Archive for the ‘Internet biz’ Category

Cold Calling in NOT Dead

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Alex Iskold on ReadWriteWeb posted “A Guide to Business Development 2.0.” Of course I have a complaint or I wouldn’t be writing this. Alex thinks that “cold calling is dead.” He discusses Linkedin, APIs, and Twitter as alternatives.

Yep, Linkedin is great. APIs are nice if you have them, but biz dev folks aren’t in charge of such things. And outside of the early adopters and tech saavy folks of the Bay Area, not everyone uses Twitter.

Sometimes you have to cold call. No one ever answers their phone, so you’ve got 30 seconds to make your pitch. Most folks get far fewer voicemails than e-mails, so the likelihood that your message will be received is much higher. Even if you’re using Linkedin, you still have to rely on e-mail. In reality I almost always end up calling and e-mailing and that’s what most folks do to me. If their e-mail doesn’t interest me, then I don’t respond. I always return voicemail. If my employers took away the phone, I wouldn’t be able to do my job using nothing but Web 2.0 technology.

Where are you TiVo? Please Talk to Opera and Get with the Sofa Web

Friday, December 22nd, 2006

Om Malik at GigaOM discusses the new game consoles and the contribution they might make to Internet browsing. He refers to it as the “sofa web.” It’s good reading.

He also discusses how Opera has been good at recognizing opportunities in the mobile market and is now going after the game console market.

As much as I like to see Om talk about this, it makes me sad that TiVo is not even considered in the conversation, not that they deserve to. I feel that TiVo has really dropped the ball when it comes to being the box that integrates the Internet, PCs, Audio, Video, DVR, and TV in the living room. Everything was there from the head start in the living room to the easily customizable linux-based platform on which TiVo software sits.

Perhaps TiVo and Opera need to be talking.

 

Yahoo Upgrades Personals

Thursday, December 21st, 2006

Techcrunch digs into a new feature launched by Yahoo Personals. The feature allows users to customize the way search queries are returned to them. It’s about time. I love this feature. I wish more players would do this. While it could go much further, it’s a step in the right direction. It will make my time on YP much more efficient.

Another point made in the article involves physical attraction and is a dig on eHarmony. For the record – looks matter and eHarmony sucks.

Certainly this stuff helps some people find a match. But basic human nature seems to be more visual when it comes to attraction. People don’t necessarily want to fill out an excrutiatingly long personality profile to help them sort through potential matches, then to find out there’s no physical attraction.

Kudos to Yahoo. If we get those users off of eHarmony and onto Yahoo and Match, the matchmaking world will be a much better place.

Corollary to September Post on Web 2.0 Business Development

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006

Collaboradate.com posted about businesses building themselves up using MySpace. He suggests that “they should continue to phase out competing widgets, or charge companies to have their widgets be compatible with the site.” I’d do this if I were MySpace. So I’ll say it again – be careful when attaching your fortunes to other businesses without some kind of contractual relationship.

Most Traffic to Top U.S. Sites Is Global

Sunday, November 12th, 2006

MarketingVOX points us to a ComScore study that claims most traffic to US sites comes from outside of the US. This certainly came as a surprise to me. The lessen to be learned here is that US marketshare numbers are not always as they appear. I hope that the major ad networks are crediting the accounts of advertisers that are purchasing geo-targeted ads.

Offline Behavior Drives Online Usage – Lessons for Business Development

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

Startup Review wrote a great case study on Facebook. The main takeaway for me is that offline behavior drives online usage. Other examples of community sites that fit this bill are Gay.com, BlackPlanet.com, and iVillage, all of which are successful sites that were created to serve an existing community. They were not communities created online from within another site. Looking at sites like Linkedin, which is on it’s own a very successful site and one that I like very much, has tried to create communities from within its site as exempliefied by university and professional affiliations. This has not worked nearly as well external sites serving these same groups. If you’re a mainstream service trying to create niche communities, you would be better served trying to partner with existing sites that serve these niche groups than to try building the community yourself.

Google’s Acquisitions: A Timeline

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

From shmula » Google’s Acquisitions: A Timeline : Business, Technology, and Stuff in Between comes a review of Google’s acquisitions. It’s interesting to see how many aquisitions have accounted for new products at Google. I had forgotten most of these.

The Art of Distribution – Business Development from Guy Kawasaki

Friday, September 22nd, 2006

Guy Kawasaki posted How to Change the World: The Art of Distribution. It’s an interesting Biz Dev lesson for startups.

The underlying and important assumption in modern day distribution is the asymmetry of the arrangement. For most entrepreneurs distribution involves piggybacking on another organization with much greater momentum.

One of the tips he gives is to “Look for adjacency.” He uses eBay/PayPal, Linkedin/Simply Hired, and FeedBurner/TypePad as examples. Note that these are formal relationships, not where one party is simply sucking off of the other party using open APIs. Most important, he reminds startups to “focus on revenue.” This is the what’s in it for them advice that I always start with. “If your partner will make money, then the deal will probably happen.” He also points out:

 Look out for the other guy. The right perspective for distribution partners is: Let’s both make money. For sure, it’s not: How can I ensure that we make a ton of money and stick it to our partner? I have never seen a case where only partner makes money. Either everyone makes money or no one does.

Well put Guy. Get that formalized deal that works for both parties. Again, partnerships really haven’t changed much in the Web 2.0 world.

Business Development 2.0 is BS 1.0

Friday, September 1st, 2006

Fred Wilson at Union Square Ventures wrote a piece about Business Development 2.0 which he pretty much defines as biz dev via APIs. It sounds good, but isn’t a viable long-term solution.

Using the strategy put forth by the author, a start-up would be building a business around content and traffic from third parties and monetizing everything via Google AdWords or some other advertising network. Examples cited by the author include:

* YouTube makes it flash video player available via embed code on MySpace and their traffic takes off.
* TripAdvisor search engine optimizes its service and becomes one of the most popular travel services.
* Technorati hits delicious’ api for its tags and builds the web’s most succesful tag search service.
* Indeed crawls the Internet for jobs and builds a popular job service overnight.
* Kayak crawls the Internet for flights, hotes, and cars, and builds a popular travel service overnight.
* Qoop takes Flickr’s API and builds a Flickr printing service without ever engaging with Flickr’s team.
* Netvibes takes a few RSS feeds and builds a start page that looks as complete as MyYahoo overnight.

Nice for a business that has a handful of employees and no expenses, but it isn’t sustainable. Here’s the problem:

1.     No barriers to entry. Anyone can copy your business. Think about the example of the start page. Netvibes is competing with every major portal, as well as start-ups like Pageflakes, webwag, and protopage, with more popping up every day.
2.     No barriers to exit. Users can easily leave your business for the next big thing. Remember Friendster?
3.     Nothing of value is owned. You don’t own the content, nor do you own the advertisers. The eyeballs are yours, but without the content the eyeballs will go away. Without the advertisers, the money will go away.
4.     No control over your own destiny. Being completely dependent on “partners” (I use this term loosely) that have no contractual obligations to each other is dangerous. Content, traffic, or advertising “partners” could cut you off at anytime for any reason, like being acquired by a competitor, entering into an exclusive partnership with a competitor, suddenly viewing you as a competitor, or simply getting mad about something you’re doing with their content. Recent examples include YouTube entering into competition with Facebook, MySpace threatening YouTube, and Craigslist getting pissed at Oodle. If you’ve ever read Google or Yahoo’s terms of service for their advertising distribution programs, you know that they can pretty much change how their program works or cut you off at any time.

Biz Dev Classic may be slower, but it affords much more protection and stability for your business.

MySpace: The Magazine

Saturday, August 26th, 2006

How likely is this to be successful? More evidence that the bubble is back.