Florian's Blog

Father of 5, entrepreneur, traveler, geek, curious about so many things.

Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

« Older Entries |

Facebook to become World #1 brand name

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Back in August I predicted Facebook will take #1 rank away from Google in traffic before the end of the year. December results are not out yet but there is a high probability I am right. As I was looking for data on the subject – a new question arise.

Is traffic a sign of popularity? bangkok

So I went on writing down numbers on a scrapbook. My primary goal was to search brand names and the number of search associated with that brand. To do so I used the Top 100 brand by Millward Brown [PDF].
Surprisingly Facebook, Twitter, iPhone, My Space are not listed by the research institute. Even in a brick and mortar world, Facebook should be in top 5 most known brands.

Below are results found using Google.com [US English page as of December 30, 2009].

Few basic observations: Google and Facebook together are more popular than Web. US takes the lead with over 23 billions search results. USA and War all together are less popular than Yahoo!

Behind those figures I see two conclusions. First, top brands -as described in the study published by Millward Brown- are yet far behind in terms of web image. Their online presence is a failure for 95% of them. This should give hope to all online viral social media jungle marketing agencies out there. The second conclusion is sadder: traffic doesn’t mean revenue. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, MySpace and Hotmail generating over 5.3 billion of search results have an estimated global revenue of $1.3 billion for 2009 representing 0,003% of Wal-Mart’s 2009 revenue.

It brings us back to valuation calculation- should we continue to use online popularity or traffic to rate online businesses?

What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Apple, Content, Economy, Mac, Microsoft, Social Media, TechCrunch, Technology, Twitter, World, google, iPhone | No Comments »

Is Square a sham or the next big thing?

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Seems everyone is falling for this but me. I had to look at the TechCrunch video presentation of Square few times and I still do not understand what Square is up to.

Square signature screen

Is it a clearing house, a merchant provider, payment gateway, a mobile POS – read Point Of Sale :) , a technology platform or all the above? I don’t have the answer and my guess is Square is exploring all possibilities.

Whatever is shown on that short video presentation is not an easy form of payment process. It took a couple of minutes to pay for a coffee as it takes less than 10 seconds to do the same at any Starbucks. What happens during rush hour when 60 people need to pay for coffee? Expect a 120 minute wait to process payment!

What’s the point of a $200 iPhone PoS (Point of Sale – don’t want any confusion here) when you can process credit/debit payment on a virtual terminal at $0 additional cost?

I read somewhere it’s a huge opportunity for pop and mom kind of business, eBay sellers, Craigslists transactions, farmers and so on.

First I believe they could all accept credit cards today if they wanted to. There is a gazillion solution out there for them.

Second do you think those really want to be exposed to chargeback, fraud, IRS, sales tax and potential liability for identity theft?

Third – credit/debit card sales is not CASH in da pocket. Often I shop at Coconut Grove Organic Farmers Market and let me tell you – they don’t like/want your plastic.  Cash allow them to live. They already struggle, take it away from them and they die.

So what am I missing? Should I buy the concept because Jack Dorsey – Twitter co-founder- is behind it? Enlighten me.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Apple, Economy, Entrepreneur, Geek, Telecom, USA, iPhone | 10 Comments »

The Death Of Arrogance

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

I’d like to start this post with a statement: I’m not a journalist, I’m not a professional blogger, I don’t get paid – directly or indirectly – to write, I don’t have any ads on my Posterous or my blog. I’m just a nobody with a big mouth. Finally English is not my native language.

Yesterday a debate started on Twitter after I shared an article taken from Yahoo! Finance and posted in extenso on my Posterous page.

For those – like Charles Arthur- who do not know the way Posterous works, here is a small tutorial.

You surf the web – find an interesting post and want to SHARE it.


Then once you press the Share on Posterous button you have :

Et voila – content is shared and all credits are given to the original source here:

Basically Posterous sharing ie Digg, Techmeme, Google Reader is identical as a ReTweet of valuable content.

Now back to yesterday’s incident.

I shared the following: http://florianseroussi.posterous.com/ten-big-companies-that-are-veering-toward-ban reproducing EXACTLY what was posted on Yahoo! Finance page. Exactly. Giving credit to Yahoo! and Business Insider as per the original post.

You will note that Yahoo! has a generic link to Business Insider but not to the original BI article.

Charles Arthur then asked why didn’t I link the original Business Insider post. Tried to explain how I used Posterous add-on to share content but Charles didn’t know anything about Posterous.

Mike ButcherTechcrunch UK editor- jumped on the bandwagon without checking the facts thinking I simply reproduced a paid content without giving any credits. Once Mike understood his mistake he blamed me for not finding the original post and manually adding a link to the Yahoo! re-post.  It was simply a ridiculous claim but I searched the internet, found the link and added it to my shared content credit to appease boiling journo blood. As someone mentioned to me via DM – Mike Butcher was much more eloquent to defend the right to publish stolen documents on Techcrunch aka Twittergate. Journalist bullshit duty I guess.

Charles Arthur lost the plot, comparing cars, free content, source code and who knows what all together. Within hours- Charles tone went from arrogant to sarcastic to insulting.

Ilicco Elias tried to minimize the incident but Guardian editor was not ready to give up so easily.

My buddy Paul Walsh came to the rescue with a fair statement:

Charles still on a roll threatens to sue me and foresees a class action against Posterous starting soon (ahem)…

At last in a final act of bravery Arthur decided to block me and called me stupid after I mentioned The Guardian.co.uk had lost over £24M.

Mr Arthur – as the tech editor of The Guardian who do not have a clue what Posterous is – you should have a much more humble attitude.

Journalists – your current business model is SINKING. You are dying slowly with 20th century principles. Wake up! Look around. You do not have the monopole of information and sharing. We – your readers- have the ability to share, produce and rate content the same way you do. The only value added you can provide is by doing a better job – not by shutting us down.

Note: I didn’t want to go on the legal approach of copyright et al on this post. I’m not an attorney and IP laws (international laws should I say) are too complicated for a blog post. Yahoo! quickly replied to my email and stated they are not involved as no logo or Yahoo! material has been shared.

Hopefully Charles Arthur will use last pence of The Guardian to start a worldwide class action against Google and Posterous to prove his point and whatever the outcome shall be – we will burn in golden letters on The Guardian’s headstone : The Death Of Arrogance.

UPDATE Sept 24 : After an email exchange with Charles Arthur I have modified the Posterous post to an excerpt only – adding another link to Business Insider [there are now 2 links, one on header and one on footer]. It would be interesting to know the conversation rate between hits on my Posterous to links onto BI but my guess is we will never know.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Content, Economy, Legal, London, Newspapers, Social Media, TechCrunch, Technology | 91 Comments »

Goodbye Web 2.0, Welcome back ROI

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

TechCrunch50 just ended last night in San Francisco. What is it all about? Mostly a good chance to monitor the industry pulse. To meet new people, to share experience and learn to listen.

First edition of TechCrunch50 (actually it was 40) gathered a lot of attention. Too much for an unprepared team of bloggers/entrepeneurs but certainly not event planner. We were all bitching about the lack of internet, mobile network, seats, drinks, audio, timing. Everything was bad or wrong, but the audience was there, internet rock stars came and talentuous Mike Arrington and Jason Calacanis saved the show. Most terrible choice was certainly on the selection of potential candidates to go on stage. Even though looking at it a couple of years later we see they didn’t miss by selecting Mint.com as the winner.

Second edition of the most hyped Web 2.0 event was better organized – not hard to do so- selection was obviously more professional and panelists still sharp on their analysis. We were at the early stage of the recession, full of hope but extremely careful on the outcome. I felt this second edition as a global euphoria in a great time of uncertainty.  Last year winner was also a good but safe choice : yammer.com. Nothing could go wrong with a company surfing on Twitter vibes.

