Google’s Prediction Markets: Is it a good idea to encourage ALL employees to trade in these markets?

Not only is it a good idea for employees to trade in Google markets; the more people that trade on these markets, the better! First, Google pursues and embraces an open and intertwined “community” internet.  Since there is no “real” money changing hands, internet users should be allowed to trade on these exchanges. As Google’s own research had demonstrated, the more people that participate, the lower the margin of error. Secondly, Google is exploring new methods of futures trading, which risks being released to the public or competitors. Thus, unlike their search algorithm, there isn’t much to lose by sharing the method openly. Third, Google has been known to pursue what its users desire: to be inclusive.  One potential problem with GPM, however,  is the lack of enough users. Yet, this is a problem that could  be resolved rather quickly. Ultimately, Google has very to little lose and much to gain by pursuing GPM through employees and open users. It is Google’s inherent nature to adapt to its environment and its users’ needs by pursuing ingenious ideas that will provide for it’s success.

Is User Generated Content a Financial Albatross?

User generated content can be both profitable and costly. Content generated sites can certainly generate money, but one needs to ask, “where the heck is all this money going?” Many of these content generated sites are poorly managed and wasteful pertaining to employee pay and production.

However, since these types of companies are essentially 10 years young, it isn’t necessarily fair to conlcude that the content-oriented sites are an albatross, as the sites have not had adequate time to prove themselves (this is all unventured territory at the end of the day).

As I have argued in class, many of the users and contributors to blogs, wiki’s and alike tend to be of a younger demographic, and thus lacking valuable real-life experience, as often demonstrated in the content published. The same can be said about the owners and employees of many websites, including content driven sites.

The success of a business depends largely on managing a well-balanced company - one that inspires youth to not only participate and perform well, but to earn a realistic salary. Unfortunately, as the dot com era proved, throwing money at a problem will not necessarily fix that problem!

The idealistic mindset of internet “communities”, such as wiki and blog contributors – and even the owners of these content-generated sites - may have a great user perspective, but that perspective often does not pay the bills at the end of the month. Turning a profit requires (99 times out of a 100) that an individual can make unpopular decisions based on what’s best for the company. Balance this with the notion that most of your internet users have what they want, need, and desire, and you have a receipt for success.

Online social networks have become ubiquitous in the past few years. What forms of value do users get from these services and who is most likely to sign up on LinkedIn versus other sites?

Users of social networks enjoy a number of benefits from online networks such as LinkedIn. First, it serves as another tool in professional networking arsenal. Whether you are job hunting or seeking to establish new business relationships, LinkedIn is a versatile means of connecting to individuals whom you would likely never meet while interfacing.  In this aspect, LinkedIn specifically provides access to a multitude of people where boundaries and geographic differences no longer exist. As a member of LinkedIn, I have received requests from people to link up nationwide and internationally, such as Scotland.

The second interesting value it provides is the ability to network. While this may appear obvious, many people who are too timid to interface directly with people can network with the stroke of a key, making them more effective in their pursuit of business or a new job. While online social networking  is beneficial for the introverted, it also serves as a useful tool for the extroverted, ultimately negating any advantage for either personality type.

People who use LinkedIn range from young professionals who are typically sociable but feel they are more effective networking online rather than in person, to middle-aged professionals who are extremely sociable and looking to expand their social network.  I will share my LinkedIn experience as an example. Following a recent MBA competition with ACG, one of the CEOs that was judging the event sent me an invitation to join his network. As an MBA student, you would be, well, unwise, to not accept an invitation from a CEO. So I joined, and quickly discovered just how many people whom I knew were already on there. My network quickly expanded to over 50 AND I even reconnected with my old roommates from college. Even my wife was on there and I didn’t even know it!

In short, LinkedIn tends to attract professionals or wannabe professionals who are seeking a mature version of Facebook or MySpace. They generally desire to connect with others on a business or professional level, rather than on a personal level.  Younger individuals similarly desiring to expand their social network or reconnect with friends are less likely to invest the time to create a professional profile and seek for people they know - since those people are most likely also not on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is a valuable tool for professionals because it essentially filters out the riff-raff who will not invest time building an effective profile and a solid professional network.

How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results?

Wikipedia is an interesting animal because anyone can post to it. If I would have to predict its success or failure, I would guess failure. I find it difficult to understand why people would commit so much time and energy into entering information for open source use with essentially no evident return on their investment. I can understand that people would instinctively write about their businesses, products, or interests, or even post malicious information. The fact that anyone can edit most pages, increases the probability that information will be biased or inaccurate, particularly in politically charged topics (considering most anyone writing likely has a strong opinion). However, educated and informed people tend to gravitate towards Wiki, increasing its accuracy. The fact that several pages are continuously locked down for editing, and that readers can edit poster’s information, also helps ensure its accuracy. This will ultimately lead to varying degrees of factual information. Topics where facts are the only driving force will likely be more accurate than topics motivated by bias or opinion. Assessing the greatest boxer in history, for example, is an opinion that can repeatedly changed; however adding content to the boxer’s record is not. Assessing the greatest (or worst) U.S. president – including that president’s accomplishments – is also largely based on the poster’s opinion and would likely experience frequent and major variation.  Consequently, facts may vary based on the poster’s opinion, which could have little to no impact on the facts either way. In summary, Wiki’s has ultimately established a winner-take-all method due to the mass amount of people viewing and editing their pages. The ability to edit someone else’s facts, mistakes, and opinion can ensure a fairly high probability that the information contained is accurate and of high quality.

Blogs and DKW

What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing internal versus external employee blogs in a corporate setting? Are there certain industries where one of these strategies makes more sense? This topic is one that I’ve pondered for some time because of the ironies we have at my worksite. First, let me point out that I am unable to enter any blogging information for this class from work. But on the other hand, my work frequently posts internal blogs to discuss various topics. I think some of the success that has come from blogs goes along with the anonymity that comes with it. At a company, you are likely to triple check every entry before posting it, to make sure of a few things. First, am I offending anyone? Am I giving away any tricks that I only I know about that would help my coworkers make me less valuable? How will management look at this? Is this politically incorrect in way, shape, matter or form? Once those key questions have been asked, you will either receive a VERY bland entry, or the employee, such as me, will just delete it and not enter it. Case in point, my company had a blog to express our “feelings” about the recent presidential election. Well, of the whopping 9 people that entered any thoughts, they were all Obama fans. Not a single dissenter, such as me, entered any comments, knowing full well that anyone can read it and for some reason, it just isn’t “cool” to be for anything but Obama. External entries on the complete opposite side of the spectrum have alternative issues. They are generally full of “crap,” to put it nicely. Once you are able to get through the crap, you “might” find some honesty and truth without exaggeration. But, there are some that are generally useful. For instance, medical blogs are pretty good, because most people posting are seeking input, so their statements will be dead on, no PUN intended. Political blogs will tend to be very biased, slanted and exaggerate the facts. At DKW, the internal posting are having some “success” but they need to be aware of this natural tendency of employees to very overly cautious, as discussed above. There really is no solution to this problem, which is why external blogs, when balanced with internal blogs, might just create the right blend of fact and honesty. Trying to assure employees that blog postings are a free and open forum is nice, but no one will ever take it that loosely. Industries where internal blogs make more sense are those that do not have any other options if a goal is to communicate with co-workers. Companies discussing patent, copyright, trade secrets or national security topics, cannot post externally for obvious reasons. Companies trying to get the views of a large audience of customers like marketing research firms, brand specific companies (Johnson and Johnson and similar consumer staple companies) are likely to already be doing this. All in all, blogs have a place in the market place, but I believe that those of external fashion will tend to be more truthful (once you get past the “junk”) because of the anonymity. At work, employees know that if they post information, their bosses can see it and it could have detrimental effects.

Ipod and the suckers that buy it …

 

In analyzing the iPod dominance question, one must consider a few factors in the digital music space to fully comprehend just how much has occurred in such little time.

First, iPod in the grand scheme of things is still a very young product as is the digital music industry in general. While all products have a life cycle, iPod is still in the earlier stages of this cycle.

Secondly, digital music in general is transforming not only how people listen to music, but how musicians and lables bring the music to market. This is still a developing issue with some musicians venturing into download or free music areas to test the waters.

Lastly, CDs are the newer versions of VHS when it comes to purchasing music, they will only be used for data storage as most music will become digital in the future.

With that said, iPod cannot be considered the overall winner in this market as the purpose of examining this case. As with many technology case studies, it’s just too early to call out a winner for the entire digital music industry. iPod has only one thing going for it that competitors have trouble matching, hype. Their technology is easily copied. The content that plays on their technology is widely available from a multitude of other sources. Essentially, iPod, as the case stated, has a first mover advantage that will, as I am predicting, come to an end. Their overpriced players that are more a fashion accessory will come to an end. This is evidenced by their most recent move to allow for DRM free music, hoping to get the last remaining non-iPod users to buy in. iPod is a marketing ploy, not a device that truly offers anything of greater value in technology compared to the an MP3 player that is 1/10^th the cost.

Apple played the iPod revolution well, but sustaining the market share at this high level of 70-80% will not remain. There really isn’t much that can be adapted to a pure iPod. Further evidence that Apple is conceding this is their push into the mobile telephone market and developing an iPod like player on their iPhone and iTouch systems.

Many MP3 players will continue to surface as the years draw on, and Apple is best serve to obviously continue to service (or rather milk) this category, but as they have been doing wisely, they are transitioning to newer technology to stay ahead of the curve and be first movers on new technology.

On a final note, one of these days, people might actually wake up and become aware of the vast marketing trap that Apple is so good at making people fall in to. $300 for an MP3 player I can get for $80 and use anywhere, really people. Gives me hope that there are plenty of suckers out there to make money off of though….

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Brightcove’s business model?

Brightcove (BC) has a unique business model, in some sense. First, BC looks to tie two alternative types of normal business online into one. As the case states, the owner, Allaire, desires to be a combination of Comcast and Ebay, meaning streaming content and offer a location for the purchase or sale of that content online. This inherently is a strength due to its uniqueness in a crowded market place.

 

The weakness is also similar to its strength, a crowded market place. Competitors and alternative providers such as youtube, google video, yahoo video and even NetFlix in some sense, all compete for similar types of consumers, those seeking internet video. Obviously those that are free or cheapest will be the preferred. This created another weakness for BC, as more potential competitors come to the market, it needed to again possibly lower costs over the short term and long term to maintain the current client base.

 

Why pay for something if you can get it for free?

 

In general, BC had its work cut out. As the current business model of targeting the buyer, sellers and providing a platform for the usage, the business will be difficult. Three separate areas that are very different from one another add to the issue of a crowded field of competitors that are more focused. However, if BC can integrate all three areas into a cohesive and affordable unit, BC stands a reasonable chance of becoming a distinct type of company.

 

DoCoMo

 

DoCoMo is in an interesting situation as they are about to become the first-mover on an extremely interesting and forward thinking project. That project is FeliCa, a method and new wireless way to transact across a close by beaming process using a cell phone and a vendors terminal.

The question is whether DoCoMo should share this product with its competitors since it such a revolutionary new idea in the cell phone market.

There are two schools of thought surrounding this question. First, why would anyone give up, willingly, an invention or method to its competitors? But that question should naturally be followed by this second one. What happens if DoCoMo doesn’t share this new technology?

The problem wireless way to transact across a close by beaming method face is the high cost of being the first mover and then have the competition simply be free riders.

I believe they should share FeliCa.

The reasons are inherent in the questions.

First, by offering this technology upfront, the competitors can help open up the market, namely, the vendors that would conduct transactions with this technology installed in their stores through their customer’s cell phone. This offering will only succeed if vendors come on board. If cell users are all clamoring for this functionality because they have the capability in their phones, vendors will succumb to adopting it. This is essentially the Beta vs. VHS situation. Beta would not share the technology and few produces movies on Beta.

The second part comes from facing reality. Once the technology is launch, free riders will be there either way, so why not use these free riders to DoCoMo’s benefit.

Overall, it is a smart move. Use the competitors to help spread the technology through new cell users/purchases, all while regaining their image of an innovative company. The one caveat would be to ensure the public is aware that DoCoMo produced this technology and was technically the first to the market with it.

 

 

 

Search as a winner take all?

 

This is a tough area to exam as the answer to this question is still in the making. Meaning, it is simply a guess at this point to say that online searching is a winner take all. If I were to “guess” I would argue it is not a winner take all. While the business is new and every day unveils something different, it is for this reason I would argue that it is not a winner take all. Google for instance has made many critical “good business” moves in the past few years, but like any business (remember the banking industry with record profits just two years ago compared to today) Google will make mistakes, and the Monday morning quarterbacks will be lining up to say “I told you so.” It is such an infant business in the traditional time sense. Truly this capability has only been in full bloom for approximately 10 years, much too soon to say that there can be “a winner take all.”

Yes, it can be argued that Google has a better technology, better business model and better leaders than Yahoo, but it is by no means a winner take all. If Brin and Page got hit by a bus tomorrow, would the company still be heading down this same path? Who knows? Is this the end all, be all of the internet? Doubt it! In fact, doubt anyone that has a set opinion on the subject, it is much too early to see how this chess games plays out.

Online Video Gaming

Online Video Gaming

The current online gaming market is a vast and competitive market, with many firms competing for a growing population. It is a unique market, where once, kids were considered the only one that played video games. However, as games have increased in complexity, the market maintains current gamers as they age and they absorb new ones as younger children age.

The online capability of the gaming world has only allowed one to have the option to make the experience more interactive and enjoyable, by sharing the experience or competition with someone next door, or even 2000 miles away.

As technology continues to improve, video games will grow in complexity, as we have already seen with the release of the Wii. Interaction will most likely be the decisive factor in new developments as gamers will constantly demand newer features and experiences from previous games released. In order for this to occur, and to keep the majority of gamers continuously interested, adaptations like Wii should be and will most likely be pursued.

The market will continue to grow and prosper as games and consoles become more complex, the price for acquiring the games and consoles will also increase.

Lastly, video game developersshould continuously review and analyze the users of video games, becase as the market that currently used video games ages, their interests and time commitment capability will most likely decrease. If they are able to offer games that are of interest and keeping with their changing lives, they will continue to maintain those audiences well in to the future.

Netflix VOD

While it seems that Netflix is ahead of the curve on movie watching trends, video of demand (VOD) is going to be a challenge to overcome. First off, while, Netflix thought of this idea back in 2000, many competitors are keenly aware of the potential, thus multiple alternatives, or rather, substitutes are available. A few mentionable competitors are Pay per View, DirectTV video on demand service and Moviebeam. Each are using a different method of bringing movies into the home on demand, and for this reason, there has not been a solidly defined way ahead for anyone. Too many people trying different methods can be considered a large (and expensive) testing period for VOD industry.

 

Netflix’s VOD business model is best summarized by the following article from late 2007:

————–

http://www.epinions.com/content_377716510340

 

The real reason I signed up with Netflix was to try their streaming video service, which is based on Microsoft’s impressive Silverlight technology. The Netflix video on demand model is different from others I’ve seen. Netflix allows users to watch one hour of video for ever dollar they pay in monthly fees. Since I signed up for the $17./month 3 DVD option, I can watch 17 hours of streaming video each month. If you sign up for the $5/month plan, you get to watch 5 hours of video each month. Once you reach 5 hours, you can finish watching what you’ve started, but no more till the next month.

To view the streaming videos, you’ll need a PC with a 1.5 Ghz cpu running Windows XP or Vista (both work well for me), Internet Explorer 6 or later, Windows Media Player 10, and a broadband internet connection (1.5mbps recommended). You’ll view videos using the Netflix Movie Viewer, a video player that you’ll download once and run as an Internet Explorer add-on. The Netflix Movie Viewer provides only basic video playback controls, pause, a navigation bar, a volume control, and a button that converts viewing to full screen. Compared to other video players, the Netflix Movie Viewer provides only the most basic features, but covers the basics fairly well, except that the “seek” bar isn’t very accurate, its hard to jump to a specific spot in a video, say if you want to jump past opening credits.

The Netflix Watch Now Library includes 3000 movies and TV shows, tripled since their January roll out. At first glance, that sounds like a lot, but it is a small fraction of the Netflix library of 80,000 DVD’s, and I found it a little disappointing. There are quite a few good titles, though, enough to be of some interest to most viewers. The current list of most popular titles include Seasons 1 and 2 of the popular televison show The Office, Season 1 and 2 of Dead Like Me (most, but not all episodes), several seasons of Law and Order SVU, Sum of All Fears, THX 1138, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Zoolander, and The Matrix. The library includes episodes of Red Dwarf, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Dr Who, and both seasons J. Michael’s Straczynski’s Jeremiah (one of which was never released on DVD). There’s also a lot of exercise and “how to” videos, documentaries, and classics like A Clockwork Orange, The Dirty Dozen, Harvey and Casablanca.

If you have a good broadband connection, you’ll be very pleased with the quality of the Netflix videos. Netflix provides three levels of streaming video quality, determined solely by the quality of your internet connection:

High 1.6 to 2.2 Mbps
Good 1.0 Mbps
Basic 500 Kbps

While the bit rate for High quality video is a little below standard DVD’s (3-7Mbps), the displayed videos appear to be very close to DVD quality. My internet connection is very good (Cox cable), 2-3 times faster than what I’d need for Netflix’ high quality video setting. I’ve watched several Netflix videos on my Vizio 50” plasma HDTV, and find the quality to be very good, better than basic cable, and very close to the quality of standard DVD’s. The audio quality is also very good, you don’t get the feeling that its “compressed”.

Viewing the Netflix movies works a lot like viewing standard DVD’s. Clicking on the “play” button on any of the shows in the Netflix library launches the Netflix Movie viewer in an Internet Explorer window. The movie will start playing in less time than it would take to put a DVD into a player and start a movie. Unlike DVD’s , there’s no FBI warnings to wait through, but there are also no chapter selections, no extra features, no alternative audio tracks or captions. Movies can be viewed in an Internet Explorer window, or full screen, with a hidden control interface that pops up with mouse movement. You can jump to any part of the movie as soon as you start, with only a few seconds wait. If you do pause a movie, the time you are paused doesn’t count against your monthly time. If you completely stop the movie and logoff, the movie will resume rather than restart when you return.

————–

 

The pricing plan was the first thing that caught my eye with Netflix approach. The $1/hour streaming video is obviously an attempt to get people accustomed to the service without risking any up front money to watch the movie(s). It also adds to the incentive to sign up at the higher subscription rates (more for your money argument).

While this article is a bit dated, it does show what occurred immediately after this article was written.

 

Only time will tell if Netflix will be able to convert movie watchers to their ultimate goal of online demand movies. The competition this time around is nipping at their heels and aggressively pursuing their attempt. This one particular difference accounts for a significant disadvantage as compared to the launch of dvd deliveries.

 

Technology and overcoming established VOD methods will be the second long term challenge. While it is easy to watch a movie on your computer, getting that movie from a computer to a TV is bit more work and may prove to be a challenge for those non-computer savvy customers.

 

Ultimately, I can see Netflix purchasing a major competitor that has a significant enough market share to continue expanding VOD through that technology and what they are currently employing. If Netflix will have to become comfortable with competition in this market. I do not foresee a short term business model advantage as things are shaping up today.