peak?

Is social media about to plunge into the trough of disillusionment?

After its successful float on Friday, social media giant Facebook’s stock is now 18% down on the IPO price and there are claims some investors were aware of revised analyst expectations shortly before shares went on sale.

Facebook’s share price isn’t being helped by large advertisers, most notably General Motors, publicly expressing their dissatisfaction.

In SmartCompany’s survey on business tech use, one statistic that stood out was that less than 30% of businesses were happy with their returns on social media.

Facebook can’t even win in the courts with a Californian magistrate throwing out the social media platform’s trademark case against a Norwegian pornography site.

It’s been clear for some time that the tech industry has been in an investment bubble and social media services have at been the centre of that hype .

The huge expectations of Facebook’s float value has been one of the drivers of Silicon Valley’s investment boom – a dangerous feedback loop in itself.

So now Facebook’s share price is in decline and angry investors are asking “why” and demanding answers from advisors and banks.

The real question though is does Facebook’s float mark the peak of the current tech boom in the same way AOL’s merger with Time Warner in January 2000 marked the peak of the original dot com mania?

One of the great similarities with the original dot com mania is the businesses’ failure to make money from their services – today’s Pintrest and Twitter have that much in common with the great Dot Com boom debacles of Pets.com and Boo.

The biggest problem with the social media services is most of them are advertising dependent. As we see from General Motors’ dissatisfaction and that of the businesses in the Smart Company survey, most businesses aren’t happy with the performance of social media platforms.

Getting the advertising, or other revenue streams, right is key to the survival of these services. Google cracked this after the original dot com boom and are now one of the most successful companies ever.

The companies that figure out the revenue models for social media, or online news, will be the next Google’s and Facebook could well be the business that cracks the code for social media.

For the social media industry overall, it appears the sector is now at what Gartner calls the “Peak of Inflated Expectations” on their hype cycle.

The next stage from the peak is the tumble into the “trough of disillusionment” and that appears to be where Facebook is heading.

As Gartner points out, that trough is also where good, stable businesses are built. While the sector or technology is scorned, those who survived the tumble out of fashion are able to consolidate and learn from the harsh lessons they’ve received.

Eventually the market rediscovers the technology or industry and eventually becomes accepted as a mature part of business or as Gartner put it, they enter the “plateau of productivity.”

This is exactly the process Amazon went through during the dark days of 2002 and 2003 after the tech wreck which today finds them as one of the Internet’s giants.

Whether Facebook can emulate Amazon or Google is for history to judge, but social media’s falling out of favour is not a bad thing, the wreckage of the current tech mania will see much stronger and viable social media businesses that will deliver real value to industry and society.

In the wreck of the dot com boom we saw HTML “coders” reduced from driving Porsches to driving buses, the same thing will probably happen to many of today’s social media experts. That in itself is not a bad thing.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

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.

Similar posts:

Duly diligent

In an age of entitlement, we need to be careful of who we vote for, invest and do business with.

“Who would have thought our CEO didn’t have the qualifications we thought he had?” wonders the Yahoo! board.

“It seems we forgot to count the number of beds!” whines the cleaning contractor when challenged about a filthy hospital.

“We had no idea these people were corrupt,” growls the politician and former trade union official when confronted with proof its factional friends were misusing expenses.

An interesting phenomenon in the rise of the managerial classes over the last thirty years has been the group’s refusal to take responsibility for their failures.

Instead we see boards, investors, managers and politicians duck responsibilities that a reasonable observer would have thought is the reason for their healthy salaries, bonuses and perks.

One of the many conceits of 1980s thinking is the ideology of “personal responsibility” – to low paid workers and those at the bottom of society this mantra is applied ruthlessly.

The call centre worker who makes a mistake gets counselled or fired while the aboriginal kid who steals a can of coke is denied bail and goes to jail.

Let’s not mention the fines and sanctions that befall a small business owner who is too slow in submitting paperwork or forgets to pay one of the countless fees that make up today’s hidden taxation.

In boardrooms and Parliaments those doing the wrong thing rarely face any accountability; politicians caught misclaiming expenses are allowed to pay it back at their convenience while senior executives and captains of industry with a track record of mistakes continue to be employed in positions way beyond their abilities.

One exception to the that rule is former Tyco Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski and his cohorts who looted their company through the 1990s. Eventually their excesses became so great that the CEO and his cronies ended up being jailed.

Not that this has rattled some of his cronies sense of entitlement. Former CFO Mark Swartz is suing the company for $60 million in retirement benefits and other monies.

I have a personal connection with Messrs Swartz and Kozlowski – I worked for their company in the mid 1990s and lasted nine months in a culture of cronyism and rorts where middle management enthusiastically aped the excesses of their senior executives.

One can argue I didn’t carry out my due diligence – a little bit of digging and more detailed asking around would have revealed Tyco’s institutionalised corruption and cronyism at the time.

I paid for this oversight by having my contract terminated in a public and humiliating way which drove me to set up my own business.

While working for companies like Tyco I saw them drive smaller businesses into the ground through slow, or non payment, of invoices. Strangely they always seemed to pay the corporate hospitality bills on time.

The weakness in today’s corporatist economy is that boards like that at Yahoo!, executives like Tyco’s in the 1990s and many of our business and political leaders have a sense of entitlement way beyond the value they add to their business, community or society.

Worse, the main lesson of 2008’s financial crisis is that massive government spending will protect these peoples’ bonuses and privileges regardless of their actions.

As investors, employees, suppliers and voters we have to do our due diligence on these people and organisations. We have the tools today to check the track record of those who want our vote, skills or products.

In today’s economy, we can’t afford to squander money or time on those who demand fat fees and salaries without delivering value.

At the cash register and ballot box, it’s time to do our due diligence.

Similar posts:

Monetizing the Masses

How do social media services make a profit?

Monetization is a horrible word.

The term is necessary though as many online business models are based upon giving away a service or information for free. For those businesses to survive, they have to find a way to “monetize” their user base.

When Google were floated in 2003, the question was how could a free search engine “monetize” their users. The answer was in advertising and Google today are the world’s biggest advertising platform.

Facebook’s Inital Public Offering (IPO) announcement raises the same question; how does a company valued 99 times earnings find a way to justify the faith of its investors?

Advertising is the obvious answer but that seems to flattening out as the company’s revenue growth is slowing in that space. The AdWords solution tends to favour Google more than publishers as most advertising supported websites have found.

Partnering with application developers like the game publisher Zynga is another solution. Again though this appears to be limited in revenue and Zynga itself seems to be having trouble growing its Facebook user numbers.

So the question for Facebook is “where will the profits come from?”

There’s no doubt the data store Facebook has accumulated is valuable but how the social media service can “monetize” this asset without upsetting their users is open to question.

For Facebook the stakes are high as the comparisons with Friendster and MySpace are already being drawn.

We’ll see more partnerships like the Facebook Anti-virus marketplace, but these seem to be marginal at best.

In the next few months things will get interesting as Facebook’s managers and investors strive to find ways to make a buck out of a billion users who don’t pay for the service.

While “monetization” is an ugly word, it is one that every online company thinks about.

Every web based businesses will be watching how Facebook manage their monetization strategy closely as the entire industry struggles with the faulty economics of providing services for free.

Similar posts:

The Free Myth

Free services often come at a cost of your time.

One of the biggest dangers to businesses is the belief that something is “free”.

As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When another business gives you something for free it’s safe to say there is a cost somewhere.

One of the speakers at the City of Sydney’s Let’s Talk Business social media event stated this when talking about social media saying “I can’t believe all businesses aren’t on Facebook – it’s free.”

Social media isn’t free. We all know the value services like Facebook are mining are the tastes, habits and opinions of their users.

For businesses, engaging heavily in Facebook or any other social media service hands over far more information about their customers to a third party than they themselves would be able to collect.

All of that information handed over to a service like Google or Facebook can come back to bite the business, particularly if a well cashed up competitor decides to advertise at the demographic the business caters to.

The core fallacy though is that these service are “free”. They aren’t.

Every single service comes with a time cost. Every social media expert advises the same thing, businesses have to post to their preferred service of choice at least three times a week and those posts should be strategically thought out.

That advice is right, but it costs time.

For a business owner, freelancer or entrepreneur time is their scarcest asset. You can always rebuild your bank account but you can never recover time.

Big businesses face the same problem, but they overcome this with money by hiring people for their time. In smaller businesses, this time comes out of the proprietor’s twenty-four crowded hours each day.

The computer and internet industries are good at giving away stuff for free, in doing so they burn investors’ money and the time of their users. The social media business model hopes to pay a return to investors by trading the data users contribute in their time.

While businesses can benefit from using social media services, they have to be careful they aren’t wasting too much of their valuable time while giving away their customers to a third party.

Often when somebody looks back on their life they say “I wish I had more time.” They’ve learned too late that asset has been wasted.

Wasting that unreplaceable asset on building someone else’s database would be a tragedy.

Similar posts: