Tag: investment

Saving Twitter

Twitter needs focused management that understands the service if it is to survive

Twitter is in trouble, its share price has fallen 70% in the past two years and the service is not gaining new users. To halt the stagnation, CEO Jack Dorsey is reportedly considering ditching the 140 character limit.

Commentator Josh Bernoff suggests playing with character limits will do little to address Twitter’s lack of momentum which is almost certainly correct given the underlying problems at the service.

The one most desired feature by Twitter users is the ability to edit their posts, although the New York Times points out this may not be a good thing, another popular change would be for the service to crack down on abusive behaviour.

Stagnant management

It seems however that Twitter’s management can’t make those changes and this is understandable given the company’s executives not understanding how the service is used and their desperate obsession to justifying its stock valuation which, despite falling 70% over the past two years, is still $14 billion.

Justifying that stock valuation with no clear path to monetising the service is a paralysing problem which means other useful changes aren’t being made while the company still embarrassingly cosies up to sports, pop and movie stars in the hope their fame will bring advertiser dollars to the platform.

For Twitter the solution is to accept they aren’t a fourteen billion dollar company which would take the pressure off the executive team to find unsustainable ways to justify that valuation and instead focus management’s efforts on improving the user experience.

Making Twitter useful

To make the service more useful, management has to understand how Twitter is used which means finding experienced and capable leaders who also use the service.

Adding features that allow users to make some changes to tweets and lists would be a start and clamping down on the bullies, trolls and frauds to make it more friendly to new entrants would be a start. Creating an easy way for new users to find useful information would also help engagement and retention.

The most important task though is finding executives who actually use Twitter and have an understanding of social media instead of hiring from the tech, advertising and broadcasting industries without any regard of whether those individuals have ever used the service.

Twitter is a valuable service but it’s dying as management play games. If it is to survive, accepting it isn’t as big as it wants to be and finding leaders who understand why its users find it so useful is essential.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Value versus valuation

The story of Skift illustrates how businesses can add value without courting venture capital investors

“There are people who build media companies for valuation, then there are others who build media brands for value,” writes Skift c0-founder Rafat Ali in his account of how the business stopped worrying about raising venture capital and focused on bootstrapping the travel industry website.

Ali’s story of how Skift’s founders gave up on finding investors, refocused their business and found revenues to bootstrap the organisation is worth a read for anybody starting a venture, not just a tech or media startup.

Notable is Ali’s distancing Skift from the startup label, claiming it’s “a meaningless word that comes with too much baggage”.

The story of Skift is an interesting perspective on growing a business outside the current focus on external investors, instead focusing on the value it adds for customers, users and readers. Just as Skift went back to basics, many of us should also focus on how we and our businesses add value.

Similar posts:

Thinking through the effects of autonomous vehicles

Driverless cars and autonomous vehicles are going to change the economy and workplace. Where will the jobs come from?

The defining technology of the Twentieth Century was the automobile. While there were many advancements – antibiotics, mains electricity and mass communications to name just three – nothing changed society to the same extent as the motor car.

A hundred years ago it was impossible for a pundit to appreciate how the motor car was about to change communities, the population’s increased mobility saw the suburbanisation of cities, the creation of the consumerist society and the rise of industries such as supermarkets and drive in theatres, none of which were foreseeable fifty years earlier.

Change didn’t happen in isolation, those new industries were the result of a number of changes in technology alongside the motor car, for instance the supermarket couldn’t have happened without refrigerators becoming household items along with radio and television developing new markets through the advertising industry.

Economic drivers

The biggest driving force was economic, once motor cars became affordable for the typical worker – just before World War II in the US and in the mid 1950s in most of rest of the Western world – the cost of travelling fell dramatically.

With the cost of moving around falling, workers had the opportunity to move out of the dirty, grimy inner city to new and clean suburbs where they could commute to their jobs in offices and factories. At the same time it also meant families could travel further to buy their groceries, forcing the end of the cornershop and the milkman.

Autonomous vehicles change those economics again, as Uber founder Travis Kalanick pointed out last year, the most expensive item in a taxi or Uber fare is the driver.

During his interview at the Code Conference Kalanick went on to describe how eliminating the driver changes the economics.

“When there’s no other dude in the car, the cost of taking an Uber anywhere becomes cheaper than owning a vehicle. So the magic there is, you basically bring the cost below the cost of ownership for everybody, and then car ownership goes away.”

