Start-ups’ best friend

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

Scott Kraft of the LA Times describes Ron Conway as start-ups’ best friend:

Conway grew up in the Bay Area, the son of a shipping company executive, and studied political science at San Jose State. After graduating, he went to work in marketing for National Semiconductor.

He co-founded and ran a computer manufacturing firm, and later became CEO of a company that produced tutorials for software programs. By the time those two firms were sold, making him a multimillionaire, he was tired of running businesses. So, in 1995, he began putting money into Internet start-ups.

In 1998, Conway raised $30 million to start his first Angel Investors fund. A year later, he started a second fund with $150 million from a stable of investors that included Arnold Schwarzenegger, Henry Kissinger, Tiger Woods and Shaquille O’Neal.

Giant swaths of those portfolios disappeared when the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. Conway and his investors were eventually rescued by the gems, including Google, which went public in 2004.

Investors in the first fund tripled their money; the venture funds sector as a whole returned just 12% over the same period. Investors in the second fund broke even, while the sector posted a 10% loss. (Those who held onto their Google stock did significantly better.)

“This is a hits business, like the movie business,” Conway said. “In each cycle, I’ve been fortunate to have one winner that paid for all the other investments and delivered a profit.”

After closing the two funds, Conway began investing again on his own. Last year, two companies in his portfolio – Zappos and Mint.com – sold for a total of nearly $1 billion. Google announced a deal to acquire a third, AdMob, for $750 million.

In March, excited by the prospect of rapid growth in real-time data companies, Conway invited several dozen friends to join a new fund. Within a few days, he had commitments of $20 million.

“Whenever he says he’s investing in something, it makes it real easy,” said Steve Chen, who became an angel investor after YouTube, which he co-founded, was sold to Google for $1.65 billion. “If Ron’s investing, I’m always in.”

Conway’s batting average hasn’t varied much over the years. About a third of his investments fail, another third break even, a few make money and a precious few are big winners.

“I’ve tried to figure out why we can’t reduce that failure rate,” he said. “But there’s really no way to do it. It’s the law of averages.”

Conway is cagey about his net worth; it’s certainly in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more. But he and his wife, Gayle, who live in a San Francisco co-op with sweeping bay views, have no second home or expensive toys, and he has no hobbies; he doesn’t read books or play golf.

Instead, he puts in 16-hour days in pursuit of his three main passions: investing in start-ups, philanthropy (he gives several million dollars a year to charities) and tending his social and business network (he has 3,000 names in his address book). Often, those pursuits overlap.

“It’s hard to tell whether he’s working or just enjoying himself,” said Biz Stone, a co-founder of Twitter, of which Conway was an angel investor. “Helping is just part of his DNA.”

An important part of what he does is make introductions. He hosts a spectacular annual holiday party and regular outings in luxury boxes at sporting events to bring together start-up founders and Silicon Valley luminaries. He serves on the boards of several charities and often leans on wealthy friends for contributions.

Shawn Fanning, founder of the audio file-sharing firm Napster, said Conway “is like family to me. He is such a big part of who I am today, and I know a number of people who feel the same way.”

Napster failed, as did Fanning’s next venture with Conway. Still, “Ron was right there to invest and support my next start-up,” Fanning said. That one, a social gaming firm, was sold last year for $25 million.

Fanning is now on his fourth venture, and Conway is again backing him. “Shawn and I have been to hell and back together,” Conway said.

“I do this because it’s in-ter-esting,” he said, drawing the word out. “It’s time-consuming, it’s demanding, yada, yada. But it’s hugely satisfying to listen to an entrepreneur tell you how his idea is going to change things – and then seeing it happen.”

Health care law’s hidden tax change will unleash a 1099 avalanche

Friday, May 7th, 2010

Health care law’s hidden tax change will unleash a 1099 avalanche:

Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document — mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.
[...]
But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they’ll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.

The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations.

Taken together, the two seemingly small changes will require millions of additional forms to be sent out.

(Hat tip à mon père.)

Rationalizing Mediocrity

Friday, May 7th, 2010

Years ago, lean consultant Bill Waddell learned that when management is committed to the idea that they are different, and that the principles that apply in other manufacturing sectors don’t apply to their unique situation, it is best to pack up and move on:

“Do you have experience with a dairy products manufacturer that is 50% employee owned selling to both retailers and restaurant supply distributors with factories in both Alabama and Nebraska?” is code for “We ain’t gonna change.”

Some of the worst offenders are in pharmaceutical manufacturing, where they blame regulations, labeling requirements, and their “unique” no stock-out philosophy for their problems:

This particular issue stuck in my craw after I read that the Johnson & Johnson’s plant making children’s products has been closed down after four recalls in seven months. The FDA met with Johnson & Johnson’s senior management in February and they still can’t figure out how to make children’s Tylenol and other products without “foreign materials and black or dark specks” in them. This is no primitive outsourced operation — the solution of choice for many of the big pharmas to address their unique challenges. This plant is in a suburb of Philadelphia.

The FDA inspectors found “thick dust and grime covering certain equipment, a hole in the ceiling and duct tape-covered pipes.” I guess the challenges of dealing with all those labels are moot. The FDA is urging J&J’s customers to use private labeled alternatives — generics — anything but Johnson & Johnson. How’s the ‘No Stock-Out Philosophy” working for you now, J&J? Seems as though the government has concluded that a stock-out of Johnson & Johnson products is about the best thing that can happen to their customers.

The rationalization that you are different — your problems are so difficult and unique that no one else can understand them — is a formula for disaster. It makes management sound like so many teenagers — or alcoholics — whining ‘no one understands me’. In fact, just about everyone understands you quite well. The only one who doesn’t get it is you.

Business Dynamics of Backyard Farms

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

John Robb continues to sing the praises of backyard farms, citing some business numbers from a recent LA Times article:

On average, the companies charge between $900 and $2,000 to have a section of land dug up — or to build a raised bed — that’s big enough to grow enough edible plants to feed a family of four.

The companies also offer personalized planting and harvesting services. For an additional weekly fee of $20 or more, a staff member will put in the plants, pluck the weeds, amend the soil, quash the bugs and fill a basket with ripened produce.
[...]
The two-person staff at Your Backyard Farmer is so overwhelmed with maintaining their 67 mini-fields, they’re turning people away. Co-founder Donna Smith started a waiting list earlier this month for those willing to spend at least $1,675 a year to turn 400 square feet into rows of butternut squash, bok choy or kale.

The economics are questionable:

Along with fresh produce, those rewards can include the bragging rights that come with having the latest eco-conscious status symbol: a farmer to call your own.

“The reality is, in most cases, you can go to Safeway or Whole Foods and buy organic produce for less,” said Jeremy Oldfield, 27, co-founder of Freelance Farmers. “So we focus on the intangibles of this: the joy of picking a tomato in the afternoon that’s still warm from the sun, or having a dinner party and being able to point out to your guests that most of the meal came out of your backyard.”

If you enjoy gardening, or your labor is suddenly undervalued by the market — as in a recession — then raising your own produce makes more sense:

Home Depot saw its vegetable seed sales jump 30% last year and continued to have double-digit growth in January. George Ball, chief executive of W. Atlee Burpee & Co., North America’s largest home garden company, said that for the last few years the company has been selling more vegetable seeds and plants than flowers — for the first time in its 130-year history.

Again, the economics are questionable, even from the hired-farmer’s point of view:

Today the company has offices in Claremont, Pasadena and Los Angeles’ Westside, and has expanded its staff to eight. Revenue is small but growing: Farmscape pulled in about $54,000 for the first four months of this year — $22,000 more than last year.

Most of the money is being plowed back into Farmscape, Dubois said, to expand the network of 60 mini-farms they’ve built in Southern California.

A staff of eight is splitting revenue — not profit, but revenue — of $54,000? (Presumably the bulk of their annual revenue comes during the spring planting season.)

That doesn’t seem… sustainable.

The rise of content farms

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

The Economist describes the rise of content farms:

Clever software works out what internet users are interested in and how much advertising revenue a given topic can pull in. The results are sent to an army of 7,000 freelancers, each of whom must have a college degree, writing experience and a speciality. They artfully pen articles or produce video clips to fit headlines such as “How do I paint ceramic mugs?” and “Why am I so tired in winter?”

Although an article may pay as little as $5, writers make on average $20-25 an hour, says Mr Kydd. The articles are copy-edited and checked for plagiarism. For the most part, they are published on the firm’s 72 websites, including eHow, answerbag and travels.com. But videos are also uploaded onto YouTube, where the firm is by far the biggest contributor. Some articles end up on the websites of more conventional media, including USAToday, which runs travel tips produced by Demand Media. In March, Demand Media churned out 150,000 pieces of content in this way. The company is expected to go public later this year, if it is not acquired by a big web portal, such as Yahoo!, first.

The problem with content farms, ASU journalism professor Dan Gillmor says, is that they swamp the internet with mediocre content.

The upside is that “the firm is at least interested in what people want to know — which is nothing to sneer at.”

Really Lean Start-Ups

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

So-called lean start-ups focus on building the minimal product to get customer feedback as soon as possible. The folks at Aardvark took this a step further:

Start-up Aardvark had an idea to develop a social search engine, in which people could ask a question via instant messenger and then Aardvark would automatically route the question to the user’s friends, and friends of friends, finally bringing the answer back to the user from the user’s own extended social network.

But before Aardvark built the technology it tried out the service with humans behind the curtain, in a “Wizard of Oz” scheme.

Aardvark employees would get the questions from beta test users and route them to users who were online and would have the answer to the question. This was done to test out the concept before the company spent the time and money to build it, said Damon Horowitz, co-founder of Aardvark, who spoke at Startup Lessons Learned, a conference in San Francisco on Friday.

“If people like this in super crappy form, then this is worth building, because they’ll like it even more,” Horowitz said of their initial idea.

At the same time it was testing a “fake” product powered by humans, the company started building the automated product to replace humans. While it used humans “behind the curtain,” it gained the benefit of learning from all the questions, including how to route the questions and the entire process with users.

“We kept running it as a ‘Wizard of Oz’ for nine months with humans at the back end…classifying queries, managing conversations but not necessarily answering questions,” Horowitz said.

The company meanwhile raised $2 million in seed funding, then $5.5 million in Series A financing to build out the automated technology to replace the humans.

Aardvark also focused heavily on research with users, bringing in six to twelve users a week every week for months. Aardvark was eventually acquired earlier this year by Google Inc.

PepsiCo Reduces Sodium by Restructuring Salt

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Pepsi — which is primarily a snack-food company, not a soft-drink company — plans on reducing sodium content by restructuring salt:

“Early on in our research, it became apparent that the majority of salt on a snack doesn’t even have time to dissolve in your saliva because you swallow it so rapidly,” explained Mehmood Khan, senior vice president and chief scientific officer and a former Mayo Clinic endocrinologist. A Wall Street Journal story later reported only about 20 percent of the salt on a chip dissolves on the tongue, and the remaining 80 percent is swallowed without contributing to taste.

“There was an opportunity for our scientists,” said Khan. “If we could figure out a way of getting the salt crystals to dissolve faster, then we could decrease the amount of salt we put on a snack with no compromise on taste.”

Well, they did. Khan said PepsiCo researchers collaborated with scientists from around the world and found ways of changing the crystal size and structure to make the salt crystal dissolve more quickly, effectively putting the sodium on your tongue, not in your digestive system. He said it took an understanding of crystal chemistry.

When asked if the resulting product needed FDA or GRAS approval, Khan said no. “It’s still sodium chloride. Once it’s dissolved, it’s no different than any other salt.”

I was going to recommend the overly complicated and highly technical process of putting salt on the outside of snacks, rather than mixed in with the other ingredients, but I suppose that’s impractical.

The SEC and Python?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Prof. Jayanth R. Varma’s Financial Markets Blog mentions an April Fools-worthy proposal — two weeks too late — involving The SEC and Python:

We are proposing to require that most ABS issuers file a computer program that gives effect to the flow of funds, or “waterfall,” provisions of the transaction. We are proposing that the computer program be filed on EDGAR in the form of downloadable source code in Python. … (page 205)

Under the proposed requirement, the filed source code, when downloaded and run by an investor, must provide the user with the ability to programmatically input the user’s own assumptions regarding the future performance and cash flows from the pool assets, including but not limited to assumptions about future interest rates, default rates, prepayment speeds, loss-given-default rates, and any other necessary assumptions … (page 210)

The waterfall computer program must also allow the use of the proposed asset-level data file that will be filed at the time of the offering and on a periodic basis thereafter. (page 211)

WTF?

Joseph Fouché has some fun with the idea:

An executable security filing may have advantages over paper filings. Debuggers for programming languages are, at this point, more advanced than debuggers for corporate accounting and derivatives. Putting the security filing in Python will actually make it more readable, since the last time I checked most financial statements aren’t Turing complete. If they were, it might destroy the very fabric of space-time. Python has lots of high quality software development tools and a cadre of even higher quality software engineers to those tools. Python may eventually come to subsume a great deal of human communication in the future since Python is more aesthetically pleasing than most human languages.

He also shares a few of his “core political beliefs”:

The only other high level (above assembler) programming languages that should be allowed to exist are C and any open source functional programming language (R, Lisp, Scheme, Haskell, Erlang, etc.). Perl will be retained because having a barbaric freakish culturally dissonant enemy along your frontier produces and maintains asabiya.

Adventures of a Bystander

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

David Foster recently mentioned Peter Drucker’s Adventures of a Bystander, in which he tells his own life story indirectly, via profiles of people has known:

In the chapter titled “Ernest Freedberg’s World,” Drucker writes about two old-line merchants. The first of these, called “Uncle Henry” by those who knew him, was the founder and owner of a large and succesful department store. When Drucker met him, he was already in his eighties. Uncle Henry was a businessman who did things by intuition more than by formal analysis, and his own son Irving, a Harvard B-School graduate, was appalled at “the unsystematic and unscientific way the store was being run.”

Drucker remembers his conversations with Uncle Henry. “He would tell stories constantly, always to do with a late consignment of ladies’ hats, or a shipment of mismatched umbrellas, or the notions counter. His stories would drive me up the wall. But gradually I learned to listen, at least with one ear. For surprisingly enough he always leaped to a generalization from the farrago of anecdotes and stocking sizes and color promotions in lieu of markdowns for mismatched umbrellas.”

Reflecting many years later, Drucker observes: “There are lots of people with grasshopper minds who can only go from one specific to another — from stockings to buttons, for instance, or from one experiment to another — and never get to the generalization and the concept. They are to be found among scientists as often as among merchants. But I have learned that the mind of the good merchant, as also of the good artist or good scientist, works the way Uncle Henry’s mind worked. It starts out with the most specific, the most concrete, and then reaches for the generalization.”

Drucker also knew another leading merchant, Charles Kellstadt (who had once run Sears). Kellstadt and Drucker served together on a Department of Defense advisory board (on procurement policy), and Kellstadt told “the same kind of stories Uncle Henry had told.” Drucker says that his fellow board members “suffered greatly from his interminable and apparently pointless anecdotes.”

On one occasion, a “whiz kid” (this was during the McNamara era) was presenting a proposal for a radically new approach to defense pricing policy. Kellstadt “began to tell a story of the bargain basement in the store in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he had held his first managerial job, and of some problem there with the cup sizes of women’s bras. He would stop every few sentences and ask the bewildered Assistant Secretary a quesion about bras, then go on. Finally, the Assistant Secretary said, “You don’t understand Mr. Kellstadt; I’m talking about concepts.”

“So am I,” said Charlie, quite indignant, and went on. Ten minutes later all of us on the board realized that he had demolished the entire proposal by showing us that it was far too complex, made far too many assumptions, and contains far too many ifs, buts, and whens.”

After the meeting, another board member (dean of a major engineering school) said admiringly, “Charlie, that was a virtuoso performance. but why did you have to drag in the cup sizes of the bras in your bargain basement forty years ago?”

Drucker reports that Charlie was surprised by the question: “How else can I see a problem in my mind’s eye?”

Drucker draws this conclusion, citing Plato’s Phaedrus and the Krito:

They teach us that experience without the test of logic is not “rhetoric” but chitchat, and that logic without the test of experience is not “logic” but absurdity. Now we need to learn again what Charlie Kellstadt meant when he said, “How else can I see a problem in my mind’s eye?”

Adopting a Lifestyle Brand

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

On some level, Keith Yost says, it is hard not to sympathize with the Emiratis of Dubai:

The executives I met all showed pictures of their youth, reminding me that just a few decades ago, their country was nothing more than sand, tents, and simple stone. Maybe they held on to the pictures to impress upon me the great progress Dubai has made, maybe they held on to them to reassure themselves that life would go on even if they had to return someday to their tents. Personally, I took the pictures as a reminder that the men running Dubai’s gargantuan companies had been given an upbringing that could not prepare them corporate management. I could criticize, but I had the benefit of rigorous secondary and college education. Had I shared their circumstances, could I have done any better than them, and if not, how much blame could I really place on their shoulders?

Nonetheless, whatever disadvantages Dubai’s natives may suffer from, my judgment is that their failures were entirely avoidable. I am not convinced that they were well-intentioned or trying their best. My impression of the average Emirati businessman varies between apathetic and self-important. They are running businesses much in the same way a teenager would buy clothes with a swoosh on them — they aren’t trying to generate profits so much as they are adopting a lifestyle brand. Their empires are not built for power, they are built for image. When you are born with everything, the one thing that you cannot buy is the sense that you earned your status. But it is counter-productive to try and scrub off the image that you lucked your way into wealth — trying to overstep one’s limitations only highlights them.

Perhaps it is too late for Dubai. Their oil reserves are gone, and depending on the seriousness of their financial troubles, so too might be much of the money they made from the past sale of oil. But for Dubai’s neighbors, such as Abu Dhabi, who still have seas of petroleum at their command, the collapse may prove to be a teachable moment.

Abu Dhabi needs to review the business case for locating industry in the UAE. Labor is not cheap — there is little of it natural to the area, and that which is imported (both of the skilled and non-skilled variety) typically costs three times more than what it would cost in its native country. Energy is not cheap — lacking coal or dammable rivers, the UAE is powered by natural gas, itself often imported from neighbors like Qatar or Saudi Arabia at high cost. Equipment, buildings, and other capital are no cheaper in the UAE than elsewhere — indeed, if anything the relatively harsh environment is more costly to build and operate in. Water and food supplies are more expensive. Even the things that the UAE has in spades, sun and sand, are no great benefit — solar insolation is impeded by the frequent presence of dust clouds, and the sand is unsuitable as a feedstock for silicon or glass production. The one natural resource available is oil, and the ease of transporting that liquid makes it easier to locate industry elsewhere and export the crude.

The basis for Dubai’s “ambition” seems little more than an optimistic interpretation of New Trade Theory. Much as Silicon Valley has established itself as high technology cluster, and New York has become a finance hub, Dubai hoped that through the might of its wealth it would become a world center for something and maintain its position through inertia and network effects rather than natural advantages. Even if this strategy were feasible (and there is much to suggest that it is not), it was executed poorly — Dubai made little attempt to understand the clustering phenomenon it hoped to take advantage of, invested in a scattershot manner, and left its holdings to be managed incompetently.

The Disturbing City of Tomorrow

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

There are several words that can be used to describe Dubai, which seemed like the city of tomorrow when Keith Yost took a consulting job there, fresh out of MIT in June, 2009:

It is magnificent, mundane, interesting, diverse, conflicted, and hot. But if I were limited to only one, it was disturbing.

If there is an urban analogue to shock and awe military campaigns, Yost says, Dubai is it:

Giant malls, grand hotels, towering skyscrapers, indoor ski slopes, islands shaped like palm trees; to be poetic about it, what the mind imagines, the Emiratis built. The skyline is amazing. The food is wonderful. The elevator close door buttons actually close the doors when you press them. Nothing is old, everything is new. After a life of living exclusively in buildings several decades older than myself, I was finally in the city of the future.

Within a couple weeks, the favorable first impressions faded into a less attractive picture. While the winter is cooler, summer temperatures commonly reach to 110 degrees and, factoring in the high humidity, feel closer to 140 degrees. The ocean is like bath water and provides no respite from the heat. There are no names for the streets, no up-to-date maps online, and the cabbies, themselves fresh expats from less developed countries, do not know their way around. The commercial banking system is terrible. The laws are strange and the bureaucracy inept. There is silt and dust everywhere. English is common, but not as common as Bad English (Bad English is a language very similar to English, but with the added grammatical rule that speakers must repeat every sentence three times). If one is determined to do so, it is not hard to have a terrible time in Dubai.

As a city, the novelty of Dubai fades quickly. Outside of one or two unique attractions, like wadi bashing or the gold souk, Dubai does not have much to offer in the way of touristy things. One quickly bores of roaming the countless malls, each filled with the same stores and sights as the last. Despite its headline-stealing architectural accomplishments, after a few hours of exploration one gets the feeling that Dubai is not so much a city as a giant sprawling suburb, an insipid tessellation of apartment buildings, shopping centers, restaurants, and office parks, plopped unceremoniously into a barren desert.

As a culture, Dubai’s novelty is more durable. The city is a melting pot, borrowing heavily from British, Arab, and South Asian influences, but also adding in pieces from elsewhere around the world. The cultural plenty affords an opportunity to cherry pick the best bits (like chicken tikka masala) and avoid the mediocre elements (like watching cricket). But along with this diversity comes a curious sort of contradiction, as if one were viewing the frayed edges where two cultures failed to mesh. The posted signs plaintively urging western women to wear more modest clothing and the advertisements on the sides of mass-produced soda cups at franchised fast food joints (one such cup suggesting, in the ultimate of anatopisms, that hen-pecked Emirati men should relax from their female-dominated households by indulging in a snack on their bike ride to work), imply that on some level, the mixing cultures failed to find common ground.

At one restaurant I found, the managers had put up a flat screen TV that played, on loop, the concert of some teen idol boy band I’d never heard of. Emirati women, bundled up head to toe in their black burkas, would walk by, giggle, and goggle at the hip gyrations of these half-naked, off-key westerners. If you had a taste for irony and were lucky, you might eat lunch during one of the five daily calls to prayer, and could listen bemusedly as the tinny adhan fought to be heard over the sex-filled pop music. Were these merely growing pains, or a battle for the city’s soul?

Ultimately, my most enduring impression of Dubai is not what it has accomplished, but what it failed to accomplish. Caught offguard by the global recession, Dubai’s haphazard expansion has been frozen in mid-stride for all the world to gawk at, like rubberneckers at a traffic accident. Its unfinished metro system, a patch-work solution to an awkward, poorly planned network of roads, connects partially built apartments to idle construction sites. What had been a miraculous boom story now looks like a particularly ugly form of “hurry up and wait.”

Paying for Channels You Never Watch

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Erick Schonfeld shares an estimate from the hardly disinterested Convergence Consulting Group that 800,000 US households have abandoned their TVs — or, rather, their cable and satellite TV subscriptions — for Net-based options, like Hulu, Netflix, etc.

He introduces the idea with a common complaint:

Have you had enough of paying your cable company through the nose for 800 channels, when all you really watch is maybe 20 or 30?

MG Siegler shares a similar sentiment:

Most people pay in excess of $50 a month (and some much more) to the cable companies. For what? Mostly for a bunch of crap they don’t want and will never watch (nor would they even have time to). The problem is that the cable companies have refused to move towards an a-la-carte offering, even though there is a clear demand for it.

I hate to break this to everyone, but, no, you’re not paying for hundreds of cable channels you never watch. Yes, you are paying for a package that includes hundreds of cable channels, and, yes, you rarely if ever watch most of them, but, no, that does not mean that you’re paying for hundreds of cable channels you never watch.

Confused? I’ll explain.

Most of us have a very strong instinct that if, say, we’re paying $40 a month for 400 channels, then we really should only have to pay that $0.10 per channel for the dozen or so channels we really watch — maybe a bit more. Heck, even $1 per channel we really watch would seem like a bargain.

Wait, what just happened there? Did you notice? We assumed that one channel would cost one-four-hundredth as much as 400 channels — and that the cable company should pass along the savings to us, the consumers. But there are no savings.

If the cable company could send you just the dozen channels you want — or even just the dozen specific shows you watch — it wouldn’t save them a dime. It wouldn’t save the networks creating the shows a dime either. It doesn’t cost your provider money for you to watch a show the networks have already created and that they’re already broadcasting over their cable or satellite network.

Was it expensive to create the show? Yes, very. Was it expensive to lay cable or to shoot satellites into space? Yes, very. Is it less expensive if you decide not to watch Bravo, ever? No.

Ordinary people’s economic intuitions assume that a product is a commodity like grain. It should cost the consumer just a bit more than it costs the middle-man, to cover some small amount of overhead. But the networks and the cable and satellite providers are running enterprises with enormous up-front sunk costs that they need to recoup and very low variable costs that give them the high margins to make that possible. They’re all overhead.

How does a producer charge for a product that costs an enormous amount to develop but a negligible amount to share? That’s hard to do. He can’t typically charge the first guy $100 million, to cover his costs, and then charge everyone else a penny, or give it away, or whatever — although that’s not too far from the Renaissance Italian model for commissioning great works of art.

The cable company might ask you which one channel you really, really like and then charge you $40 per month for that one channel — or more realistically just $30, or $20, or $10, or whatever. How much they can get depends how much you like ESPN, or SyFy, or whatever.

But then they have (a) less revenue and (b) a bunch of channels — and all that cable bandwidth — they’ve paid for going to waste, earning nothing.

They’d be happy to sell you a second channel. In fact, they more or less have to, because they can’t support their business on $10 per month from die-hard ESPN fans, plus $10 per month from die-hard SyFy fans, etc. But what price do they charge?  If they go à la carte and charge $8 per channel, they lose $2 per die-hard fan who would have happily paid $10, but they presumably sell more subscriptions. If they charge $5 per channel, they have to sell twice as many channel subscriptions as at $10 per channel — and they’re still missing out on all the sales they could make to people who wouldn’t mind getting Animal Planet for $1 per month.

So what do they do? They give you a bundle of channels — which is like charging you $10 for your favorite channel, $8 for your second-favorite, $5 for your third-favorite, and so on, down to pennies for the channels you watch when “nothing’s on”. And the dozens of channels you never watch are in fact free.

And they never had to figure out which channels were whose favorites, so they didn’t have to charge different people different amounts for the same channels, which would really upset them — if it were explicit.

Consulting isn’t about advice

Friday, April 16th, 2010

Consulting isn’t about advice, as the story BCG offered Keith Yost $16,000 not to tell demonstrates:

Despite having no work or research experience outside of MIT, I was regularly advertised to clients as an expert with seemingly years of topical experience relevant to the case. We were so good at rephrasing our credentials that even I was surprised to find in each of my cases, even my very first case, that I was the most senior consultant on the team.

I quickly found out why so little had been invested in developing my Excel-craft. Analytical skills were overrated, for the simple reason that clients usually didn’t know why they had hired us. They sent us vague requests for proposal, we returned vague case proposals, and by the time we were hired, no one was the wiser as to why exactly we were there.

I got the feeling that our clients were simply trying to mimic successful businesses, and that as consultants, our earnings came from having the luck of being included in an elaborate cargo-cult ritual. In any case it fell to us to decide for ourselves what question we had been hired to answer, and as a matter of convenience, we elected to answer questions that we had already answered in the course of previous cases — no sense in doing new work when old work will do. The toolkit I brought with me from MIT was absolute overkill in this environment. Most of my day was spent thinking up and writing PowerPoint slides. Sometimes, I didn’t even need to write them — we had a service in India that could put together pretty good copy if you provided them with a sketch and some instructions.
[...]
What I could not get my head around was having to force-fit analysis to a conclusion. In one case, the question I was tasked with solving had a clear and unambiguous answer: By my estimate, the client’s plan of action had a net present discounted value of negative one billion dollars. Even after accounting for some degree of error in my reckoning, I could still be sure that theirs was a losing proposition. But the client did not want analysis that contradicted their own, and my manager told me plainly that it was not our place to question what the client wanted.
[...]
Early on, before I began case work, one manager I befriended gave me some advice. To survive, he told me, I needed to remember The Ratio. 50 percent of the job is nodding your head at whatever is being said. 20 percent is honest work and intelligent thinking. The remaining 30 percent is having the courage to speak up, but the wisdom to shut up when you are saying something that your manager does not want to hear.

I spoke up once. And when it became clear that I would be committing career suicide to press on, I shut up.
[...]
Nominally, my job was to provide advice and aid in my client’s decision-making process. In practice, my job consisted of sitting quietly and resisting the urge to dissent. Each day was like a punishment from Greek mythology; with every meeting my liver would grow anew to be eaten again by eagles.