Last 2 days were definitely better than past editions. Lesson learned for Arrington and Calacanis. Everything was perfect. I must give them huge credit for providing top notch internet service, excellent real-time video streaming and perfect timing during the event. When food was insufficient Calacanis ordered 60 pizzas – I can only imagine the happiness of pizzaiolo receiving a 60 pizzas order…

I was first surprised by the low number of attendees. From a non scientific count my guess is 35% less then last year. But it was quality people. It made untouchable people reachable. I was able to chat with Marissa Mayer, Marc Andreessen, Ron Conway, Don Dodge and Reid Hoffman in a very open way. There was a true community around entrepreneurship with no voyeurs or curious peeps. Upsetting glitch when Paul Carr wrote a stupid post about the American flag being on stage. If you have no talent you must hide it with something. Carr found provocation to be the solution. Anyway too much ink on this low life douchbag journalist. Back to TechCrunch50 and the 2009 list of nominees. There was a shift from 2007 smoke and mirrors start-ups to 2009 small businesses with a valid model. All competitors had a plan to make money not just to bring traction and wait for a strategy. Economy is certainly the real reason behind the change of mentality. RedBeacon – the big winner- aims to help consumers find local service providers such as plumbers, bakers, and contractors. A basic service to fill basic needs. I want to give a thumb-up to Rackup launched by my friend Marc Rochman. Marc did a great job on stage. 5 min to describe 18 months of research and hard work is not an easy task. Kudos to the Rackup team.

Arrington called a surprise panelist to comment presentations – Chamillionaire. Not the everyday geek you see at tech conventions…but I must recognize the guy had a good analysis on most start-ups. For future editions Arrington should have more street-smart experts – it does make a difference.

In conclusion TechCrunch50 minus the hype and plus the maturity was a great show. Looking forward attending 2010 edition.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, Entrepreneur, Social Media, TechCrunch, Technology | 5 Comments »

Did you know?

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

Amazing facts and figures. Please watch and learn something today.

Did You Know? from Amybeth on Vimeo.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Recession, Video, World | No Comments »

US economy worse recovery system

Friday, February 27th, 2009



Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Recession, World | No Comments »

The crisis of Credit visualized

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Recession, World | No Comments »

Even in bad times, good ideas get funding

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

I was cleaning my bookmarks and came across this article posted on February 9th 2001. 8 years ago!! What can I say? It’s so actual it is frightening. You can change few dates, add couple of words such as Web 2.0 and social networking, mention FaceBook and TechCrunch and you have a very good post for today.
Bottom line it gives me hope this whole recession can be behind us soon. People have short memory. We forget!
Please take 5 minutes and read text below.

A year ago, big-time venture capitalists were such revered individuals that you expected some enterprising entrepreneur would put their faces and track records on trading cards. People like Ann Winblad of Hummer Winblad Venture Partners and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers were on their way to achieving rock star status. Then the technology bust of 2000 occurred and suddenly the watchwords became not “hot IPO” but “irrational exuberance.” The VCs were suddenly not so VIP.

Yet at a recent Wharton conference entitled “Private Equity in the New Millennium,” venture capitalists generally agreed that while things got a bit wild in the last year or two, the present and future can still be profitable. “Yes, times are different than they were three years ago, but they are also different than they were three months and even three days ago,” said Jesse Reyes, managing director of Venture Economics, who reports on private equity performance in his company’s Benchmark Reports. “The brand-new technology is not going to go away. Things will go in cycles.”

Reyes said that he compares current conditions to those in the middle 1980s. In the early 1980s, a big wave of tech companies went public–Microsoft, Apple Computer, Compaq Computer, Lotus–with great fanfare and great gains.

“Then four or five years later, there was a giant hole,” he said. “There were single-digit returns instead of the double-digits promised to investors in many companies, and the well of venture capital dried up considerably.”

Reyes’ statistics show that while the emphasis in the press seems to be on the slowdown in initial public offerings, of more significance is the fact that the median company received $27 million in venture capital in the fourth quarter of 2000; in the first quarter of 2001, it is getting only $15 million to $20 million.

Getting real
“The days of $25 million first-round funding are indeed gone,” said Dan Roach, managing director of Garage.com, the Silicon Valley-based venture firm. “But the opportunities are still there. Good ideas continue to be funded and valuations will just be more realistic.”

The theme of “We’re still here for good ideas” was repeated over and over by the venture capitalists at the conference. “It certainly was an interesting time two years ago, quite heady,” said Steve DesJardin, a partner in Encore Venture Partners. “But often good ideas came around, and there weren’t enough good people to run them. Now we think it’s a time of great opportunity if, and only if, you have a long-term, at least three-to-seven-year time line…You should be a builder, not a trader. Traders have cloaked themselves as VCs. But true VCs look to build companies. As a good VC, you are as much a part of the companies as the entrepreneurs.”

Safeguard Scientifics, a publicly traded technology incubator and fund investor, has lost about 90 percent of its market value in recent months. But Garrett Melby, Safeguard’s vice president of e-services, said the company was doing business much the same as it has in other business cycles. “We have prospered when the markets were favorable and built companies when they were not,” said Melby. “While the opportunities for entrepreneurs and careers in venture capital are obviously not as strong as in the last two or three years, tech investing is still a great place to be.

“There may be fewer opportunities, but they will be attractive ones,” he added. “The rates of return may not be as rapid, but the ideas that are being funded now have better long-term business plans, so in the long run, that is what will work.”

Carter Sednaoui, CFO of Accel Partners, said his firm has of late avoided health care ventures, but, ironically, its health-care portfolio has contributed more than $26 million to Accel’s bottom line, more than its tech portfolio. The company’s success comes because “we are development drillers, not wildcatters,” said Sednaoui. “It’s been one hell of a party the last five years, but essentially, we haven’t done anything different from the previous 15; it’s just that everyone was more successful. Venture capital is an interesting business, but what the recent times prove is that you should not be attracted merely by the financial gratifications, but by the idea of building companies.”

Robert Walsh, a general partner at Summit Partners, a late-stage growth investment firm, suggested that valuations across all industries won’t be rising rapidly for a while and thus anyone thinking about becoming a venture capitalist had better be creative and do his or her research. “Everyone now has to think about being on the leading edge in ideas. IT (information technology) services, for instance, was big for us in 1997 through 1999, but not now. You have to be looking for the next thing, or someone will beat you to it…On the other hand, there is no short-term path, though it seemed that way to those who jumped in during the last couple of years. Your job is to help entrepreneurs build their dreams and so to build yours.”

Some venture capitalists contend that now is actually a better time for the venture capitalist industry than two years ago. “The risk is out,” said Fred Wilson, managing partner at Flatiron Partners, a New York venture firm. “Too many companies were being formed in one industry or another and values were too high. Now more bad companies, or at least bad valuations, are unlikely to occur. There may be fewer deals, but more will be good ones.”

Intensive care
Venture capitalists should not be afraid to sunset companies that aren’t going to make it in the long run, added Accel Partners’ Sednaoui. “We actually have an intensive care unit at Accel. On Mondays, we discuss those companies in the ICU and see whether we can help them succeed…The point is to make money. Sometimes that means getting out.”

But the real question is when to get in. And the venture capitalists at the conference agreed that there is no magic formula for that.

“How do you value a company? To tell you the truth, I have no idea,” said Jason Sanders, general partner at Crosslink Capital. “I don’t mean that to sound stupid. But it is more an art than a science. The problem is that if you are wrong, your investment can go down to zero, and if you are right, you can make a lot of money. It is an art not everyone can do.”

Sam Baker, managing director of the private equity group at Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, agreed with the art versus science notion.

Pricing a venture deal is an art because “you are forecasting cash flow way out,” he said. “You can jerk yourself around with an Excel spreadsheet, but (it’s important) to keep in mind that you want to invest in companies and managements that will grow over time. This is not just about the next quarter.”

Roach attributed much of his company’s success to Garage.com’s dynamic founder, Guy Kawasaki. “Guy is a shameless promoter of our portfolio companies,” said Roach. “It’s a California thing. You have to do that to make your money the best and the smartest. To be a successful venture capitalist, you have to be proactive. You hear the word ‘network’ a lot, but that is what it is all about.

“You have to build it into your psyche that you are always looking,” Roach added. “The people who are most successful are extremely networked. They meet people at conferences, they send Christmas cards, they make notes. When it comes time to make that important phone call, that other person will say, ‘Yes, I had lunch with that guy in June,’ and that may seal the deal.”

Most importantly, the venture capitalists told the audience, it is vital to know that you are doing business and not being sentimental. “You can be friendly and nice, but you want most to be commercially successful,” said Mitchell J. Blutt, executive partner at J.P. Morgan Partners. “If you are commercially focused, the company you are funding will appreciate you because you have made your objectives clear. Then your friendliness isn’t a mask.”

And lifting that mask can be very important when you have something negative to say. “It’s great to have everyone in the room feel good (about a deal),” said Baker, of Pilgrim Baxter.” But the important thing is to have everything go right. Every good firm needs a bastard who sees through this feel-good thing and says, ‘Wait a minute. We have only $5 million left, and there are some things we have to do’. That is the difference between a feel-good bad deal and one that works.”

Actual link: http://tinyurl.com/anz7ms

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Entrepreneur, Recession, World | No Comments »

the T-Mobile Dance

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

I like this ad for Tmobile. Major change from 3 bars, network, 3g, BB BS ads.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Economy, Funny, Telecom | No Comments »

Twitter – wanna a few bucks

Saturday, January 17th, 2009

THIS ARTICLE WAS POSTED ORIGINALLY ON PAT PHELAN‘S BLOG AS A GUEST POST.


The web is full of articles based on how Twitter can make some monies.
Of course I don’t intent to give Twitter managers a lesson. They proved
it all already. Success is no luck.

Kevin Thau – Twitter new biz dev guy must be brainstorming day and night looking on how to generate revenue for our favorite social media network.

My analysis is mostly based on observation. Don’t blame me if some of
the figures are distorted. If you have them please come forward and
I’ll rectify.


They are about 100 Twitter clients, 200 Twitter services and certainly
a thousand of 3rd party apps or web apps posting to Twitter.

I cannot imagine one is launching a Twitter service for philanthropic
inspiration only. It’s all about the money. Money around a community of
users – or potentiality of revenues to be generated around this
community.

Twitter founders and managers must be frustrated to see everyone else
around raising money based on sending feeds or posts to their social
media network.

Who provides the vital information? Twitter!!

Latest example of TweetDeck raising half a million dollar delivering messages to a FREE online service left me to think.

How Twitter can monetize their business and still maintain a free service for end-user?

Ok – I admit I have been a bit busy this week so it took me a few minutes to figure it out…but here are my thoughts.

Twitter is a carrier i.e. identical to any broadcast media. We were all
thinking broadcast media = TV…here is the mistake. I’m thinking
Broadcast media as THE network. Twitter IS the network. TVs are the
clients – each one around a different service.

If you look at it this way you suppress direct revenue from advertising
- which is certainly not very sexy today -AND you may charge for
SERVICE per usage. Like a hosting company – basically Twitter hosts our
Tweets and make them available to Clients.

So now imagine a business model based on:

- Bandwidth aka Twitter API Usage 80req/hour or 100req/hour or 200req/hour

- Number or Tweets posted

Twitter should SELL API usage to all of those who want to access their
network. This is THE immediate revenue-generating model. Price should
be based on consumption, queries, awareness, and even revenue sharing
in some cases.

Give each APP the full XMPP feed from Twitter, everyone now has the exact same access.

Twitterrific is selling its application on Apple Store, generating revenue based on usage of a free API. It doesn’t sound right.

First this is taking traffic away from Twitter mobile web app [meaning no possible revenue from advertising if ever]

2nd it requires more constraint on API and therefore induce a cost for Twitter.

In this case Twitter would be much more a service provider with revenue generated by thousand of companies.

Leave others monetize their value added service. If one thinks
Twitterrific, Twhirl or TweetDeck bring a different user experience it
might justify the cost. Even help those application developers to sell
their apps.

Of course it will certainly lower number of Twitter apps available. But
we know some are ridiculously useless or repetitive and will not
survive. In any case API could remain FREE for usage <50req/hr.

There is one downside in all that – which I believe could become a great benefit…

What if the community of developers around Twitter decides to give up on Twitter?

Well I still think Twitter is strong thanks to its 2.7 million users
and NOTHING else. People will use more services directly offered by
Twitter: Web, mobile portal and text message…and maybe even their own
Twitter desktop application if they really wanted to!!

So here it is. It certainly needs to be tuned and brainstormed but general idea is set above.

@Twitter @EV What do you think? Deal or no deal?

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Economy, Entrepreneur, Twitter, World | No Comments »

« Older Entries |