Changing ownership

The assumption in today’s discussions about autonomous vehicles is that car ownership will become and thing of the past, something that fits into Travis Kalanick’s view.

Should that be the case then a whole range of new industries open up. Who owns the cars, who dispatches the cars, who plans for peak and normal usage are just a few questions and opportunities that open for savvy entrepreneurs.

A changing concept of ownership doesn’t come without problems, not least who owns the code controlling the vehicles and the data being generated which in turn raises privacy issues.

Loss of jobs

The obvious other question with driverless vehicles is what happens to all the taxi drivers, couriers and long haul truckers as automobiles no longer require operators.

With truck driving being the dominant occupation in most US states, employing 1.8 million workers according to the Bureau of Labor Studies, this is a serious question. Interestingly the BLS forecasts employment to grow five percent per annum over the rest of the decade.

That scale of  job losses hasn’t been unusual over the last century. The agricultural industry itself has seen a massive fall in employment in that time period with the proportion of Americans working in agriculture falling from half the population to a tenth of that.

Creating new industries

Obviously half the US working population didn’t end up being unemployed, with the many of those displaced by the motor vehicle – either in the agricultural sector or in those fields catering for the pre-motor car market – finding work in other fields.

That the economy adapted to the loss of jobs in what were traditional fields in 1915 gives us a clue to where the jobs and industries of the future are going to come from as the changing nature of the economy means new businesses are created.

As the economics of these industries change, we see the need for workers move further up the value chain. We also see those reduced costs open opportunities for new ideas, just as the supermarket concept took hold in the 1950s as the economics of household shopping changed.

This is where the greatest opportunity lies for today’s entrepreneurs lies, in figuring out how those reduced costs will change the way consumers and society use transportation. In turn that will drive the next wave of employment growth.

Similar posts:

Rethinking education in a time of a declining middle class

Reskilling the workforce is essential to address middle class decline

The role of higher education is changing in the face of technological and economic change as this World Economic Forum article describes.

Education is one of the keys to staying competitive in an increasingly technology driven society on both a personal and societal level. Individuals and nations that neglect their education investment risk are left behind.

One of the starkest examples of this are America’s lower middle class and the rise of Donald Trump.

In an article for The Atlantic, former George W. Bush adviser David Frum, describes how economic uncertainty for America’s relatively unskilled workforce are pushing back against their falling living standards.

The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.

You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.

That these people are supporting Donald Trump – and their counterparts in almost every Western democracy – is not surprising as they losing in the new economic order and the technological changes which are eliminating or devaluing their jobs.

For governments and communities, the question is how to restore these folks’ fortunes or at least maintain their living standards. With protectionism almost certainly guaranteed to fail, the obvious answer is to give these workers the skills to compete and contribute in the 21st century economy.

Sadly, most Western governments still locked in a 1980s Reagan/Thatcherite mindset see education as a cost to be reduced rather than an investment in both their communities’ collective wealth and society’s cohesion.

Education, like the rest of society, is changing. A rethinking of both how it is delivered and its role is essential for nations to be successful in today’s economy.

Similar posts:

The victims of unicorns

A highly valued business is not good news for all shareholders, particularly employees who’ve taken equity.

It’s not all good news when a tech company becomes a unicorn reports the New York Times as it often means employees and other ordinary stockholders may be diluted out by later investors holding preferential shares to secure their big bets.

The danger with these high private valuations is the later investors whose big cheques created the unicorn mythology insist upon preferential shares to protect their stake. Should the company go public or be sold for less than the valuation then it’s the common stock holders who take the greatest hit.

Good Technology’s sale to BlackBerry is the example cited in the New York Times’ story. The company’s last round of funding valued the business at $1.1 billion but it’s eventual exit was less than half of that.

As a consequence, the common stockholders lost 90% of their wealth in the company while executives and late stage investors came out with only a slight dip in the preferred shares valuation. The CEO walked away with nearly six million dollars.

With the last two years investment mania and the clear topping of the market, situations like Good’s are now becoming common. The New York Times points this out in the story.

The odds that the unicorns will all reap riches if they are sold or go public are slim. Over the past five years, at least 22 companies backed by venture capital sold for the same amount as or less than what they had raised from investors

For employees in these highly valued startups, those valuations and the risk of losing most of your own equity is a serious concern. Analyst firm CB Insights flagged earlier this week an exodus of talent from overvalued firms with dubious prospects is a great opportunity for the top tier companies.

While the headline numbers for unicorns are impressive, the reality for employees, founders and early stage investors is an overvaluation is a dangerous place to be.