Why Startups are Agile and Opportunistic

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model, Steve Blank says:

At a board meeting last week I watched as the young startup CEO delivered bad news. “Our current plan isn’t working. We can’t scale the company. Each sale requires us to handhold the customer and takes way too long to close. But I think I know how to fix it.” He took a deep breath, looked around the boardroom table and then proceeded to outline a radical reconfiguration of the product line (repackaging the products rather than reengineering them) and a change in sales strategy, focusing on a different customer segment. Some of the junior investors blew a gasket. “We invested in the plan you sold us on.” A few investors suggested he add new product features, others suggested firing the VP of Sales. I noticed that through all of this, the lead VC just sat back and listened.

Finally, when everyone else had their turn, the grey-haired VC turned to the founder and said, “If you do what we tell you to do and fail, we’ll fire you. And if you do what you think is right and you fail, we may also fire you. But at least you’d be executing your plan not ours. Go with your gut and do what you think the market is telling you. That’s why we invested in you.” He turned to the other VC’s and added, “That’s why we write the checks and entrepreneurs run the company.”

How Jerry Murrell Started Five Guys

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Jerry Murrell explains how he created Five Guys Burgers and Fries — perhaps the closest thing the Atlantic coast has to In-In-Out:

My parents died my last year in college. I married, had three kids, divorced, then remarried. I moved to northern Virginia and was selling stocks and bonds. My two eldest sons, Matt and Jim, said they did not want to go to college. I supported them 100 percent.

Instead, we used their college tuition to open a burger joint. Ocean City had 50 places selling boardwalk fries, but only one place always has a 150-foot line — Thrashers. They serve nothing but fries, but they cook them right — high-quality potato, peanut oil. That impressed me. I thought a good hamburger-and-fry place could make it, so we started with a takeout shop in Arlington, Virginia.

Our lawyer said, “You need a name.” I had four sons — Matt, Jim, Chad are from my first marriage, and Ben from my second to Janie, who has run our books from Day One. So I said, “How about Five Guys?” Then we had Tyler, our youngest son, so I’m out! Matt and Jim travel the country visiting stores, Chad oversees training, Ben selects the franchisees, and Tyler runs the bakery.

Three days before we opened, I was still working as a trader in stocks and bonds and was in a hotel for a meeting in Pittsburgh. I found a book in the nightstand, next to the Bible, about JW Marriott — he had an A&W stand that he converted and built into the Hot Shoppes chain. He said, Anyone can make money in the food business as long as you have a good product, reasonable price, and a clean place. That made sense to me.

We figure our best salesman is our customer. Treat that person right, he’ll walk out the door and sell for you. From the beginning, I wanted people to know that we put all our money into the food. That’s why the décor is so simple — red and white tiles. We don’t spend our money on décor. Or on guys in chicken suits. But we’ll go overboard on food.

Most of our potatoes come from Idaho — about 8 percent of the Idaho baking potato crop. We try to get our potatoes grown north of the 42nd parallel, which is a pain in the neck. Potatoes are like oak trees — the slower they grow, the more solid they are. We like northern potatoes, because they grow in the daytime when it is warm, but then they stop at night when it cools down. It would be a lot easier and cheaper if we got a California or Florida potato.

Most fast-food restaurants serve dehydrated frozen fries — that’s because if there’s water in the potato, it splashes when it hits the oil. We actually soak our fries in water. When we prefry them, the water boils, forcing steam out of the fry, and a seal is formed so that when they get fried a second time, they don’t absorb any oil — and they’re not greasy.

The magic to our hamburgers is quality control. We toast our buns on a grill — a bun toaster is faster, cheaper, and toasts more evenly, but it doesn’t give you that caramelized taste. Our beef is 80 percent lean, never frozen, and our plants are so clean, you could eat off the floor. The burgers are made to order — you can choose from 17 toppings. That’s why we can’t do drive-throughs — it takes too long. We had a sign: “If you’re in a hurry, there are a lot of really good hamburger places within a short distance from here.” People thought I was nuts. But the customers appreciated it.

What Five Guys lacks is the high level of customer service delivered by In-N-Out’s high-quality employees. Chick-fil-A has that — but no burgers.