Similar posts:

Building a European Silicon Valley

Europe’s development of an equivalent to Silicon Valley faces many hurdles

The World Economic Forum asks can Europe build its own Silicon Valley?

It seems the answer lies in money, investors’ money to be precise, with a lack of VC funds to finance emerging businesses and a lack of acquisition hungry corporates providing high profile experts argues the WEF piece’s author, Keith Breene.

That appears to be a strong argument although there’s still some strong contenders for European tech hubs with the WEF identifying Munich, Paris and London as being major centres.

London’s claims are reinforced by the city’s strength in financial technology with KPMG nominating 18 of the world’s top 50 fintech startups being based in the British capital.

Interestingly, the Belgium town of Leuven which has styled itself as a centre for 3D printing and beer features on the WEF list of European startup hubs as well.

While it’s unlikely Europe can create a ‘Silicon Valley’ – even the post Cold War US would struggle to do so today – the presence of major centres like London and specialist hubs like Leuven indicates another important aspect of creating a global centre, that of having an existing base of businesses and skills.

That skillbase isn’t built up overnight, it’s a decades long process of commitment from industry, investors and governments and often as much the result of a series of happy accidents rather than deliberate planning.

It may well be the question of Europe creating a Silicon Valley isn’t really relevant with the bigger issue being how the continent’s cities and nations put in the conditions to develop long term industrial hubs. Trying to ape today’s successes for a project that will take decades to come to fruition could be a big mistake.

Similar posts:

Opening the chequebook. Can you buy a Silicon Valley?

In subsidising tech businesses, the Victorian government is doomed to fail. However at least they are trying unlike their Sydney counterparts.

How do you build an industrial hub like Silicon Valley? Many cities and regions have tried various tactics, from demolishing entire suburbs to attract corporate headquarters through to spending millions on enticing film productions and countless examples of setting up Digital Hubs.

An interesting experiment is happening at the moment in the Australian city of Melbourne where the Victorian state government is spending millions on subsidies to businesses, government enterprises and academic research centres to set up in the town.

One of the Victorian government’s most surprising moves was to poach Sydney’s Sydstart startup conference for a million dollars. Naturally the event will have to be renamed and there’s no word on who will pay for the branding consultant’s time.

Opening the chequebook

Having an open chequebook is fine, but in the absence of a broader strategy that ties in educational, financial and other vital factors for building an industrial hub it’s hard to see how spending taxpayers’ funds on adhoc projects is going to create a sustainable local tech sector.

The National Broadband Network security office subsidy is particularly galling given it’s a payment to a Federal government owned corporation and it’s highly likely the facility would have been based in Melbourne anyway given the organisation’s Network Operating Centre is already in the city.

Added to the embarrassment of the NBN announcement are the overwrought claims of job creation. While it’s possible a total of 300 building staff might be involved in the construction, the idea the centre will employ 400 IT and telco security staff is surely stretching credibility.

The failed games industry

Sadly for Victorian taxpayers this isn’t the first time their government has tried to use their chequebook to attract high tech business. In the late 1990s a similar effort was launched to attract video game developers.

For a while this worked but ultimately the Victorian games sector declined in the face of a high Australian dollar, a shift in the economics of studio produced games and successful competition from Queensland who built their own subsidised centre on the Gold Coast by offering better incentives that those on offer in Melbourne.

Both the Queensland and Victorian efforts ultimately failed and today both states have little to show for those subsidies.

At least though the Victorian government is trying, unlike its property development and coal mining obsessed neighbours in Sydney who are in the process of selling off their Australian Technology Park hub and replacing it with a poorly articulated thought bubble of a technology precinct based out of a disused power station in a transport blackspot.

Sydney’s failure

In the process of coming up with these ideas, the New South Wales government managed to alienate the most successful of Sydney’s tech startups, Atlassian who last week floated on the NASDAQ stock market for over four billion US dollars.

One of the notable things of Atlassian’s story, and that of most other successful Australian tech startups, is how little direct government support features in their development.

That direct government support like subsidies feature so little in these company’s successes really tells us what really works for governments wanting to develop an ecosystem – providing the environment for skills, capital and distribution networks to develop.

Without a long term plan it’s hard to see how Victoria’s ‘splashing the cash’ will end up any better than previous efforts with other industries. As Silicon Valley, Israel and the UK have shown, it’s consistent long term investment in the industries and the infrastructure that allows businesses to developed that creates successful industry hubs.

Similar posts: